Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies rezoning for 77‑unit townhome project after neighbors cite density, traffic and school impacts

2802444 · March 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board rejected a request to rezone 11.54 acres for a 77‑unit townhome development near Westmoreland and Sunset drives, following public opposition and a staff/planning commission review that found the site plan lacked required amenities and exceeded impervious surface limits for R6 zoning.

Spalding County commissioners on March 27 denied a rezoning request that would have allowed a 77‑unit townhome development on roughly 11.5 acres on Old Atlanta Road and North Expressway.

The applications (2501Z/2502Z and related variance requests) were linked and drew multiple speakers from the Westmoreland/Sunset Drive neighborhoods who said the planned density would change the character of the area, increase traffic on already‑congested Old Atlanta Road, and strain nearby Cowen Road schools. Lindsay Hortman and other neighbors explained that the community’s 2042 comprehensive plan calls for a suburban transition and argued the proposed R6 (planned residential community) density and unit types did not match nearby single‑family neighborhoods.

The planning commission and county staff had recommended denial of the rezoning, citing the submitted site plan’s failure to meet R6 amenity and impervious‑surface standards and concerns that the planned rear‑entry garage configuration would not fit the narrow tract. The applicant, represented by Hank Dudek, presented a project rendering, said the development would include buffers and private amenities, and offered to restrict vinyl siding and use higher‑quality materials; he argued for an impervious percentage nearer 33% rather than the 25% suggested by staff.

Commissioners questioned whether the development would function as intended, raised concerns about enforcement and long‑term maintenance, and noted a history in the county of rental conversion of newly built homes. After discussion a motion to deny the future land use map amendment and the rezoning carried 5‑0; subsequent variance and amenity requests tied to the rezoning were therefore rendered moot.

Votes at a glance

Future Land Use Map amendment (application 52501): denied, vote 5‑0. Rezoning to R6 (application 62502Z): denied, vote 5‑0. Variances for rear access/amenities (application 72502B): denied, vote 5‑0.