Stonecrest zoning board denies setback variances for proposed flex-space at 2336 South Stone Mountain Road

The City of Stonecrest Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday denied a request to reduce required setbacks for a proposed commercial development at 2336 South Stone Mountain Road, rejecting variances that would have reduced the front setback from 60 feet to 30 feet and the side setback from 60 feet to 20 feet.

Planning staff presented the application, V25-002, and recommended denial after finding the applicant had not demonstrated an exceptional condition or undue hardship and raising safety and buildability concerns tied to a nearby cell tower and stormwater constraints. "The applicant has not demonstrated the presence of any exceptional conditions or undue hardship," planning staff member Donald Paul said during the board presentation.

The project team, represented at the hearing by Scott Bennett and Patrick Kelly, told the board they had already invested in cleanup and wished to redevelop the triangular, 2.3-acre site into small flex-space buildings with interior parking. "We will invest the time and the money into it," Scott Bennett said, describing the proposal as a way to attract small businesses and to replace what he called a former dumping site with new development. He said his team had discussed the site with the cell-tower owner and expected the tower owner to negotiate easement changes once engineering plans were available.

Board members and staff pressed the applicants for specifics. Staff and at least one board member said potential proximity of a building to the cell tower and uncertainty about the tower owner's final position on an easement change raised safety and practical concerns. "I would have a number of safety concerns about that," a planning staff speaker said, referring to a potential building located immediately below the tower.

Board members also noted that staff had prepared its written recommendation without confirmation that the tower owner had agreed to any easement modification. Patrick Kelly confirmed preliminary contact with the carrier and said the carrier had signaled willingness to consider relocation of access provided they receive engineering drawings. "They're perfectly fine moving it provided they have access," Kelly said of the carrier's preliminary posture.

Legal counsel advised the board that the zoning board's options on a variance application are to grant or deny under the applicable code section. After discussion about new information presented at the hearing and staff concerns about the plan's buildability without final engineering, a board member moved to deny the variances. The motion to deny was seconded and passed by roll call; the board recorded aye votes for the participating district seats and the motion was approved.

The denial preserves the current setback requirements and means the applicant would have to redesign a plan that meets the 60-foot front and 60-foot side setbacks if they wish to pursue development without relief. Planning staff noted the project will require full engineered plans, negotiated easement documentation with the cell-tower owner, and land-disturbance and stormwater approvals before any construction could proceed. The applicant told the board they could return with revised plans and additional documentation.