GAINESVILLE – A pair of closely-watched items on Thursday’s agenda before the Hall County Commission went in divergent directions.
In the first item, opposition to efforts by county leaders to standardize code and applicable penalties governing agri-entertainment businesses continues to present itself, while a developer’s effort to build a Planned Residential Development (PRD) along Friendship Road has apparently made everyone involved happy.
In the case of the PRD, commissioners gave unanimous approval to a rezoning application that will allow for a 116-lot development by WE Flip in southern Hall County. No one spoke in opposition and the developer agreed to all the conditions recommended by county staff.
Bobby Bullard, speaking for WE Flip, said a recommendation made by the Hall County Planning Commission in early July to redraw the site plans for the 74.38-acre development, as well as that panel’s suggestion for the developer to meet with neighbors and address their concerns, had a positive effect, turning opposition into support.
“We had lots of community interest,” Bullard said. “At the request of the Planning Commission we had a community meeting, and 49 people signed up (to speak) but I think there were more than that. It was a real good meeting.”
“It’s mostly been very positive with the community in the meeting at the church,” Bullard added.
In the case of the county’s effort to establish ordinances for dealing with agri-entertainment problems, the struggle to find common ground continues. A first reading to amend existing county code with a new violation and penalties section drew several comments.
Doug Aiken of Murrayville told commissioners that part of the problem with existing policy is that neighborhood complaints arising from an agri-entertainment issue is that the situation is investigated long after the problem is has ended.
“If the event took place last night and I (complained) and it went to the Marshall’s (Office), everything is over and it gets to be a ‘He said; she said’,” Aiken explained. “By that time all the smoke has cleared and everybody has gone home.”
“It’s going to be hard to enforce it,” Aiken said regarding the new violation and penalty language.
Brian Kelly of Clermont agreed with Aiken, saying that the futility of amending the language and specifics in the existing code is that the existing code is problematic from the start.
“When we think of agri-entertainment we think of weddings…we think of people,” Kelly began.
Kelly then pointed out that most of the agri-entertainment venues in Hall County are part of a farm. “What if they bring animals and have parties? Petting zoos, kids get kicked, thrown off a horse not wearing helmets? Does that fall into violations there?”
Commissioners agreed that Kelly's question was something needing consideration, possibly another amendment at a later date.
"You're making a good point," Commissioner Kathy Cooper told Kelly.
Second reading of the proposed code amendments will happen at the next voting session of the Hall County Commission on September 26th. At that time, in all likelihood, a final decision on the agri-entertainment code amendments will be rendered.
