Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rezoning fights and planning moves: Dooly County approves some commercial rezonings, denies one residential rezoning after strong public opposition
Summary
During 2005 the board handled several rezoning requests: it approved Jones and Maxey commercial rezonings, denied a high-profile residential rezoning from Georgia Estate Homes after public opposition, and recorded a contentious public hearing and petition opposing one proposal.
The Dooly County Board of Commissioners faced several land-use decisions in 2005, approving some rezoning requests while denying others after public comment and Planning Commission review.
Approved rezonings: On Feb. 17 the board conducted public hearings on two rezoning petitions. It unanimously approved Marvin and Cape Jones' request to rezone property on Elko Road (north of Unadilla) from Agricultural to Industrial to allow a sawmill, based on the Planning Commission recommendation. The board also unanimously approved a rezoning request by Jim Maxey to rezone property on Highway 90 west of Vienna from Agricultural to Commercial for a fabrication shop (Planning Commission recommended approval).
Denied petition and local opposition: A more contested case involved an application submitted by William Sparrow and developer Georgia Estate Homes for multiple parcels to be rezoned from Agricultural to R-1 (higher density residential). The Planning & Zoning Commission tabled that request for additional information in September. After public hearings in October and a larger community response — including a petition submitted to the board with dozens of signatures — commissioners ultimately rejected the Sparrow/Ga. Estate Homes rezoning application. Neighbors cited concerns about scale, lack of services and the absence of a subdivision ordinance at the time; the Planning Commission and several landowners debated minimum-lot and access issues during hearings.
Planning and ordinance changes: Over the year the planning department also worked on a proposed subdivision ordinance and in October the Board approved an amendment to the county zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum lot size in agricultural zones from 10 acres to 5 acres (first and second readings took place in Sept.–Oct.). Commissioners asked the planning commission to continue work on a unified subdivision ordinance; the Board signaled it expected further changes in 2006.
What this means: The board’s actions show a mixed approach: approving industrial/commercial uses that had planning support while pushing back on a residential subdivision proposal that generated organized neighborhood opposition. Changes to county zoning (minimum lot size) and an in-progress subdivision ordinance reflect longer-term adjustments to guide growth in the unincorporated county.
