Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rz 191169 Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors' concerns lead planning commission to deny 17-acre commercial rezoning on Refuge Road
Summary
After multiple residents warned that rezoning 17 acres along Refuge Road would lead to tree clearing, runoff and commercial expansion, the Pickens County Planning Commission denied RZ-191169 by a 4-1 vote. Staff had recommended denial citing spot zoning and incompatibility with nearby subdivisions.
The Pickens County Planning Commission denied a request June 8 to rezone 17 acres at 3418 Refuge Road from Rural Residential (RR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) after several nearby residents testified against the change.
Staff recommended denial of RZ-191169, saying the request raised spot-zoning concerns and was incompatible with adjacent residential subdivisions. Applicant Jeff Miller said he planned to relocate an administrative office for his mitigation business, use the historic home to house six administrative employees, restore buildings on the property and add a gravel parking area for roughly 10 cars.
Residents who spoke at the public hearing described a range of concerns. "I am worried about potential clear-cutting of the 17 acres, loss of trees and wildlife, water runoff issues, and diminished property values," said Kathy Langley. Carol Wilson said the rezoning risks commercialization of Refuge Road and increased traffic. "This rezoning would open a 'can of worms' leading to a domino effect of commercialization," said James Fleming. Audra Bailey argued that 17 acres is too large for an administrative office and suggested the applicant should have sought rezoning of a smaller portion.
Attorney Nancy Maddox, speaking for the applicant, disputed those characterizations and said the rezoning would be low impact and compatible with the comprehensive plan. In rebuttal, Maddox and Jeff Miller emphasized that Neighborhood Commercial zoning does not permit warehouses or tractor-trailer storage and that they had no plans for a 24-hour industrial operation.
Board Member Jim Fowler questioned the applicant's legal support and noted nearby lot sizes were much smaller than the 17-acre request; he also asked why the property was not subdivided if only a small office was needed. Fowler moved to accept the staff recommendation to deny RZ-191169; Pat Holmes seconded. The motion to deny carried 4-1.
The Planning Commission's decision is advisory; its recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for consideration.
