Residents press county on planning‑commission disclosures; mixed responses prompt attorney review

During citizen comments the board heard competing public testimony about the planning commission's handling of conflicts of interest.

Megan Gunther, speaking as a resident and development‑authority board member, said she found a case where a planning commissioner did not disclose that a brother who is a licensed real‑estate professional had been actively involved with the subject property and related easements. She cited OCGA §36‑67A‑1 and argued that the planning commission had selectively applied sections of the Unified Development Code when considering a conservation subdivision, which she said undermines reliability and increases legal risk for the county. She urged the board to require clearer disclosures, provide training to planning commissioners, and ensure all relevant UDC sections are applied in tandem.

Brian McKeen followed, saying he investigated available records and could not find a legal employment tie that would automatically require recusal under the statute; he recommended that the county attorney review the specific facts rather than rely on public accusation. The county attorney said a 180‑day moratorium resolution on conservation subdivision applications had been drafted at a board member's request for the board's consideration, and he offered to answer questions and noted the board had no obligation to act that night.

The board later moved into executive session to discuss litigation and asked the county attorney to review the concerns raised. No policy changes were made at the May 5 meeting; the public record shows the county attorney proposed a draft moratorium resolution for consideration but the board did not adopt it that night.