Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee sends Mount Moriah rezoning to full council with no recommendation amid floodplain concerns
Summary
A rezoning request for roughly 23 acres near Mount Moriah Road drew split views at the Planning and Zoning Committee. Planning staff and the Land Use Control Board recommended rejection because the site sits in a floodplain, is partially landlocked and lacks immediate arterial access; the committee sent the case to council with no recommendation.
A request to rezone about 22–23 acres near Mount Moriah Road from residential and conservation agriculture to Commercial Mixed‑Use (CMU‑3) was considered by the Planning and Zoning Committee on May 6. City planning staff and the Land Use Control Board both recommended rejection, and the committee ultimately advanced the case to full council with no recommendation.
Nut Graf: Planning staff said the site lies partly in a floodway and in the city’s highest resiliency flood zone, and it currently lacks direct access to an arterial road. Staff and the LUCB concluded those factors make CMU‑3 — the most intensive commercial mixed‑use district — incompatible without a more detailed site plan or access strategy. The applicant said the property is a longstanding investment parcel and that the owner seeks a rezoning to make the land marketable for future development.
Chloe Christian of the Division of Planning and Development reviewed staff findings: the property is designated as “open space and natural features” in the comprehensive plan, is in a floodway and in “resiliency Zone 4,” and appears to have been used as a borrow pit for a past highway project. Christian said CMU‑3 requires direct access to an arterial street and that the subject parcel has no such improved access; she noted the applicant had no present plan to create arterial access.
Applicant representative Brian Boccasian and the property owner argued the site is adjacent to existing office and commercial developments and that a rezoning to CMU‑3 would allow a range of compatible uses — from offices to nursing homes and indoor recreation — that could make the parcel viable. Councilman Carlisle disclosed a small, passive interest in adjacent office property before asking questions about how to make the site marketable.
Councilwoman Green, whose district includes the site, said she had met with the applicant and that nearby residents had written opposing letters. She said flooding of downstream yards during recent storms made residents wary of additional impermeable surface on the parcel. Several council members said they wanted stronger evidence of access plans and drainage mitigation before supporting a straight rezoning.
Outcome: The committee voted to advance the case to the full council with no committee recommendation and requested that the applicant continue dialogue with staff and provide additional information. The committee recorded requests for same‑day minutes and held the item for two weeks before final council consideration; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
