Cobb County officials receive update on Unified Development Code; commissioners flag questions about planned-development allowances

Jeffrey Green, a principal with Clarion Associates, told the Cobb County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 25 that the county is in the drafting phase of a new Unified Development Code, or UDC, that will combine zoning, subdivision and design standards into one document.

The UDC is intended to consolidate the county’s development regulations and present them in three installments for public review. "UDC simply stands for unified development code," Green said, adding that the project began in 2022 and the consultants have delivered an initial installment covering development review and approval procedures.

The UDC project team told commissioners the document will be delivered in three parts: (1) administrative procedures and review processes, (2) zoning districts and use regulations, and (3) development standards such as parking, landscaping and lighting. The consultants said the approach is designed to make the code more readable, reduce repetitive text and provide clearer tables, flow charts and cross‑references.

Why it matters: the UDC will replace separate chapters that now govern rezoning, subdivision and site approvals and is intended to be the primary regulatory framework for land development in Cobb County. Changes in procedure, the introduction of planned development districts, and any new allowances will require applications, public notice and formal action by the board if adopted and mapped to property.

Consultants described several substantive procedural and substantive changes now in draft. Among them: an "administrative variance" that would allow staff to approve limited deviations from certain development standards — the draft presented to the board proposes 10% as the maximum deviation for setbacks, height and parking. Green described the proposed test for such a variance: an applicant would not have to show a traditional hardship but would need to show the modification "is required to compensate for some unusual aspect of a site" or to protect resources or trees and that the change "will not have a substantial impact on surrounding lands." Green said the administrative variance differs from a variance in that the applicant would not have to demonstrate a hardship.

The consultants also described a "zoning compliance permit" as a catchall to address approvals not specifically listed in the code, and a proposed planned development (PD) rezoning type intended to provide flexibility for larger or mixed‑use projects that do not fit a base district.

Commissioners pressed for more text and more time to review. Chairwoman Lisa Cupid thanked the consultants for identifying redundancies but said the material was "a lot to absorb." Commissioner Gamble (District 1) criticized an illustrative chart that showed which PD standards could be modified and which could not, saying, "That's discriminatory," and asking when the full PD text will be provided. Jessica Gwynn, Cobb County Community Development Agency director, said the PD text was in development, would be reviewed by staff and then circulated to the commission and public once available.

Commissioner Brown raised questions about new multifamily categories referenced in the draft. Commissioners were told the consultants expect to deliver multifamily and nonresidential district drafts to staff for review in mid‑March and that single‑family district drafts would be circulated to the board as soon as staff finishes its review.

Several commissioners asked staff to confirm notification and posting procedures that would accompany administrative decisions. Commissioner Sheffield asked who would approve administrative variances; Gwynn said the authority in the draft rests with the community development director or a designee. Sheffield also requested confirmation about mailed notice to neighbors and whether existing 30‑day/1,000‑foot mailer practices would remain; Gwynn said she would confirm details with zoning staff (John Peterson) and follow up with the board.

The consultants and staff reiterated that the UDC itself does not change zoning on any property automatically: new districts only apply to a parcel if and when an application is filed and the board approves a rezoning. "This process doesn't change the zoning of any property in the county," Gwynn said, explaining that assignments of any new districts would require the standard public process, including planning commission review and a board public hearing.

What’s next: staff will continue internal review, circulate drafted single‑family districts to commissioners, and expect to provide multifamily and other districts for staff review by mid‑March. Public and targeted community meetings will be scheduled as each installment is ready. Gwynn said the county intends to advertise the complete code amendment only when the board is comfortable with the draft because state rules create a 60‑day window for action after an amendment is advertised.

Ending: Commissioners generally supported a phased review and repeatedly asked for the full draft PD language and for staff confirmation of notice procedures before the board or public sees the next installment. Jeff Green urged the commissioners that consolidating repeated standards into single code sections would simplify future amendments: "If you decide to update the home occupation standards in the future, you won't have to make 21 separate changes." The UDC team and county staff said they will provide updated drafts and a schedule for additional commissioner briefings and public outreach.