Canton council hears public hearings on 208 for‑sale townhomes and requests to allow rental projects to offer fee‑simple units

Canton council members heard two related public hearings on Jan. 2 about housing projects on sites zoned RM‑15, including a conditional use permit for 208 for‑sale townhomes along Misty Way and Misty Court and a separate request to allow fee‑simple (for‑sale) units in developments previously approved as rental communities.

City planning staff told council the Misty Way/Misty Court parcel is zoned RM‑15 (residential multifamily, up to 15 units per acre) and contains 14 existing structures accounting for 28 living units. Staff said that, based on the property's acreage, a theoretical maximum of 339 units could be permitted before factoring roads, setbacks and buffers. The current application requests 208 townhomes as a for‑sale product.

The applicant's representative described the proposal as a for‑sale townhome product intended to broaden homeownership options. The representative said the design targets first‑time buyers and buyers seeking lower‑maintenance ownership, and noted adjacent development and planned industrial work nearby as part of the justification.

Resident Thomas Weaver spoke in opposition, saying the proposal "creates homes, but it's not necessarily creating great neighborhoods" and urged the council to enforce existing rules. Weaver noted that four parcels adjacent to the project are controlled by other governmental entities — the Cherokee County School District, the Cherokee County Building Authority, the State of Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — and warned that the city cannot compel improvements on those parcels. "I rise in respectful opposition to the proposal," he said, and urged strict scrutiny of any effort to skirt city entrance, fire‑code or street requirements.

Council members questioned staff and the applicant about vehicle access, emergency ingress/egress and traffic. Staff confirmed that developments with more than 124 dwelling units require two points of ingress and egress under the current code and that compliance with the International Fire Code (appendix G was cited) would be required if the project advances.

Council members and speakers discussed a potential easement through the adjacent school property that has previously been discussed as providing emergency access; staff said the school board had indicated interest but that the school’s legal staff was seeking stronger language than earlier paperwork. GDOT improvements on State Route 20 were also discussed: the applicant and staff noted GDOT has plans to median portions of SR‑20 but that the timeline is uncertain and likely longer than two years, meaning the roadway improvements may not exist before any home closings.

Separately, applicants asked council to amend prior approvals for a different project to allow fee‑simple ownership where the earlier conditional use permit and master plan had been written for rentals. Staff and the applicant said the change would not alter the number of units proposed but would add for‑sale as an option; the applicant said buyers and potential developers frequently request that option so they retain future flexibility.

Council did not take final action on either matter at the Jan. 2 meeting; both cases were presented in public hearing and council members requested additional information. Staff committed to provide the previous conditions from the earlier 2022 review, clarify whether homeowners association covenants would limit rentals, supply likely unit sizes and price‑point information on request, and confirm the status and language of any school‑property easement.

Next steps: both matters will return to the council for a later vote after staff compiles requested clarifications and any recommended conditions.