Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putnam County commissioners approve multiple Harmony Road rezonings with conditions
Summary
The Putnam County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 17 approved three combined rezonings on Harmony Road (two to R‑PUD and one to C‑1) with a set of development conditions, including landscaping, lighting, density limits and a homeowners association requirement to document 55+ occupancy compliance under federal law.
The Putnam County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 17 to approve three related rezonings on Harmony Road, combining two residential planned‑unit developments and one commercial rezoning and attaching a set of conditions intended to limit visual and traffic impacts.
The actions covered a 30‑acre parcel rezoned from AG to R‑PUD (Map 097, Parcel 033 001), a 1.01‑acre parcel at 826 Harmony Road rezoned from AG to R‑PUD (Map 097, Parcel 035), and a 26.32‑acre parcel at 820 Harmony Road rezoned from AG to R‑PUD (Map 097, part of Parcel 033). The board approved the package of rezonings after combining the items into a single motion; the final roll call on the combined motion recorded Commissioners McElhenney, Garrett, Hersey and Wooten voting yea.
Why it matters: The rezonings change allowable uses on several parcels along an arterial corridor and impose conditions the board said are intended to protect adjoining residential properties, reduce light pollution, and control density and signage as development moves outward from Eatonton.
What the board approved: Conditions attached to the approvals require shielded, downward‑directed warm exterior lighting; vegetative buffers between the rezoned properties and adjacent residential lots; required exterior landscaping; placement and screening for dumpsters; security cameras with 30‑day stored recordings and time stamps; a 60‑inch maximum exterior sign height; no overnight parking of commercial motor vehicles; a maximum residential density of four units per acre; substantial conformance with the applicant’s conceptual plan; and a one‑year preliminary‑plat trigger under which the board may consider rezoning back to AG if a preliminary plat is not filed.
Legal clarification: After an amendment proposing cottages limited to residents 55 and older failed on a tie vote, County Attorney Adam Nelson advised that a legally enforceable occupancy condition should be framed to comply with the federal Fair Housing Act. Nelson recommended wording that requires a mandatory homeowners association to “publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate that the community is intended to provide housing for persons 55 and over including maintaining surveys or affidavits verifying compliance with 55 and older occupancy requirements as permitted by 42 U.S.C. Section 3607, (b) (2) (c) of the Federal Fair Housing Act.” The board approved a homeowners‑association requirement using that formulation.
Public comment and staff position: Agent Ross Mundy presented the applications and showed a slideshow in support. Local residents Bill and Barb Vargo spoke in favor. Planning and Development staff had recommended denial for the 30‑acre parcel and recommended the county undertake a corridor assessment and overlay‑district process to guide future rezonings, but the board proceeded with the combined approvals and conditions.
Next steps: The approvals are conditioned on the items the board specified, including the homeowner association requirement and the one‑year preliminary‑plat review; the 1.01‑acre parcel must be combined with the 26.32‑acre parcel within 120 days, per the motion.
The board’s action was taken during a public hearing and recorded as part of the Feb. 17 meeting minutes.
