Planning staff outlines variance sought for East Cherokee Drive subdivision; developer requests deferral amid neighbor sightline concerns

Planning staff told the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners on March 3 that a developer seeks two modifications to conditions on a previously approved R‑20 conservation subdivision (about 88 acres) off East Cherokee Drive: removal of language requiring a GDOT‑spec left‑turn lane into the site (contingent on variance outcomes) and flexibility to issue land‑disturbance permits and begin development prior to final right‑of‑way improvements if certain conditions are met.

Mr. Traylor, the county planning presenter, said the requests are tied to a concurrent variance application that would permit an alternate street section for the south side of East Cherokee Drive: "They'd like to reduce that down to 3 feet" of shoulder with a curb, gutter and a wall with guardrail instead of the typical 8‑foot shoulder with ditch section and required easements. Mr. Traylor added that if the variance is approved, the applicant "may not need easements" and that much depends on transportation and stormwater sign‑off.

Why it matters: The variance would change how the county's standard road section is applied, potentially avoiding the need to acquire construction and maintenance easements from adjacent property owners but shifting design tradeoffs (retaining wall, guardrail, stormwater piping) into public right‑of‑way design considerations.

Developer request and neighborhood concern: Ethan Underwood, representing the applicant, told the board the client remains committed to constructing a left‑turn lane and is "not asking to get out of it," but that negotiations with neighbors have stalled because one neighbor has not agreed to an easement. Underwood asked for a hearing tonight followed by deferral so the applicant could continue working with staff and the neighbor, describing the alternate street section as a "plan B."

Commissioners probed how a proposed retaining wall and guardrail would affect ingress and egress for a single‑house parcel directly opposite the proposed entrance. One commissioner said: "I've got real reservations about putting an 8 foot ... retaining wall on this lady's side of the house," noting the resident is 71 and recently widowed. Staff said transportation concerns focus on sight distance and that stormwater impacts remain a key open question; transportation staff must still sign off on visibility and drainage solutions before the county could accept the alternate design.

Next steps: The board indicated it would hold the public hearing but was open to delaying final action to allow the applicant time to negotiate with neighbors and to secure transportation and stormwater clearances; acquisition of the neighbor's parcel was discussed as one possible resolution but no acquisition decision was made during the work session.