BREAKING
Nonprofit The Place is gifting the fun of prom to local high school students. Here’s how you can help.
"Prom is supposed to be magical, so you want it to be magical for everybody," DCHS principal Michael Negley said about The Place's ongoing "Gift of Prom" event at the high school..
Full Story
By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support local journalism.
Mistake sends Perimeter Road annexation request back to Dawsonville Planning Commission
City hall

An annexation and rezoning request that proposed to rezone 70.808 acres of land off Perimeter Road in Dawson County is headed back to the Dawsonville Planning Commission, following the recent discovery of a mistake in how the request was advertised to the public. 

During the Aug. 2 meeting of the Dawsonville City Council, council members voted unanimously to send the request by Allen Street Properties LLC and B & K Turner LLP back to planning at the request of City Attorney Kevin Tallant. 

The request, originally submitted in August 2020, originally asked for 74.85 acres to be annexed into city limits but was denied by the Dawsonville Planning Commission due to concerns of the annexation creating an unincorporated island of county land inside the city limits.


In response, the applicant amended the request to include 70.808 acres, eliminating the creation of the island. Approval of the request would annex the land into the city and rezone it for construction of a proposed 124-lot subdivision. 

At the city council’s July 19 meeting, Council Member Mark French voiced concerns about the way the request was originally advertised to the public, pointing out a mistake that was made when the city first advertised it. 

“In looking back at the advertisements when this was initially published in the legal organ, I don’t believe that the parcel number matched up with the publication,” French said. “[The correct one] begins with 093, and we advertised it beginning with 090.” 

After confirming the mistake, Tallant returned to the council with a recommendation to re-advertise the request and send it back to the Planning Commission. 

“Based upon an incorrect pin being used in some of the advertisements, it would be the recommendation of legal that in order to appropriately address it we should send this back to the planning commission, have the ads, have the signs posted, after which time it would be able to come before the city council for a public hearing and a vote,” Tallant said. 

According to Tallant, sending the request back to the planning commission shouldn’t affect the council’s final decision on Oct. 18, as previously planned. 

“I do believe we’ll still be able to make the date that you gave us last time,” Tallant said to the council. “We’ll still be able to meet that time frame if you do take action on it tonight to begin that process.”

Magazines