Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Sherwood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies conditional use for small ‘neighborhood store’ on Sherwood Drive after residents raise safety, parking concerns
Summary
The board denied a conditional‑use permit for a 672‑square‑foot small box variety store at 664 Sherwood Drive after staff, the zoning advisory group and residents cited nonconformance with General Business standards, safety, lack of parking and neighborhood impacts.
The Clayton County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday denied a conditional‑use permit for a small box variety store proposed at 664 Sherwood Drive, following objections from planning staff, the zoning advisory group and numerous nearby residents.
The applicant proposed a 672‑square‑foot neighborhood store intended to sell fresh food and convenience items, and told the board the business would dedicate more than 10% of floor space to fresh food and would accept SNAP/EBT. “This is not a big box store. It is a 672 square foot, community asset,” the applicant said.
Why it was denied
County planning staff recommended denial, saying the proposed development would not meet the General Business district’s required building standards and that the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet could not be achieved under the site’s conditions, creating a nonconforming lot. The Zoning Advisory Group also recommended denial.
Residents who spoke against the project detailed safety and quality‑of‑life concerns: increased traffic on a single‑entry neighborhood street, limited parking and the presence of school buses and children; potential for loitering, increased crime risk cited by some speakers; reduced property values and neighborhood disruption. Dr. Jim Dykes, a long‑time Sherwood Forest resident, said traffic and school‑bus interactions made the site unsuitable for commercial use.
Board action
Commissioner Damon Davis moved to deny the conditional use permit; the board voted in favor and the motion passed. The transcript records no roll call tally; staff recorded the matter as denied.
Context and applicant response
The applicant and supporters argued the store would improve access to fresh food for residents without vehicles and would include design features (fencing, lighting, security cameras, limited hours) to reduce impacts. Staff and multiple residents said nearby alternatives and code requirements weigh against the parcel’s suitability for the proposed use.
The denial follows a public hearing and prior tabling at earlier meetings; staff and the zoning advisory group have consistently recommended denial in this matter.
