Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies three planning requests, approves one small annexation; PRD expansion defeated
Summary
The council denied an 8,818.3‑acre annexation request, rejected a PRD expansion that would have added 13 townhomes, and approved annexation of a 6.04‑acre lot to allow a single home to connect to Smyrna sewer; planning commission recommendations and staff reports guided the votes.
The Smyrna Town Council considered multiple planning‑related items reported through the Planning Commission and took both approvals and denials on separate requests.
Council voted to deny a large annexation request submitted on behalf of the Rollins Marshall Trust for approximately 8,818.3 acres; planning staff said the application had been before the Planning Commission repeatedly and the commission recommended denial. Staff and council members cited outstanding issues such as sewer and transportation impacts and asked the applicant to address the concerns before resubmitting.
The council approved a separate annexation for a 6.04‑acre parcel at 6304 Lee Road (requested by Weekly Homes LLC) to allow one house to connect to Smyrna sewer and to bring the lot into town R‑1 zoning. Planning staff said services (other than water) would be provided by the town and that the consolidated utility district would continue to supply water. The planning commission and staff recommended approval; a council member abstained from the vote because of prior involvement with the parcel.
The council also denied a request to rezone a 1.28‑acre parcel at 570 Rock Springs Road from R‑4 to PRD to add 13 townhomes and attach it to the Hart Branch Village PRD. Staff told the council the standalone density would be about 10.16 units per acre and would raise the overall development density slightly. Several council members said they were reluctant to allow an expansion that would rely on an earlier PRD’s standards rather than meet current PRD parking and density requirements; the motion to deny carried.
Planning staff said the denials do not prevent future applications but noted applicants will need to address sewer capacity, transportation impact, and zoning compatibility if they resubmit. Council asked staff to provide impact‑fee and infrastructure‑cost analyses if large annexation requests return for consideration.
