Plans for a proposed subdivision on Progress Road went before a third city or county governing board as the Ellijay City Council met Monday, Oct. 17.
The Gilmer Village development has already been reviewed by the Board of Commissioners (BOC) and East Ellijay City Council, as well as county and city planning and zoning boards.
The near 24 acres where the subdivision is planned lies within the county, but two public roads needed for entering and exiting — Progress Road and Mountain View Drive — are property of the cities of Ellijay and East Ellijay, respectively.
Mayor Mack West said East Ellijay is opposed to allowing the use of Mountain View Drive when a request for road access came before the East Ellijay council in July. At an August BOC meeting, the commissioners gave conditional approval for the property to be rezoned from R1 (single family residential) to R5 (high density multifamily residential).
It was decided then that the R5 rezoning will be approved if two entrances from one or more public roads can be established and the developer, Integrity Development Group, funds installation of a right turn lane on nearby Coosawattee Drive as proposed by a recent traffic study.
Ellijay’s planning commission recently added its own approval conditions for the development.
They include putting in an accel/decel lane at the entrance to Progress Road, an accel/decel and turn lane at the intersection of Progress Road and Coosawattee Drive, roundabouts where Progress Road intersects Old Highway 5 and Maddox Drive, resurfacing a section of Progress Road from Old Highway 5 to Coosawattee Drive and encasing water and sewer lines beneath Progress Road to prevent future settling of the roadway.
The Ellijay council’s decision added further contingencies to the list.
Councilmembers voted three to two that the request to use Progress Road would be approved if the developer is able to satisfy the city planning commission’s conditions and also get permission from East Ellijay to use Mountain View Drive.
“East Ellijay would have to approve that. (Our approval) would be contingent on that happening,” said councilman Tom Crawford, who suggested the condition.
Crawford, Al Fuller and Kevin Pritchett voted in favor of approving the access request if all conditions are met, while Katie Lancey and Sandy Ott voted against.
In a workshop that preceded the council meeting, attorney Jeb Chatham, representing Integrity Development Group, said the developer is open to annexing the property into Ellijay if something can be worked out on using the roads.
“We can’t begin the project if the overlay costs are so great that we couldn’t be able to start. We would be open to (annexation) if we could sort of meet together and see what would work financially with the street,” he added.
When asked by Ott about the size of the subdivision, Chatham said it could be anywhere from 89-90 total units, but the final plans aren’t done yet.
“The R5 designation is a little tricky. We originally wanted to sell off (individual units). We’re trying to hit the lower cost, between $150-250,000, where the rental or purchase value could be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500-$1,700 a month,” Chatham said. “Under the county, you can’t do the individual units. You’re going to have to do apartments/condos for rental. You can’t sell individual tracts. They have to be a 5-acre minimum under (county requirements).”
Ellijay has different zoning requirements, noted Chatham. “We’re prepared to (annex) if we can come to a meeting of what y’all want us to do with the roadways. That’s kind of the crux,” he added.