Conyers council votes to deny rezoning request for 1007 Irwin Bridge Road after testimony

Conyers City Council voted on a motion to deny Ordinance 14-09, a request to amend the comprehensive land-use plan and rezone 2.73 acres at 1007 Irwin Bridge Road from special mixed-use activity center / downtown center subarea to Industrial Distribution.

The council heard staff analysis from Scott Gaither of the City of Conyers planning and development staff, who recommended denial. Gaither told the council the site is not located along an arterial highway or near major transportation corridors, is adjacent to single-family and civic uses, and that more than 60 uses permitted in the Industrial Distribution district could be detrimental to nearby properties because of potential noise, odor, vibration and commercial vehicle traffic. Gaither said the proposal would amount to “spot zoning” and would undermine the city’s comprehensive plan.

The applicant was represented by Thomas Mitchell, who said the existing 28,560-square-foot metal building (built about 1986) historically hosted light industrial uses and that the building is not suited for retail or other uses listed under the current downtown center regulations. Mitchell submitted an appraisal letter from Ken Cantrell and photographs of the property and nearby parcels, and argued the structure’s configuration and condition mean the only realistic market for the site is light industrial or warehousing. He said the property has been vacant since September 27, 2023, and that denying the rezoning would leave the owner with little practical ability to reuse the site.

A nearby homeowner, Steven Holmes, spoke in favor of the rezoning, saying the building and surrounding area are effectively industrial and that denying the rezoning would prevent the owner from making the property productive. Holmes noted similar industrial uses nearby and the property’s proximity to a designated truck route and the railroad.

Councilmember Lindsay moved to deny Ordinance 14-09; the motion was seconded. The council conducted a hand vote. Four members voted in favor of denying the ordinance and three opposed. The council chair noted the vote was not unanimous and said a second reading would be required. The council’s recorded motion to deny passed on that vote.

The council packet and the staff report cited Conyers Code of Ordinances provisions related to nonconforming uses and zoning power criteria (including section 8-7-96(f)(1) regarding discontinuance of nonconforming uses). The Planning Commission had held a public hearing on Feb. 13 and recommended denial unanimously. Gaither told the council one person (a relative of the property owner) testified in favor at the planning commission hearing.

Council members asked staff about the number of allowed uses in the downtown center subarea (roughly 95 identified uses were available in the downtown center subarea, Gaither said) and about map and color coding in the packet. The applicant reserved time for rebuttal during the public hearing and reiterated that the parcel sits at the fringe of the downtown district, immediately adjacent to industrial parcels and the city’s fuel/maintenance property and that rezoning is the only plausible way to return the site to productive use.

The council did not adopt an industrial distribution designation for the parcel. Because the council’s vote to deny the ordinance was not unanimous, the chair indicated the item must return for a second reading as required by city procedure before the action is final.

What happens next: The council’s denial on first reading means the ordinance will return for the required second reading; staff and the applicant may provide additional materials or revisions ahead of that meeting.