Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitfield County commissioners deny West Brow rezoning after residents cite road, sewer and density concerns
Summary
After extended public comment from Ben Putnam Road residents about narrow roads, flooding and school impacts, the Whitfield County Board of Commissioners voted 3-0 to deny the West Brow rezoning until a revised plan addressing access and infrastructure is submitted.
Whitfield County commissioners voted 3-0 on Oct. 14 to deny a proposed rezoning for the West Brow development after multiple residents raised safety, traffic and infrastructure concerns.
Residents living along Ben Putnam Road told the board they opposed using their narrow, roughly 17–19-foot-wide road as an access point for the proposed 169-unit subdivision, saying blind curves, limited right-of-way and seasonal flooding make the road unsafe for increased traffic. "This would cause a traffic jam in the mornings and evenings," said Sarah Zinsmeister, who lives at 129 Ben Putnam Road and said she has three children who play on the street.
Other neighbors testified that the parcel is low-lying and would require raising ground and installing sewer infrastructure, potentially shifting water onto neighboring properties. "If you put them houses back up behind my property, you'll have to build it up," said David Weaver of 253 Ben Putnam Road, who warned of thousands of dollars in mitigation costs if runoff is altered.
Adam Levitt, representing the developer, told the board required road and sewer improvements would be a developer expense and said one access point could be designated as emergency-only with a locked gate and Knox box for fire access. "Any road improvements, just like the sewer, work through the county, work through GDOT," Levitt said, adding that the developer would pay for required improvements.
Commissioners questioned whether the rezoning parcel actually touches Ben Putnam Road and noted that a traffic study and clear access plan were not included in the submitted materials. After discussion, a motion was made to deny the rezoning "until a better plan is submitted." The motion was seconded and passed on a 3-0 vote.
The denial does not change the landowner's other options under the existing zoning, which speakers noted could include different types of development. The board did not set a timetable for reconsideration; under county rules the applicant may reapply with additional studies or revised access plans.
The decision followed a public comment period during which six residents and others described concerns about compatibility with the county's four-year comprehensive plan, emergency access and the capacity of nearby schools. The board's action was procedural and advisory to the rezoning process: it rejected the rezoning request as presented and required a resubmitted plan addressing the identified infrastructure and safety issues before the board will consider approval again.
