Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

After public hearings, Cusseta‑Chattahoochee approves five conditional‑use permits; county to review ordinance language

Commission of the Unified Government of Cusseta-Chattahoochee County, Georgia · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following work‑session debate and public hearings, the commission approved five conditional‑use permits on Feb. 27, 2025, while commissioners and planning & zoning agreed to review CUP and zoning language governing manufactured homes.

The Cusseta‑Chattahoochee County Commission approved five conditional‑use permits at a called meeting on Feb. 27 after public hearings and a Feb. 24 work session that highlighted ambiguity in the county’s conditional‑use permit (CUP) language.

The approvals — for 201 Massey Rd. (Countryman), 711 GA Hwy 26 (Wooten), 109 Nelson St. (Smith), 136 Patty Dr. (Stroud) and a 1.35‑acre split from 454 Old Louvale Rd. (Miller) — were each moved, seconded and adopted by unanimous vote at the Feb. 27 called meeting. Planning & Zoning had recommended approval of each application, typically conditioned on health‑department septic approval, removal of an existing unsafe structure when noted, and compliance with county building, floodplain and zoning rules.

The conditional‑use debate traces to how the county’s zoning code treats smaller or "substandard" lots and manufactured homes. At the Feb. 24 work session Planning & Zoning member Brent Ingersoll said the CUP language as written applies broadly, "including to stick built homes," and urged clearer ordinance language and appeal paths. County Attorney Bin Minter told the board that state zoning procedure governs CUPs and that local code could be revised to set clearer requirements. Chairman Charles Coffey urged caution, saying the county must avoid inconsistent treatment of applicants: "we are being sued for not being fair," he said during the discussion.

Applicants at the hearings described completed perk tests, septic inspections and preparations to install or replace dwellings. For example, applicant Julie Wooten said health‑department staff inspected her septic and that she had installed power and water on the 18.11‑acre parcel. County Manager Thomas Weaver noted that advertising and sign‑posting timeframes must meet the county’s required public‑notice window before votes are taken.

Each CUP approval is subject to administrative completion steps: signing of plats where required, final approval from the county health department for septic systems, and obtaining building permits or variances for setbacks if necessary. The board also agreed to continue reviewing CUP and zoning language to reduce ambiguity about when a CUP is required for manufactured homes.