Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks R‑20 conservation subdivision; commissioners express concerns about amenity location and neighbors
Summary
A developer proposed a 107‑lot R‑20 conservation design community with amenities including pickleball courts; staff recommended approval with 18 conditions plus five proffered conditions but commissioners flagged the proximity of the amenity site to an existing neighborhood and asked the applicant to consider relocating it.
Planning staff presented a rezoning request for roughly 88 acres to create a 107‑lot R‑20 conservation design community. The planning commission recommended approval subject to 18 conditions, and the applicant proffered five additional conditions after the public hearing.
Among the recommended and proffered conditions: limit the development to no more than 107 lots; require rehabilitation and Georgia EPD compliance for an existing on‑site dam; install 50‑foot undisturbed buffer between an amenity area and adjacent Woodridge Estates, plus a graded and replanted buffer; no pickleball court lighting; and limits on amenity hours. Planning staff also said the applicant withdrew requests to encroach on primary conservation areas but still sought variances to allow some lots not to abut 50 feet of green space and to allow more than 10 contiguous lots in places.
Why this matters: the project would convert undeveloped acreage into a sizable residential subdivision under the county’s conservation design rules, with detailed conditions intended to protect adjacent neighborhoods and environmental resources. Commissioners focused on the location of the community amenity (the clubhouse/pickleball area), saying its current placement is close to neighboring homes in Woodridge Estates.
Commissioner concerns and planning responses
- Amenity location: several commissioners asked if the amenity complex could be relocated to a more interior location or adjacent to major green‑space areas so that the amenity’s noise and traffic would be borne chiefly by the development’s own lots rather than neighboring properties. One commissioner noted, “If you...replace some of the lots there and put the amenity center there and then move the lots back up to the front, it still wouldn't be totally interior, but it would be a long way from any outside residences.” - Buffers and screening: staff and the applicant proposed a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer and an additional 20‑ to 25‑foot graded and replanted buffer adjacent to the neighboring subdivision; a wall or sound‑attenuating fence was proffered between the pickleball courts and adjacent lots; the applicant also proffered no lighting at the pickleball courts. - Design and approvals: the planning commission’s recommended conditions include age‑restriction language (an 80% occupancy rule for at least one adult 55+), minimum garage size, HOA covenants, limits on rental units, design standards, stormwater quantity/quality control and traffic improvements (including a GDOT‑spec left‑turn lane on East Cherokee Drive where required by traffic study).
Next steps
Staff said that since the planning commission’s recommendation came with conditions and the applicant submitted revised materials, the case would proceed toward the Board’s hearing calendar. Commissioners asked staff to give the applicant an opportunity to consider relocating the amenity and to be prepared for a possible postponement to allow the applicant to revise the plan.
Ending
The Board signaled it is inclined to approve a conservation design with strong buffers and conditions but wants the applicant to revisit the amenity location to reduce impacts on adjacent neighbors; staff will carry that request into forthcoming hearing materials.
