Planning commission denies conditional-use permit for Lakeside Valley Vineyards after residents raise traffic, noise and safety concerns

Susan and Stuart Anthony sought a conditional-use permit to operate a small winery, tasting room and limited-event venue called Lakeside Valley Vineyards on roughly 27.5 acres in Pickens County.

During a planning commission hearing, staff summarized recommended conditions that would accompany approval, including a building-size cap (staff suggested 4,000 square feet) and an event end time tied to a county ordinance (noted in the record as 10:00 p.m.). The applicants said they plan a modest operation: a tasting room, phased vineyard planting and no large-scale development. The applicant said the proposed building would be about 2,000–4,000 square feet, their parking lot would hold about 40 cars and they intended to limit events (the applicant said “only, like, 10 weddings a year”). The applicants also said soil tests and fire-marshal requirements have been completed and that they were exploring shuttle arrangements to reduce impaired-driving risk.

Neighbors and other residents opposed the permit. Amanda, who said she lives on Tabitha Drive adjacent to the site, told the commission she and neighbors submitted a petition opposing approval and said the neighborhood’s narrow, partially paved one-lane roads would not safely absorb regular event traffic. She told commissioners an event venue ‘‘would add a dangerous influx of traffic to our one-lane road’’ and warned that limited local options for rideshares or taxis could increase the risk of impaired drivers on steep, blind stretches of roadway.

Other residents raised noise concerns, noting the site sits in a valley where sound carries and saying a 10 p.m. end time would still disrupt households with early-morning schedules. Several neighbors emphasized the area’s rural character and referenced the county’s joint comprehensive plan (2018), arguing the proposal conflicted with the community’s low-intensity land-use designation.

Applicants and supporters responded with mitigation plans: controlling attendance by reservation, parking and shuttle planning, indoor reception spaces and landscaping buffers. Applicant Susan Anthony told the panel they planned to ‘‘control that environment’’ and that their parking would be limited so events would not be large or frequent. They also said production would be phased, that Georgia law requires a percentage of in-state fruit for certain labeling, and that many operational details (septic, fire-marshal requirements and site-specific construction plans) would be resolved in the building-permit process.

After extended public comment and discussion, a motion to deny the conditional-use permit was made, seconded and carried. Commissioners did not record a roll-call tally on the record; the chair announced the motion carried and the hearing was closed. The record, including staff materials and testimony, will be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners as part of the case file.

What’s next: The denial by the planning commission becomes part of the record provided to the Board of Commissioners. Any further action (an appeal, a revised application or a formal application before the Board) would be scheduled through county staff and the board’s calendar.