Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Exceptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves five home‑business special exceptions, denies one pit‑boarding application after neighbor opposition
Summary
After staff review and a public hearing, the county commissioners approved five home‑occupation special exceptions for small businesses and denied one application for a pit‑boarding operation citing traffic and noise concerns raised by neighbors.
The Houston County Board of Commissioners approved five special‑exception home‑occupation permits and denied one on Nov. 5 following a staff presentation and a brief public hearing.
Planning staff summarized six applications and the Board of Zoning Appeals’ recommendations. The board voted to approve applications 2883 (Janelle Brown — dog food and treats; applicant said three recipes already have approval from the Georgia Department of Agriculture and anticipated 2–4 daily customer visits, with off‑site sales for the remainder), 2884 (Joshua and Gayla Jermerson — administrative events/marketing business; no customers will come to the home), 2886 (Chris and Monica Wilson — freeze‑dried food production with on‑site processing and off‑site sales), 2889 (Javier Rivera — administrative pressure‑washing business with a condition allowing use of a 6x12 trailer for operations), and 2890 (Kennedy Ferguson — esthetician services with limited client visits; applicant stated she holds a state board license). The Board of Zoning Appeals recommended approval of these items subject to compliance with state and local regulatory requirements.
Application 2873 (Joseph Blake) — a request to operate a pit‑boarding business at 108 Wolfwalk Road — drew neighbor opposition at the public hearing. Residents raised concerns about increased traffic, barking/noise and character of the neighborhood. Staff and the Board of Zoning Appeals recommended denial based on a traffic study that produced negative results and neighbor concerns; the county commission denied the application. Commissioner Touton moved the combined motion (approve five, deny one) and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Andrews (staff) noted that a favorable vote on a county special exception does not supersede private restrictive covenants on a property; landowners may still face enforcement of covenants by neighbors or HOA entities. Approved applicants were instructed to follow any state licensing and local permitting requirements before commencing operations.
