Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press developer on water, fire protection and stormwater for proposed 56‑lot Sanctuary Farms
Summary
A developer wants 56 lots on ~461 acres under rural lot standards; planning staff and commissioners flagged stormwater quality, tree‑survey burdens, road design and fire‑suppression questions and asked staff to develop cost and feasibility estimates rather than change ordinance for a single project.
Planning staff and the developer presented the Sanctuary Farms master plan at the Aug. 20 work session, proposing 56 residential lots across roughly 461 acres on the eastern edge of Ball Ground and describing the concept as a rural‑character subdivision with 5‑acre minimum lots.
Staff told the board the county’s ordinance treats any project over 10 lots or with shared infrastructure as a "major subdivision," which triggers comprehensive land‑disturbance and stormwater planning. As staff explained, the developer’s request to have lot owners manage stormwater on a lot‑by‑lot basis would ask the county to treat a 56‑lot project unlike other major subdivisions: "Once you hit a major subdivision, you have to do stormwater management, and that's done as a plan where you're doing the road and the lots," staff said.
Why it matters: Commissioners were chiefly concerned about public‑safety and long‑term costs. Fire and emergency services raised technical constraints — steep vertical curves and cul‑de‑sac designs could prevent fire apparatus from safely navigating some road geometries, and the International Fire Code/NFPA alternatives for private suppression (residential sprinklers and cisterns) present differing cost and operational tradeoffs.
Developers and commissioners debated water access and suppression options. The developer proposed private wells and sprinkler systems for homes rather than extending a county water main; commissioners questioned the economics of that approach for 56 homes and asked for ballpark figures. As one commissioner put it, "I don't really understand… how much does that cost compared to how much does it cost to run 8‑inch line along the road?"
Staff listed three paths forward for the project: require full compliance with current major subdivision standards; pursue Board of Commissioners zoning or variance requests for specific design relief; or draft a new ordinance/subdivision type to accommodate a hybrid rural‑large‑lot approach. Several commissioners said ordinance changes for a single property were probably off the table and urged staff to return with cost estimates and possible engineering solutions.
No formal approvals or ordinance changes were made. Commissioners asked staff to research feasible technical options — including whether a utility extension from nearby transmission or a partial contribution from Georgia Power (for an adjacent substation feed) could meaningfully reduce the cost of providing fire‑protection water — and to provide the board with comparative cost estimates for centralized infrastructure versus lot‑level alternatives.
The board did not vote on the project at the work session; staff will return with further analysis.
