By Kristi Reed
Area homeowners turned out in force at Thursday’s planning commission meeting to voice opposition for a mixed used development planned for Rockwell Church Road.
Dist. 6 representative Scott Hang was one of three planning commission members who voted against a master planned development request for Rockwell Church Road.
Neighbors oppose Rockwell Church Road development
Owners Daniel Blitch and Mary Bean have requested that 144 acres located at Rockwell Church Road and Hwy. 53 be rezoned to allow a master planned development with 237 single family residences, 19 apartment buildings and six commercial buildings.
Attorney John Stell, speaking on behalf of the owners, said the development would be very compatible with the surrounding area.
“This is exactly the kind of development that Barrow County wants to encourage in this area,” Stell said.
Several local residents disagreed.
Gwen Hill said the 1,200 citizens and 800 vehicles the development would add to the area would place a strain on infrastructure and result in tax increases for surrounding property owners. Hill said low density residential and agricultural uses are more appropriate for the property.
Patricia Stallings agreed saying the development was not consistent with current zoning and would have a negative impact on the area.
“This is injecting an entire town into our small community,” Stallings said.
Adding to the opposition, Barrow County School Superintendent Dr. Ron Saunders sent a letter to the planning commission opposing the development, citing the strain that the 700 to 1,000 children projected to live in the community would place on the school system.
Stell sought to reassure homeowners and commission members.
“These impacts are not going to be felt immediately,” Stell said. The development will be built in phases, mitigating the effect on the community, Stell explained.
Dist. 5 representative Howard Hawthorne motioned to deny the request. Dist. 6 representative Scott Hang seconded the motion. Dist. 4 representative Nancy Easterling joined Hawthorne and Hang in opposing the request. Dist. 3 representative Bob Lanham voted in favor of the rezoning.
In other business, the planning commission recommended approval for:
• a request to rezone 1.8 acres at 681 Tucker Road from AG to R1.
• a rezone to split 5.37 acres at 517 Bee Maxey Road into three tracts and change the zoning from AG to R1 on two of the tracts and from AG to AR on the third tract.
• rezoning 2.021 acres at 2113 Dooley Town Road from AR to R1.
• a request to rezone 10.4 acres on Bowman Mill Road from R1 to AG.
• a special use permit for Cynergya Polymer Group to allow plastics recycling at 680 Enterprise Drive.
• a request to rezone 5.1 acres on Cliff Day Road from AG to AR to split property into two tracts.
• a rezoning request to change 1.1 acres at 192 Pickle Simon Road from M2 to C3 for the purpose of operating an indoor play place for children.
• amendments to the Unified Development Code which will remove all aspects of content related references. The amendments were proposed in response to recent case law.
The requests will go before the Barrow County Board of Commissioners on October 28 at 7 p.m. The board meets at the Barrow County Administration Building located at 233 East Broad Street in Winder.
Attorney John Stell, speaking on behalf of the owners, said the development would be very compatible with the surrounding area.
“This is exactly the kind of development that Barrow County wants to encourage in this area,” Stell said.
Several local residents disagreed.
Gwen Hill said the 1,200 citizens and 800 vehicles the development would add to the area would place a strain on infrastructure and result in tax increases for surrounding property owners. Hill said low density residential and agricultural uses are more appropriate for the property.
Patricia Stallings agreed saying the development was not consistent with current zoning and would have a negative impact on the area.
“This is injecting an entire town into our small community,” Stallings said.
Adding to the opposition, Barrow County School Superintendent Dr. Ron Saunders sent a letter to the planning commission opposing the development, citing the strain that the 700 to 1,000 children projected to live in the community would place on the school system.
Stell sought to reassure homeowners and commission members.
“These impacts are not going to be felt immediately,” Stell said. The development will be built in phases, mitigating the effect on the community, Stell explained.
Dist. 5 representative Howard Hawthorne motioned to deny the request. Dist. 6 representative Scott Hang seconded the motion. Dist. 4 representative Nancy Easterling joined Hawthorne and Hang in opposing the request. Dist. 3 representative Bob Lanham voted in favor of the rezoning.
In other business, the planning commission recommended approval for:
• a request to rezone 1.8 acres at 681 Tucker Road from AG to R1.
• a rezone to split 5.37 acres at 517 Bee Maxey Road into three tracts and change the zoning from AG to R1 on two of the tracts and from AG to AR on the third tract.
• rezoning 2.021 acres at 2113 Dooley Town Road from AR to R1.
• a request to rezone 10.4 acres on Bowman Mill Road from R1 to AG.
• a special use permit for Cynergya Polymer Group to allow plastics recycling at 680 Enterprise Drive.
• a request to rezone 5.1 acres on Cliff Day Road from AG to AR to split property into two tracts.
• a rezoning request to change 1.1 acres at 192 Pickle Simon Road from M2 to C3 for the purpose of operating an indoor play place for children.
• amendments to the Unified Development Code which will remove all aspects of content related references. The amendments were proposed in response to recent case law.
The requests will go before the Barrow County Board of Commissioners on October 28 at 7 p.m. The board meets at the Barrow County Administration Building located at 233 East Broad Street in Winder.
Listen to Mr. Saunders, if you won't listen to the general public.
And what is the baloney about the indoor playground seeking a rezone? That building is already built, and their sign is already hanging out front! The request for a rezone comes now, AFTER it is fully constructed? What kind of under-handed dealing is this?? Is that how your planning commission works? It seems to be getting fairly common around here for someone to build something, and when it is finished, then they REQUEST a rezone. Care to explain that?
As far as re-zoning after the fact. There are many small businesses operating in areas not zoned for their business. I personally know some of them did call the county and ask before hanging out the sign and opening for business, and the county told them no problem. Then down the road, someone complains and the owners are then forced to apply for re-zoning.
It seems the county Licenses and Permit office isn't in agreement with the Zoning office as to what is required and what is not.