Pickens County denies rezoning for 145.9-acre Pettit Road development but approves special-use for 28-lot subdivision

Pickens County commissioners at a public hearing rejected a rezoning request for a 145.918-acre tract on Pettit Road but approved a special-use for a proposed 28-lot major subdivision, staff and the applicant said.

Planning staff recommended changing the property (parcel 049040002) from agricultural (AG) to a mix of Small Agricultural, Estate Residential and Rural Residential to allow low-density housing and small-scale agriculture while making the subdivision subject to special-use review and compliance with chapters 38 and 67 and section 67‑373 of the county code. Staff told the board a departmental roundtable with fire, water, public works and environmental health had identified requirements such as culvert and right‑of‑way improvements that must be addressed at the preliminary-plat stage.

Charles, the planning staff member presenting the case, said the applicant had already engaged with departments and that "all of that will be discussed" during the preliminary plat review and that erosion control and BMPs would be required.

Neighbors raised concerns about stormwater, flood risk and road safety. Joseph, who said he lives at 2045 Henderson Mountain Road across from the site, warned that a single concrete culvert and a high water table make the area function as a natural floodplain: "This creek never quit running during the drought of 2015 and 16," he said, urging the county to "carefully consider the downstream impacts." Another resident, Bobby Johnson, described steep hills and marginally maintained roads and said adding 28 homes would increase crash risk and traffic on Pettit and Henderson Mountain roads.

Applicant Brandon Rowland, who gave his address as 1500 Sandals Church Road, said he intends to sell lots and keep as much wooded area as possible; he told commissioners that some lots would tie to county water and "6 to 7" lots may use wells.

On a motion to approve the rezoning, commissioners recorded opposing votes and the motion failed; the transcript records the chair stating the rezoning motion was denied. The board then considered the subdivision's special-use application. After a separate motion and second, the board voted to approve the special-use for the major subdivision with the condition that the developer satisfy county subdivision and code standards during the preliminary and final plat process before any construction or lot sales.

The special-use approval does not grant final plat or construction permits. Staff emphasized that any substantive deviations from the county's requirements would require further review and possible reconsideration by the board.

What happens next: the developer must address department comments — including right-of-way, culvert sizing, BMPs and access improvements — and file a preliminary plat. The board closed the hearing on this case after the votes.