Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton council hears split reaction to proposed 198-condominium development off Hwy. 140
Summary
Developers seek annexation and rezoning of 14.91 acres for 198 for‑sale condominium units; staff says requested density exceeds the comprehensive plan and neighbors cited traffic and drainage concerns. No final vote was taken.
Council members reviewed a proposal to annex and rezone 14.91 acres along April and Lucky Streets for a 198‑unit condominium development during a public hearing Dec. 5.
The applicant, represented by attorney Parks Huff of Sams, Lockett & Huff, told the council the project would deliver 198 for‑sale condominium units housed in 11 buildings, with mainly one‑ and two‑bedroom stacked‑flat units and a projected five‑year buildout. Huff said the developer intends to improve failing roads and stormwater infrastructure in the area as part of the project.
Staff and residents framed the issue differently. City staff told council the requested density—about 13 units per acre—exceeds the city’s comprehensive plan recommendation for the area of 4–6 dwelling units per acre, which staff said would equate to a maximum of 89 units for the site. In response to a council question, staff confirmed the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan’s density recommendation.
Neighbor Thomas Weaver, speaking in respectful opposition, said traffic and drainage already strain the corridor and predicted the development would add “between 3 to 400 added vehicles” to narrow local roads. Weaver asked council to decline the proposal unless the applicant can demonstrate or fund transportation infrastructure improvements. Huff replied that the applicant would make required improvements and follow Georgia Department of Transportation suggestions, and said many residents might drive less because housing would be closer to local employers such as Northside Hospital.
Council also asked about limiting future conversion of owner‑occupied condominiums to rentals. City Attorney Dyer said the council could impose a condition in the zoning approval requiring the condominium declaration to prohibit rentals; he cautioned, however, that long‑term enforcement could be difficult.
The hearing produced no vote on the annexation or rezoning; council closed the public hearing and moved to discussion and follow‑up questions for staff. Council members asked for more detail on pricing, unit mix and accessibility features, and noted the applicant had identified a secondary, emergency ingress/egress that would cross housing authority property but had not finalized an agreement with that property owner.
The case will return to the council for future consideration; no final action was recorded on Dec. 5.
