Pickens planning commission recommends denial of 100‑acre rezoning after access, safety concerns

The Pickens County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial Thursday of rezoning application RZ190621, a developer proposal to rezone about 100 acres from agricultural to rural residential for a private, gated subdivision of roughly 20–30 upscale vacation homes.

Planning staff told the commission the application failed to meet county access rules. "All new subdivided lots must have direct access to and from a public or private road," staff said, quoting county code section 38‑1‑81. Staff recommended denial because the proposed lots would be served from an existing 40‑foot easement rather than a county‑maintained road.

Developer representatives asked the commission to allow the project to proceed contingent on securing permanent road access. "This is a jewel in in your community," said Doug Sherrill, owner of LDP Plan Development Professionals, describing the property and the developer's intent to phase amenities such as a clubhouse and trails. Partner Peter Vasquez said the project is intended as a family‑oriented, second‑home community modeled on a resort plan; "Our goal is to make it a family community where these people have, upscale homes," he said.

Neighbors who live along Mockingbird Lane and the paved county approach pressed the commission on safety, ownership and drainage. Timothy Ray, who identified himself as a property owner on the corner of the easement, said, "Mockingbird Lane is very dangerous place anyway to pull in and out of," citing limited sight distance at the highway turn. Tracy Ray told the commission she was not contacted in advance and raised the prospect of short‑term rentals: "Anytime you have a vacation home, it gets rented out." Other residents asked detailed questions about stormwater controls, curb‑and‑gutter, retention and whether utilities would be run to new lots.

Developer witnesses said they had begun negotiating with adjacent landowners about donating additional right‑of‑way to meet county standards and that they had discussed extending a 6‑inch water line from Route 53. The project team also acknowledged items that require outside approvals: a Georgia Department of Transportation review for any state‑route access changes and "a Ginn permit" (GDOT) for sight distances, and review by the fire marshal for required emergency access. Planning staff and the fire marshal told the commission larger subdivisions would need two points of ingress/egress for emergency access.

Commission members said unanswered questions about access, sight distance, runoff, and how and when road improvements and utility extensions would be completed outweighed the developer’s contingency proposals. "There are too many unanswered questions," a planning commissioner said while moving to accept staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice/hand vote; the commission closed the hearing and recommended denial to the Pickens County Board of Commissioners.

The planning commission’s recommendation is advisory; the Board of Commissioners will consider the rezoning request and any conditions or additional information before making a final decision. Staff and the developer indicated that further engineering plans, GDOT review and fire‑marshal clearance would be required before any final plat or county acceptance of roads could proceed.