Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks rezoning for RV and self-storage facility on Fork Shoals Road; neighbor presses for larger screening
Summary
Philip Dean asked to rezone a 13.64-acre parcel on Fort Shoals Road to allow an RV, boat and self-storage facility adjacent to his existing storage business. Support came from the property owner; a neighbor urged stronger landscape screening than the six-foot recommendation noted in county materials.
Philip Dean appeared at a public hearing to request rezoning of a 13.64-acre parcel at 2726 Fort Shoals Road in Piedmont to an S-1 services district to allow an RV, boat and self-storage facility adjacent to his existing business.
Dean told the council he owns and operates an adjoining storage facility and wants to expand into the subject parcel because his current facility is full and there is local demand. "It's pretty low impact," he said, describing plans to use the existing entrance, provide coded gate access and build storage buildings and RV parking.
Doug Sprayberry, the current property owner, spoke in favor and said he originally feared development impacts but has been "pleasantly surprised" by the adjacent storage facility's operation. James Yancey, a next-door property owner, said he opposed the rezoning unless the developer installs adequate visual screening. Yancey asked for trees or "barricades of trees or something to make sure that I don't see it," saying the site currently provides a favorable view from his home.
Dean said the site plan submitted to zoning includes a landscape buffer and that he and the property owner discussed planting fast-growing trees similar to those used at a previous facility on West Georgia Road. He noted the county requires a 25-foot landscape buffer along residential interfaces and said the plan reflects required screening and other zoning buffers.
During the public hearing, a neighbor said that county staff's materials referenced only a six-foot planting recommendation; Yancey said a six-foot tree would not be sufficient. Staff clarified that the submitted site plan calls for county-required landscape buffers and that the developer will be required to meet landscaping and screening standards during site plan review.
No vote was taken; the public hearing begins a multi-step review process. The case will go to the Planning and Development Committee for consideration and a recommendation to county council at subsequent readings.
