Under Section 15.18(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners shall determine whether an appeal will be considered. If the Board elects to consider the appeal, direct staff to place it on a future agenda for a public hearing, with notice under Sections 18.3-3 and 18.3-5(A)(7). If the Board declines to consider the appeal, the determination is affirmed and constitutes the final decision of the Board of Commissioners.
Background
- September 22, 2026: Ms. Brock contacted Planning and Zoning about operating a learning pod at the property. Staff sent written questions, and she responded the same day.
- September 24, 2026: In consultation with the County Attorney's office, staff issued a written determination:
- The program does not meet the definition of a "learning pod" under the Learning Pod Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690(f).
- The use classifies as a Private School (Elementary and Secondary School, LBCS 6120–6125, NAICS 611110) under Article 4 and Section 7.7-15c. That is a Restricted Use in AG under Table 7.2.
- The use is not permitted by right at this location because Section 7.7-15c(2) requires the main entrance to be on an arterial, major collector, or minor collector road, and Old Lathemtown Road is a local road. The 5-acre minimum in Section 7.7-15c(1) is met.
- The summer program would classify as a day camp or childcare use, which is not permitted at this location.
- September 24, 2026: Ms. Brock submitted additional information and asked the County to reconsider.
- September 25, 2026: After further review with the County Attorney's office, staff reaffirmed the determination in writing. Two independent grounds were given:
- The ColLab, not an association of parents, holds authority over the program.
- The statutory element requiring the pod to participate in or enhance "a remote learning option offered by their primary educational program" is not met.
- October 2, 2026: Ms. Brock filed a letter of appeal on behalf of The ColLab Think it Learn it Do it LLC under Sections 15.14(A) and 15.18. Under Section 15.14(A), interpretations of permitted uses are appealed to the Board of Commissioners. The appeal was filed within the 10 calendar days required by Section 15.18(A).
Grounds for appeal (as stated by appellant)
- Parent association and authority. The Act permits paid assistance with organizing, facilitating, and operating a pod. Parents keep final authority over their own children's participation.
- Home study and remote learning. The Act's definition of "primary education" in subsection (f)(2)(D) is broad. The appellant offers, prospectively, to require families to document a qualifying remote learning option.
- Classification and road access. The appellant challenges the private school classification. If it is upheld, she asks for review of how Section 7.7-15c(2) was interpreted and applied.
- State law protections. If the use qualifies under the Act, she asks that its exemptions apply, including to the road-access requirement, and that subsection (f)(8) be considered.
- Written findings and site-specific evidence. She requests written findings and consideration of site-specific evidence.
She also asks whether a variance, text amendment, or other process could address the road-access requirement.
Issues for the Board
- Standing. The appellant is a prospective purchaser with no contract or ownership interest. Owner authorization was not included; she states it may follow. Section 15.18 does not specify who may appeal to the Board of Commissioners.
- Scope of evidence. Under Section 15.18(C), evidence is confined to the decision appealed and the notice of appeal. Ground 2 proposes a prospective requirement that was not part of the proposal the determination addressed.
- Board options. Under Section 15.18(B), the Board first decides whether to consider the appeal. Denying review affirms staff's determination. If the Board proceeds, it holds a public hearing and may affirm, or take other relief it deems appropriate and lawful, under Section 15.18(D). Fee: $250 plus advertising costs.