Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newnan City council reviews annexation and rezoning for 61-home Roscoe Road development
Summary
At a June 17 work session the Newnan City Council discussed an applicant’s request to annex portions of two tax parcels and rezone roughly 20–21 acres to permit 61 single-family homes; no council vote was taken.
Newnan City Council members met in a June 17 work session to review an annexation petition and a rezoning request from Greg Rogers for a roughly 21.7-acre residential development on Roscoe Road and the State Route 34 bypass.
City staff member Cole summarized the request, saying the applicant seeks to rezone the main parcel from CGN to RU-7 “for the purpose of constructing 61 fee simple, 1 or 2 story single family detached homes.” Cole said the overall project area would total about 21.71 acres and that the proposal’s density of 2.8 units per acre falls under the RU-7 maximum of four units per acre.
The matter matters to neighbors and to the city’s long-term boundaries: the applicant also asked to annex two partial parcels — roughly 1.1994 acres on the State Route 34 bypass (tax parcel 073 B 033) and 0.4996 acres on Roscoe Road (portion of tax parcel 073 B 032). Cole said the proposal would leave a 50-foot strip of those parcels in the county to “prevent land locking of parcels around them.” Mr. Motley, who spoke during the session, clarified that the strips are intended to avoid creating isolated islands for annexation purposes rather than to address driveway access.
Planning and approvals already in the record include a May 6, 2025 Coweta County Board of Commissioners action filing no objection to the annexation petition and a June 10 planning commission recommendation to approve the rezoning and annexation by a 6–0 vote with conditions. Cole summarized the planning commission conditions: developers must work with planning and beautification staff on screening along State Route 34; maintain 30–40-foot buffers to adjoining Green properties; install a fence for screening; meet the city’s tree conservation and landscape ordinance; and conform to the submitted concept plan, elevations and project data. Cole also said the development would be limited to 61 units and that a final plat would be provided combining the tracks.
The applicant’s submission includes project design and program details. Cole said homes would be masonry and hardy board with accents, range from about 2,000 to 3,200 square feet, and be priced in the proposed range of about $390,000 to $550,000. The application proposes a minimum of 1,000 square feet of open space per dwelling (61,000 square feet required total) and offers about 244,000 square feet of open space, roughly 25.8 percent of the site. The proposal would limit rentals to a maximum of 10 percent and include internal sidewalks; the applicant’s representative confirmed sidewalks are planned inside the subdivision only.
Council members and the mayor asked several practical questions about the design and impacts. The mayor and others expressed concern that rear yards would face the heavily traveled State Route 34 bypass, noting a guardrail and an open field between the proposed rear property lines and the roadway. The mayor requested additional landscape screening at the rear elevations so travelers would not see backyards and so future homeowners would have a visual and noise buffer. Findlay Trustclaire, who the applicant identified as the builder, said rear elevations include covered porches and that the builder would follow the landscape plan; he said the builder had an interest in protecting future homebuyers.
Council members also questioned pedestrian connectivity and sidewalks. One councilman said sidewalks currently pick up at Christian Drive and that the unincorporated gaps along Roscoe Road leave pedestrians to “take your life in your own hands” walking on Roscoe Road; Cole and staff said internal sidewalks are planned but sidewalks connecting the new neighborhood to existing city sidewalks were not part of the current plan. Council members asked the applicant to bring clearer rear elevations, screening details and sidewalk/connectivity plans to the public hearing.
Council did not take a vote at the work session; the meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn. Staff and the applicant were asked to return for the public hearing with additional details on screening, elevations facing the bypass and connectivity to city sidewalks.
