In 2024, the Greene County Board of Commissioners approved a zoning request from A1 to PUD for a 264-acre property near Veazey Connector, allowing the creation of 365 lots for the Lake Oconee Estates & Beach Club.
On April 8, 2025, Lake Oconee Estates requested another zoning change from A1 to PUD for three tracts totaling roughly 191.3 acres located at Leslie Mill Road and Veazey Connector.
The developer planned to annex the proposed PUD into the existing PUD for the second phase of Lake Oconee Estates, bringing an additional 325 single-family homes into the development.
Following a petition of more than 400 signatures opposing the development and a public hearing filled with area residents’ concerns about noise, traffic, and lake pollution, the BOC shut down the request with a 4-1 vote.
Now, Lake Oconee Estates has brought legal action against the county.
Plaintiffs Thomas Jackson Bennett III, executor of the estate of Lucy K. Barrett, Nancy Bruce, Lucy Ashe Reed, Tarrea D. Ashe Williams, Tempie Ashe, Derome Ashe Pressley, and Victor T. Ashe — represented by Underwood Scoggins — filed a complaint on May 7 in Greene County Superior Court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the county from enforcing the A1 restrictions and other restrictions that differ from the uses, layout, and standards described in the zoning request. They also asked the court to declare the BOC’s denial of the request “null and void” and require the county to rezone the subject properties.
Plaintiffs also requested that the county pay their attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
The plaintiffs argued that they cannot economically or feasibly develop or sell the subject properties under the current A1 regulations, and they indicated that a portion of the existing PUD splits the properties into two non-contiguous tracts, with the only practical means of ingress and egress provided by internal subdivision streets within the existing PUD.
The plaintiffs also said the proposed development conforms to the county’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan regarding the “West Greene Community,” acknowledging the trend of high-quality residential neighborhoods in the area. They noted the zoning request satisfied all legal requirements and received the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation for approval.
“Defendant has not articulated any standard, criterion, or objective factual basis to support its denial of the rezoning application, nor to support its continued imposition and enforcement of the A1 land use restrictions on the subject properties,” the complaint read. “Defendant’s denial of the rezoning application, as well as its continued enforcement of the A1 land use restrictions on the subject properties, imposes a significant detriment on plaintiffs without providing any benefit to the public, and it does nothing to substantially advance or further the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
“The continued imposition of the A1 land use restrictions on the subject properties discriminates in an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unconstitutional manner between plaintiffs and the owners of similarly situated properties without any rational basis for such,” continued the complaint. “The Board of Commissioners’ decision to deny the rezoning application and leave the subject properties encumbered by the A1 land use restrictions was made for no other reason than to appease residents who were opposed to any development of the subject properties. In so doing, the Board of Commissioners unlawfully delegated its legislative zoning power to private citizens in violation of state and federal law. … [The BOC] has improperly and in bad faith attempted to prevent plaintiffs’ sale and development of the subject properties in order to curry political favor with neighboring residents.”
According to the complaint, Greene County was made aware on two separate occasions of the developer’s intent to take legal action.
On April 2, prior to the BOC’s vote, development attorney Jay Dell gave the county notice of the plaintiffs’ intent to reserve all of their constitutional and legal rights if the zoning request was denied. On April 28, plaintiffs collectively sent another letter, notifying the county of legal and equitable claims that may be pursued as a result of the BOC’s “ongoing refusal to change the unconstitutional zoning restrictions that continue to encumber the subject properties.”
County leaders declined to comment on the case due to its pending court status.