Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call the meeting to order tonight. Uh September 18th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Please stand for the invocation by Dylan Douglas and the pledge by Mr. Wilder. Home God offer guidance. National leader Pray also for all my Okay, we do have a quorum with one absent. Um, I need to get approval of minutes for the September 4th, 2025 agenda meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the previous meeting. I have a motion and second. All those in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries. I need approval of the agenda this evening. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the September 18th, 2025 agenda and item H1 A2 massage operator's license for Britney Pyazing Therapies LLC.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries. Before we begin, I'd like to take a moment to clarify that the planning commission is a recommending body. The Columbia County Board of Commissioners decisions made on resoning and variance request tonight will be forwarded to the commissioners for final action on October 7th. Five. If you wish to address the board of commissioners at their meeting, please see Miss Mixon to obtain a request to speak form. Any request with a public hearing will have a minimum of 10 minutes permitted per side for the presentations of opinions, data, and evidence by proponents or opponents of a request. The applicant will be allowed to speak first, and any member of the public may speak after. Their side may seed their time during the hearing if they so desire. And we're getting into the uh uh debate agenda, new business, massage operator's license. Will sheriff's request for two massage operate licenses tonight. First one is Nicole Coffee DBA recovery massage therapies located at 4210 Columbia Road Sweet 15C is on permits only. And then also the one that we just added Bernie P I believe it's Pashia DBA Mazing Therapies LLC 44 Columbia Road sweet 103 on premise only. If you'd like you can take these as one vote that they made all the requirements that close recommendation. Very good. Will, thank you. Do I have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the massage operator's license for Nicole Coffee to provide massage therapy at 4210 Columbia Road, Sweet 15C. Second. We have a motion and a second for that. Uh, all those in favor raise right hand. Motion carries. You go over the H1 A2. Yep. Yep. I did them both once. Oh,

okay. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion to approve the massage operator's license for Britney Pasha, DBA, Mermazing Therapies LLC, 4434 Columbia Road, Sweet 103, on premise only. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries. Getting into the public hearing, we have H1V1 variance 25904. Dylan.

Yes, sir. Uh, as you said, this is an application for a variance uh to rear setbacks structure at 613 Apostolic Drive. Shows the location and zoning of the parcel at zoned R1. As you can see here, uh, the property surrounding this parcel is all colored zoned property. It makes use of an access easement across uh neighboring private property. That's significant in just a little. And uh the location of this property is uh off of Apostolic. It has an Apostolic Drive address, but it's off Apostolic Lane just south of the major roadway pictured here, Whitesboro. And this is an aerial view of the property. Um the structure in question is kind of in the lower right corner of the property as you can see there. Um the applicants have been seeking property with ancillary dwelling for the past couple years. Uh the parents of one of the applicants are are aging and they're looking to kind of consolidate their space. Uh they both are Columbia County residents, but they want to be closer to one another. um maintaining uh the aging parents independence while also being in close proximity just in in case anything any kind of intervention or emergency uh you know should happen. Um however the issue is uh as we discussed previously this property is surrounded on all sides by neighboring private property. That means that there are slightly larger than normal setbacks 25 ft along all of their lot lines. And as you can probably tell from this aerial, that ancillary structure on the property is within those setbacks. Um site survey showing just that the ancillary dwelling is about uh 7 and 1/2 ft, a little bit less than that from the nearest uh neighboring lot line. And they are proposing uh a small

expansion of that ancillary structure as well shown here. Um the reason for that again is because the intended residents of that ancillary structure are the aging parents of the property owners applicants. Um and they are looking to expand the single level footprint of that ancillary. Right now it's two stories. However, they're hoping to just expand and offer a few more facilities on the ground level that those intended residents can make use of all of them on the ground level without having to go up stairs. best fit for them request that um with that request um they have also submitted a letter of support from their neighbors. Um county uh reviewing departments have all taken a look at this the typical ones storm water uh building standards for fire safety. Uh there have been no glaring issues. Um conditions uh have been offered from building standard standards to make sure that the structure is not expanded closer to that lot line. basically making that uh you know infraction against county code any worse moving forward. Then uh our office is also offering a condition just explaining that the exception to that setback is strictly for this existing structure and this expansion that way other structures in the don't spring up close to that plot line. Um again they offered a letter of support from their neighbor. Those neighbors have lived there for sevenish years and apparently have had no issues with this existing ancillary structure that these property owners kind of inherited from a previous owner. And given that those neighbors are not seeing any issue with the existence of that structure, there are no glaring issues. Staff is re approval provided those conditions are

Okay. Thank you, Dylan. Would the owner or applicant uh Kenneth or Del Reese Rollerson like to come forward and speak add anything? Do we have any questions? Have any questions? No, we don't have any questions. Any other member of the audience would like to speak against this or in favor? Okay. Could I have a motion, please?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to I recommend to approve with conditions of file VA250904 variance to reduce rear building set racks for an existing structure and expansion at 613 Apostolic Drive. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor raise right hand. Motion carries. Next order of business U RZ250907.

Danielle.

Yes, sir. This is a request for a change of conditions uh for Tillery Park off Baker Place Road. This change of conditions particularly impacts the portion of the property that is on the west side of Baker Place Road uh just south of I20. It is currently zoned planned residential development as is the rest of Tillery Park. Uh that zoning was applied in 2020 and there have been multiple revisions to that zoning file since that time. This shows the aerial of the property. Um it is under construction. So it does not look like this. If you've driven down Baker Place Road, looks a little more like this. Um so the this property is under construction for what is known as section seven of Tillery Park. Um and the request is in relation to a condition of the zoning that was applied with that 2020 uh a reszoning to PRD. That condition limited Tillery Park to platting no more than 300 lots until a second full access to either Canterbury Farms Parkway or Writesboro Road was provided uh via public roads. uh the intended connection and the one that was shown on the original concept plan of course was the connection to Canterbury Farms Parkway but there was some flexibility written into the condition um at that time the rightway for Canterbury Farms Parkway was not owned by either the developer or the county so there was some concern that that connection may be difficult to make u that rightway is now dedicated to the county so that concern has been addressed uh but there is uh still this condition related to that that road connection actually being developed. Uh right now at this time um Tillery Park has final platted uh sections 1A 1B 2 and 3A. So that brings them to 271 lots final platted at this time. uh they have the remainder of section 3, which is an additional 37 lots, and section 7, which is 98 lots, is the the section we're dealing with in particular with the change of conditions, uh that are under

construction, but that are um kind of hung up a little bit with this condition that they they can't final plat all of the lots they have under construction, um under the current condition unless that road connection is made. So, this shows the development plan, including the additional property for Tiller Park South. um that is was a later reszoning file that is being developed by a different developer. Uh that does include a connection to Grenard Street in Canterbury Farms which will then allow connection through um Grenard Street to Canterbury Farms Parkway when it's complete. Um that connection is not complete at this time and is not dedicated. So it's not currently a public road and does not meet the the zoning condition. And then the other connection of course is the the Canterbury Farms Parkway connection. Uh, one of the issues with this is, uh, this was section four. Uh, it is does involve a creek crossing. Uh, that does require core permitting. One of the previous revisions to the PRD was to modify the street section to try to aid in getting that permit. Um, that permit is not approved at this time and that is part of why this was not the next section developed with the the road connection. Uh overall the concern from a staff standpoint is that while the developer has pointed out that the additional land that they're looking at is on the opposite side of Baker Place Road, so it doesn't particularly impact internal traffic flow in Tillery Park. Uh the concern is the impact on the the larger traffic network. This connection um would provide you additional route options, relieve some some of the congestion on the parallel roads which would be Writesboro and um William F and have you know wider impacts beyond just internal traffic circulation um in Tillery Park. Uh therefore staff feels this connection's quite important and we are recommending disapproval of the change of conditions request.

Thank you Danielle. Would the owner applicant of Tiller Park Development LLC would like to come forward and speak on behalf? State your name and address for

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jason Winter with Tiller Park Development Ivy Development, 672 Industrial Park Drive, Evans. Uh, I want to add some information to the staff's report. Um when we first phased out um or showed phasing on the on the overall tillerary development plan, we call these are I mean we divided up into areas, not sections because we didn't know how we were going to develop it over the 10-year lifespan of this project. Things change, things have drastically changed in the economy since 2020 and so have things with the core of engineers permitting process that we have learned over the last couple years. So area seven is not section seven. Area 7 is across Baker Place Road. Um we do have several other areas outlined in the um overall master plan map. And even though we have area 1 through seven, they were not consecutively dated for development even back in 2020 in our proposal. So we're not necessarily jumping around out of order. Um but the the the main issue we have right now is the core permitting. That's what drove us to cross Baker Place Road next. Uh this permitting process again has changed quite a bit in five years since we first started this become much more difficult. Um we've actually been working on a permit for two road crossings and one wetlands bill for about two years now and we still don't have it. Um, so even if we would have turned in plans to extend our main road over to Canbury Farms Parkway, we would not have been able to build it because we don't have a core permit to cross the stream. So, we'd still be here today and we just couldn't stop progress on our project where we waited for the core of engineers indefinitely. So that's the reason we moved to area 7 on the west

side of Baker Place Road because we knew that did not include any balloons or core permitting. So just to give you an idea of what we've gone through with the core. We turned in permits a couple years ago. We uh one of the items we were next assigned to do was um hire some consultant to provide a cultural resources survey across the entire site. So I have to go out there and they walk it in a grid pattern and they look for shards of pottery or whatever um whatever they can find. They didn't find anything. The next thing they the core required us to do was have the existing cemetery on site um further delineated for grave sites. We had we hired an archaeologist in 2019 when we first put this property under contract to delineate the research and delineate the uh cemetery so we knew where its edges were and we stay clear of it. Well, that wasn't good enough for the core. So we had to hire somebody else with a ground penetrating radar, go out there and walk it and determine where all the grave sites were. And so that also brought Georgia Shipo in into the mix, which is the state historic preservation office, which I don't have any idea what they have to do with wetlands, but they've worked out a deal with the core that if you do a certain number of your your permit is whatever, then the state of Georgia gets involved. And so the state got to review all of our documentation. And you can imagine this doesn't happen overnight, right? This is each time we talk to them, it's a month, two months, four months turnaround time. So um you know, those are the reasons for the two years at least. Now, two of the at least two of the previous PRD revisions that we've been here for included uh adjustments to road and lot layout based on what we're going through with the core permitting.

And then we got held up because the core thought that Tiller Park South, which is does not involve us. We we that's a Maybomb related entity. They had some additional permitting they were doing. And so the court tied that to us and said, "Nope, you're not eligible now because the Hillary Park South is already permitted stream crossing and so that changes your scope." And so we had to politely argue with them for a couple months to clarify that. We recently convinced them that we are a separate project from Stiller Park South and we could proceed as we were. Um and they they did send us an email in writing. They agreed with that um that we were on track for the permit we thought we were on track for two years ago. But here's the all the additional documentation that we needed to provide them. So our consultant has been sending that in. Now, I want to ask y'all, does anybody know what an oak moi skull cap is? I don't either. Until last week, that was the most recent request from the core of engineers. There is an endangered flower named the elk moldy skull cap that may grow in hardwood bottoms in our area. So, we had to send a consultant back out there to go check all of our wetlands crossings and stream crossings and see if that flower existed. and it did not. So, it's been a somewhat painful process. Um, but again, that's just a little taste of why we could not proceed forward with um the road connection back to Canterbury Farms Parkway. Um, and then Tiller Park South, part of their initial re their reasonzoning, um, the language included in that approval did say that once that connection to Grenard Street was made, that satisfied the second road connection. Well, Tilly Park South has been under construction for probably a year and a half. They had issues with their wetlands crossing and permit which shut them down. They got that worked out. Then they had some other pipe issues. They've got that

worked out now and they are pouring curbon gutter currently and we expect them to be paving that road really soon. So, that connection is to be made shortly in the very near future. Um, and then, you know, we don't have we only have 109 houses sold, so we're not anywhere near 300 occupied houses out there. Uh, so, you know, the traffic load is is a long way from hitting 300. And even if we um you know, we we had a record market for our 98 lots on the west side of Baker Place Road, put them all under contract at one time, moved 98 homeowners in in in nine months. Um that we still think that would be um beyond when Tiller Park South makes their connection. So, lots of lots of different issues uh have caused us to uh to jump across the road. So, I just want to give you that background. I'm happy to answer any questions because I know that was probably around and round in circles for some of you.

I got a question on when when y'all started the development, you didn't reach out to the court at that time knowing that going to be a probably a problem down the road. Well, we identified the crossings and at that time the the rules were different for the crossings and so we laid this out um under old rules and knew we could permit it fairly easy and the core rules changed after we started site work after we got approval in 2020. The core rules changed and so it changed our whole scope. So, as soon as we found out the rules changed, we started putting all this um this permit together and submitting it.

Okay. Thank you. Any more questions? Yeah. The um the changes happened about was it because of the the administration change possibly? Is that what drove this crazy change from what was fairly workable to almost untenable or is that just core of interest? I think it's the core of engineers that that's the core of engineers that does not answer to anybody pretty much. I mean, that's our experience. That's kind of funny, but kind of not.

Um, they're real happy to tell you that nobody influences them, that you get whoever you want to to try to call them and speed the process along, but that doesn't change the way they operate. Um, so I I don't know why drove the um the change in the rules. costs went up, the uh impacts that you could make tightened up significantly. Um I I don't know if it was tied to administrative or just the core being the core

core being the core right so let me let me finish up with we because we have received what we are taking as good news from the core of engineers that they've agreed with our path forward um we have started the preliminary engineering on um area 4 which will be that connection back to Canbury Farm. So, um that will be the next set of development plans that will be coming to the to the county. But again, until now, there was no even reason to to um produce engineering plans that would just be shelved because, you know, the the core wouldn't the core had not issued a permit. The county wouldn't issue full approval on a site plan or development plan without a core permit on those crossings. Has been our experience in the past, too. questions. Okay, thank you. Anyone else here would like to speak in favor? Any here anyone here would like to speak against? I get a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to recommend disapproval of file RZ250907, change of conditions for section 7, Aillery Park, located off Baker Place Road. I'll second. I have a motion on the floor and second. All is in favor. Motion is for disapproval. Next item on the list H1B3 resoning 25908.

Yes sir. This is a major revision location is 88 88 887 Bon Way and on it's a lot that's 37 acres. Current zoning is PUD and it's an existing vacant residential lot. The request is a revision to increase the height of the retaining walls. This is the location of the lot at the end of a a loop road or bon. This is the zoning. It's PUD. It's all part of the RI River Island PUB. And here's an aerial of the lot. These are oblique view. And it is an area where there's uh several homes under construction at the moment. Here is the plaid of the property with lot 27 in the center. The parcel at the back is 3.69 acres is noted as open space and um there won't be any homeowners there. So there's there'll be no impact to that area. Here's a uh plan showing the blue line which is the retaining wall location. Um you'll see in a moment there's a se there's a quite a slope to this lot from from side to side and um those contour lines are quite faint but there's about a 14 foot drop from side to side there. Um can you go back one? Um there's a small retaining wall down here which is uh maximum three feet high. That's allowed anyway. It's the wall on the other side which the maximum 8 ft high that requires a pud revision. Here's some site photographs. This is standing at the top of the orderway looking down the loop road. Um that's where the uh proposed home location will

be. This is looking the other way up the up the road. Um you can see there's quite a gray change along that um street frontage. And there is a 12 foot wide paved uh road drive that's at the back of these lots. And you can see from both ends there how much the uh ground slopes on on the back as well. Here is the plan and the elevations of the house is a stu twotory house. Uh the plan shows that the the garage is located at the back of the site here. Um, we do prefer homes that don't have garage doors at the front. So, again, it's a more appealing design for the neighborhood and the HOA and the design review board have approved the location of this wall. So, uh staff uh recommends approval. Uh there's an easement encroachment agreement will be required since the wall is in the the side setbacks and the major revision shall allow a total height for the retaining wall and fence of 50.

Thank you Dana. The owner applicant PDH builders would like to come forward and speak add anything. Any other member would like to speak in favor of this or against? I have a motion. Chairman, I make a motion to recommend approval additions file RZ25-09-08 bud revision at 887 Autobond Way to allow a retaining wall and fence with a maximum bind height of 50. Second.

I have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries. H1B4. Next, this RZ25-09-09. Danielle.

Yes, sir. This is a request for a master sign plan revision at 447 North Bair Road. Uh, this is the medical office complex here in Evans um off University Parkway um and Town Center Drive. And it is currently zone planned unit development and does have an adopted master sign plan that was approved in 2013. Uh that master sign plan allowed for additional freestanding signs on the road frontages. Um it is a large campus with very long road frontages. So that provides some additional direction to you know patients seeking care at these facilities and this shows the aerial with the multiple buildings on the campus. Uh the proposal for the revision is for an additional freestanding sign um roughly in this area that's currently grass. Uh you can see in the background um one of the directional signs on Belair Road that's existing as well as the medical buildings in the background. So this shows the master sign plan and where it had signs allowed as well as the overall design of the those signs. U the purpose for the uh proposed sign is for the surgery center which you can see previously had tenant space on the signs. Uh that surgery center has now been taken over by um Wellstar instead of Pedmont. So there is a branding issue um and there is some some regulations that do require these services to be clearly advertised and tied to the provider. So that is one of the um justifications the applicants are using to request the additional sign is they need to make sure that it's clearly distinguished that the surgery center is now a WellStar facility and not a Pedmont facility. Um but you can see there is directional signage on the site for the surgery center. Um, and it does have internal uh signage directing to that facility as well. So, the proposed signage includes refacing the two signs at the back. Um, we're not worried about those. Those are allowed under the existing master sign plan. Uh, the portion that we're dealing

with is the proposed new freestanding sign on Northwell Air Road. Um, the addition of that sign does require the master sign plan revision. So the proposed sign um was fairly modern in design. Um we did talk to the applicants a little bit and we do have a proposed condition uh to make this sign a little more uh in keeping with the existing signs which are masonry based. Uh so they are going to add brick base and sides to this sign so it'll coordinate better with the existing freestanding signage. Uh but it is located uh fairly far from both of the existing signs. It does meet the distance uh separation requirements for the sign code. If these were on separate properties that were allowed to have their own signs, it does meet the the separation standards for signs of this size. Uh given that staff is recommending approval um with the condition that the pro proposed sign be designed as a double-sided brick monument in keeping with the the other signs in the master sign plan, uh the applicants have indicated this is not a problem and have actually already provided a graphic showing that. Um and with that condition, staff is recommending approval.

Thank you. Owner of University Health Services Incorporated or applicant of WellStar Health Systems Incorporated would like to come forward and speak. I just state your name and uh address for the record, please.

I am Mark Dry with Dry Design Group. We're representing WellStar uh from Marietta, Georgia. 531 Rose Street 400-110. I'm pretty much going to answer any questions you might have regarding have as as uh already talked to her a little bit about adding the bridge up with the design for that that hopefully would meet um the appearance that we that needs done for the master sign. Thank you. We have any questions? Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Any other member of the audience would like to speak in favor?

Anyone would like to speak against? I have a motion. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval with condition of file RZ250909, master sign plan revision at 447 North Bair Road to allow an additional freestanding sign on North Bair Road. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, raise your right hand. Motion carries. And we do not have uh our attorney here tonight. Correct. matters.

Thank you. And any staff or commissioner comments? Any other public comments or participation? I get a motion for adjournment. Chairman, I make a motion we adjourn. I have a motion to second. All those in favor raise your right hand. We're done.