Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council to consider seven variances for 1912 Lower Roswell redevelopment into auto repair shop

3280071 · May 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Applicant Malone's Automotive requested seven variances to redevelop 1912 Lower Roswell Road — including operating an auto repair shop within 200 feet of residentially‑zoned property and reductions to landscape buffers and setbacks — with the item scheduled for the regular meeting and applicant representation expected Wednesday.

Planning staff told the council Malone’s Automotive proposes redevelopment of 1912 Lower Roswell Road, a site currently occupied by an aging gas station and convenience store, into a new auto repair shop. Because of prior annexation and a set of earlier conditional variances, the applicant must now request seven variances related to the redevelopment.

Staff highlighted key variance requests likely to be before the council at the regular meeting: operating an auto repair shop within 200 feet of residentially zoned property, reducing the required landscape buffer from 40 feet to 0, and reducing the rear setback from 75 feet to 48 feet. Staff said several properties behind the site are residentially zoned in unincorporated Cobb County, which triggers the 200‑foot proximity rule in city code and thus requires a variance if the proposed use would operate within that distance.

The applicant (Malone’s Automotive) had indicated Joel Larkin would represent the project; staff said Parks Health (and the applicant’s representative) will present at Wednesday’s meeting. Staff also noted that when the property was annexed into the city in 2011, a previous set of variances were granted conditionally but discontinued when the site was redeveloped; the current redevelopment therefore requires new action.

A councilmember asked whether the current applicant owned the property in 2011; staff replied they believe it was the same owner and would confirm. Staff said the applicant will present additional mitigation measures, including proposed fencing or buffers, at the Wednesday hearing.

The council did not take a final vote at the work session; the matter was placed on the regular meeting agenda for public hearing and final action.