Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Landuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge protecting Cooley green space as county, school board weigh sites for health and human services building
Summary
County staff presented two options for a proposed health and human services facility — subdividing school-owned land behind the school or repurposing the Upper Cooley campus — prompting public concern over loss of green space, traffic and proximity to children; no decision was made and the boards requested more public input and site walks.
Get email alerts on the Facilities Landuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff returned to the Clarke County School Board on May 18 to discuss possible sites for a combined health and human services facility, laying out two main options and asking the board for input rather than asking for a decision.
Dr. Chris Boyce, the county administrator, told the board the building would likely house the health department and social services and could include space for Northwestern Community Services. He said the health department has four regular employees and averages about 10–15 client visits per day for services such as immunizations and TB testing; social services has roughly 12–16 employees and averages two to four daily in‑office clients, primarily elderly residents who prefer in‑person assistance.
The county presented two site concepts: subdividing land behind the school board office (town zoning, R1, which requires 100 feet of frontage unless rezoned to R2) or surplussing the Upper Cooley campus and placing the facility nearer the school cluster (county agricultural zoning, which would require a special use permit and planning commission review). The town site would need architectural review because it lies in the historic district; the Upper Cooley option would be more visible and might require re-surveying to preserve athletic and playground space, county staff said.
Board members and speakers at the meeting focused on three themes: preserving the green space between Cooley Upper and Cooley Lower, traffic and visibility implications, and safety and program appropriateness. Pam Thompson, a retired teacher and DG Cooley math tutor speaking during public comment, told the board she does not oppose the county facility in principle but urged protection of the visible green space used for school events and by community groups. "The idea of placing the building in the green space between Cooley Upper Campus and the stadium is a great concern to many people," she said.
Several parents and residents echoed that point and asked the boards to consider alternatives that would not remove a primary play and event field from the school. Tim Sinclair and Ryan Coppage both urged the boards to prioritize walkability and ease of access for residents who would use the services, while also preserving fields used for student activities. One board member noted the county could re-survey land lines to keep the playground and playground corridor intact while allowing a smaller parcel for a new building.
County staff described several practical trade-offs: using school-owned property avoids acquisition costs but may create an awkward 100‑ft frontage strip; a ground lease is possible but less desirable if the county would invest millions in a building on land it does not own; and the Upper Cooley building has maintenance liabilities after years of underuse that make surplus-and-reuse attractive from a capital perspective. Dr. Boyce emphasized that the county prefers sites already in public ownership to reduce acquisition costs, but he repeated that "no decisions have been made" and the county is seeking guidance and public input.
The board and county agreed on next steps that include walking the properties together, having the county produce conceptual resurvey drawings for review, and scheduling public input once drawings are available. Several board members asked the county to consider neighbor concerns, traffic studies, and the town's frontage and historic-review requirements before moving forward. The board emphasized the value of the long-standing partnership with the Board of Supervisors and urged transparent public outreach before any surplus or lease resolution is prepared or voted on.
For now, the proposal remains at the discussion stage; the board did not take a formal vote on site selection. County representatives said they will return with more detailed surveys and conceptual plans and will solicit public feedback before any formal surplus resolution or special-use application is filed.

