Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates conditional‑use permit rules for manufactured homes; approves five CUPs after public hearings and called meeting
Summary
A Feb. 24 work session and public hearings in Cusseta‑Chattahoochee centered on whether the county’s conditional‑use permit (CUP) rules were being applied to manufactured homes in ways the Planning & Zoning board did not intend. After public hearings, the commission approved five CUPs at a Feb. 27 called meeting; approvals are subject to plats, health‑department rules and standard permits.
CUSSETA — County commissioners and the Planning & Zoning board spent significant time in a Feb. 24 work session and public hearings clarifying how conditional‑use permits should be used, especially for manufactured homes.
Planning & Zoning Chairman Brent Ingersoll told the board the CUP language has been interpreted to require CUPs for many manufactured homes even where that was not intended when the ordinances were adopted. “The way the CUP is written, it applies to everything — even stick‑built homes,” he said, urging clearer zoning code language so manufactured‑home replacements are not automatically routed to a CUP when that is not necessary.
County Attorney Bin Minter advised that while the conditional‑use process is governed by state zoning procedure law, the county can revise its zoning code to clarify allowable uses. Chairman Charles Coffey said the county is trying to be fair and consistent. “We aren’t trying to be difficult; we are trying to be fair for everyone,” Coffey said, adding that inconsistent approvals could invite legal challenges.
Several applicants came to the public hearing on Feb. 24 seeking CUPs: Mia and Derico Countryman (201 Massey Rd., .74 acre, R3) sought to build a small stick‑built home after a passing septic perk test; Julie and Jerome Wooten (711 GA Hwy 26, 18.11 acres, R1) sought to place a mobile home and raised a question about the timing of public‑notice sign posting; Sierra Smith (109 Nelson St., .75 acre, R4) sought to replace an unsafe stick‑built house with a mobile home; Curtis Stroud Jr. (136 Patty Dr., .46 acre) sought to replace an older mobile home with a new one; and Walter Miller requested a 1.35‑acre parcelization from a 52‑acre tract at 454 Old Louvale Rd to convey to a long‑term tenant. Planning & Zoning recommended approval of the applications, generally conditioned on compliance with county ordinances and health‑department requirements.
Several commissioners expressed a desire to resolve procedural ambiguities before broadly changing practice; a motion to amend the agenda to vote on three CUPs at the March meeting failed on concerns about fairness and the perception of inconsistent treatment.
Because applicants needed timely decisions, the commission reconvened in a Feb. 27 called meeting and approved all five CUPs unanimously. Approvals were recorded as contingent on final plat signing, health‑department approval and adherence to county setback and permitting processes.
What this means: The approvals allow applicants to proceed with permitting and site work, but county staff and the applicants must still secure required permits and meet health‑department and setback requirements. The commission signaled it will review the CUP and zoning language to reduce ambiguity about when manufactured homes require a CUP.
