Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table Revive Land Group residential rezoning amid right‑of‑way concerns
Summary
Revive Land Group’s proposal for a mixed residential development on a 101.57‑acre site was tabled to April 22 while commissioners and staff review road right‑of‑way impacts; the proposal includes both single‑family lots and townhomes and added on‑street parking after Planning Commission review.
Hall County commissioners tabled a rezoning request from Revive Land Group LLC for about 101.57 acres near Cagle Road to allow further review of right‑of‑way and traffic impacts on nearby roads.
Planning staff described the Revive Land Group application as a request to rezone from Agricultural Residential 1 to Residential Mixed to support a residential development with a mix of detached single‑family homes and attached townhomes. Planning staff’s summary said the application was for a 248‑lot development; the applicant’s presentation described the project as 207 single‑family detached lots plus 55 townhomes (262 total). The applicant said the plan was consistent with the county’s new Unified Development Code (RX category) and with the comprehensive plan’s Employment and Business Corridor designation in the area, and that the proposal’s overall net density was well below the comp plan maximum for the corridor.
Neville Allison, representing the applicant, described product mix and amenities: two hundred and seven single‑family lots with varied widths (including 54 lots wider than 50 feet) and 55 two‑story townhomes, plus a resort‑style amenity package (pool, cabana, clubhouse, dog park and potential pickleball courts). Allison said the team added 51 on‑street parking spaces to the plan to address stakeholder comments and that unit dimensions and driveway lengths were sized to reduce sidewalk encroachment.
Commissioners said they had ongoing concerns about road capacity and right‑of‑way along the affected corridors and asked for additional time to review engineering and traffic information. One commissioner moved to table the item to April 22 so commissioners could discuss right‑of‑way and road impacts; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Ending — The applicant will return at the April 22 meeting after staff and commissioners have time to evaluate right‑of‑way impacts and related traffic and infrastructure questions. The record reflects differing lot totals in the staff summary and the applicant’s presentation; the applicant and staff should reconcile unit counts prior to the next hearing.
