Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses vote on RM‑3 rezoning for proposed affordable senior housing at 155 Witt Davis Road
Summary
A proposed rezoning to RM‑3 that developer said would support a low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) application was tabled for 30 days after commissioners raised concerns about straight rezoning versus binding commitments and sought clarity about the proposed covenant term.
A request to rezone 2.06 acres at 155 Witt Davis Road from CN (Commercial Neighborhood) to RM‑3 (mixed‑density residential) was placed on hold for one cycle May 6 after commissioners expressed concern about approving a straight rezoning rather than a binding site plan for what developer representatives said would be age‑restricted affordable housing.
Applicant counsel David Ellison told the commission his client planned to apply for Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits and proposed an age‑restricted development with a restrictive covenant for 30 years. Ellison said the developer has experience with more than 100 affordable housing projects in Georgia and would aim for 35 units at 60% AMI and 11 at 50% AMI under voluntary programs; staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Commissioners raised questions about the risks of approving a straight rezoning without binding site‑plan conditions, noting past instances where rezoned projects did not materialize as promised. Commissioner Davenport made a motion to deny the straight rezone unless a binding commitment was offered; Commissioner Link offered a substitute motion to table for 30 days so the applicant could respond and to avoid missing the tax‑credit cycle. The applicant confirmed the restrictive covenant would be 30 years if the project were approved. The motion to table carried, and staff and the applicant were directed to report back with clarifications and potential binding mechanisms for senior/age‑restricted commitments.
Planning staff and the developer indicated willingness to discuss site connectivity, recreational amenities and a community garden referenced in the application materials. The applicant requested that denial not be used procedurally because that could affect eligibility for the tax‑credit cycle; commissioners opted to allow a hold to permit further negotiation.
