Pickens County planning commission denies rezoning for 3418 Refuge Road after residents object to 17‑acre commercial request

The Pickens County Planning Commission voted to deny a request to rezone 17 acres at 3418 Refuge Road from rural residential to neighborhood commercial, rejecting an applicant's plan to relocate an administrative office to a restored historic house.

Staff had recommended denial, telling the commission the proposal raised spot‑zoning and compatibility concerns with adjacent residences and that the county record lacked sufficient evidence of need for a neighborhood commercial designation for the entire 17‑acre parcel. "So staff recommends denial of the rezoning request," the staff presentation stated.

The applicant, Jeff Miller, said acquiring the property makes financial sense because he is paying for unused leased office space and intends to move a small administrative office there. "My rent is exceptionally high," Miller said. He told the commission his operation is limited—he said his administrative building would house roughly six employees and that operating hours will be typical daytime office hours. "I need to get out of that building," he said when describing his motivation to relocate.

Neighbors who live adjacent to or near the property urged the commission to deny the application or to limit any rezoning to a small front parcel. Speakers cited the parcel's wooded buffers, potential loss of wildlife and a fear that rezoning 17 acres would open the door to more intensive commercial development. "Those trees mean the world to me," said Kathy Langley, whose backyard sits about 25 feet from the parcel. Several speakers also warned the change would increase truck and commercial traffic and said a smaller office site could meet the applicant's needs while preserving most of the property as residential.

Applicant counsel Nancy Maddox argued the property is near mixed uses and a neighborhood commercial classification could be appropriate for low‑impact office use, and she urged the commission to consider rehabilitating a neglected historic structure rather than leaving it to deteriorate. She also disputed the staff assessment that the request amounted to impermissible spot zoning, pointing to nearby mixed uses and the county's character-area framework.

After extended questions and public comment, a commissioner moved to accept staff's recommendation to deny the rezoning application. The motion passed; a commissioner later stated the vote was 4–1 in favor of denial.

The planning commission's action is advisory; the recommendation and record will be available to the Board of Commissioners for final action on the zoning map amendment. Commissioners and staff discussed parcel‑sizing as an alternative—recommending the applicant could seek approval for a smaller, front‑lot commercial tract while leaving the remainder residential—but no such amended application was presented at the hearing.

The hearing also generated calls from residents for broader policy changes: at least one commenter urged the commission to consider a written ban on data‑center applications, citing water and quality‑of‑life concerns. The commission did not act on that request during the meeting.