Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose industrial rezoning at Buffington Center Place; council hears public comments
Summary
A rezoning proposal to convert a property at 3600 Buffington Center Place from Office & Industrial to light industrial drew public opposition at a council hearing, where residents said a warehouse would harm the character of a largely office/business‑park corridor and affect nearby homes.
The council heard public comment on a rezoning request at 3600 Buffington Center Place (cases Z24‑029 and CB24‑011) where Chipti Atlanta Buffington LLC seeks to rezone property from Office & Industrial (O&I) to M‑1 (light industrial) for an approximately 80,000‑square‑foot industrial building.
Henry Bailey, attorney for the applicant, told the council the property was historically industrial, that the 2021 future land use designates the site for industrial use and that access to the site is off Buffington Center Place. He said the developer proposes vegetative buffering and a privacy fence along the property edges closest to residences and that the project’s anticipated traffic generation would be modest (his presentation cited an engineer’s estimate of about two trucks and roughly 30–34 autos during peak hours).
Neighbors who spoke at the hearing said the site sits at the dead end of Buffington Center Place inside a business‑park setting and that adding a warehouse would be “unfair” and would degrade the area’s character and nearby residence values. Speakers noted that several of the nearby properties — while marketed as a business park — are currently being used for office and institutional purposes and that some local homeowners had not been informed that an industrial operation might be sited adjacent to neighborhoods.
Director Reggie McClendon said staff’s recommendation is for conditional approval and that the planning commission recommended denial. No final council vote occurred at the April 22 session; the item was in the public‑hearing phase. Bailey and staff said the applicant had removed a concurrent variance request during the review process, and the developer indicated it would provide additional vegetative screening and fencing.
Ending: The council closed the public hearing and listed the case for subsequent consideration; no action was taken on the rezoning at the April 22 meeting. Neighbors and the applicant will both have opportunities to present additional information at future hearings.
