Developer proposes conditions and a development agreement to address Celebration Village sewer and phasing concerns
Summary
Celebration Village representatives told commissioners they have contracts, financing in process, and offered a development agreement tying continued construction and continuous assisted-living construction to permits and COs; staff and commissioners questioned whether the proposal satisfies the county's sewer allocation and precedent concerns.
Celebration Village's attorney, David Ellison, and developer representatives told the Oconee County board that the project team has invested significant funds and would accept conditions restricting permits until the assisted-living facility had permits and commenced continuous construction. Ellison said documents and a proposed development agreement were offered to the county as a mechanism to ensure the assisted-living component remained integral to the project.
Ellison said the team has spent "over $18,000,000" preparing the site, reported 24 contracts for bungalow units and 42 people on a waiting list, and described a plan that would require proof of financing, building permits and continuous construction on the assisted-living facility before permits could be issued for other residential structures. Paul Ozzie, CEO of Active Senior Concepts (the developer), told commissioners that third-party home-care providers would be based in the clubhouse and that services would be available to residents from day one.
Staff and several commissioners questioned whether the proposed approach would create a policy precedent or comply with the county's wastewater allocation policy, which treats assisted-living capacity differently than other residential uses. County staff emphasized that the field-change application and the proposed phasing did not substantially conform to the approved rezone and therefore could not be approved administratively without a rezone or an agreed-upon development agreement the board accepted.
The board did not adopt the development agreement at the meeting; commissioners suggested tabling for further review or allowing the applicant to proceed with a rezone application. The developer said it preferred the county approve the development agreement to allow continued site work and to withdraw its administrative appeal.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

