Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buffer Variance Commercial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks 3–3 on Mountain Creek Road buffer-waiver request after strong neighborhood opposition
Summary
The Board of Appeals considered V25-35, a developer's request to remove neighborhood transition buffer requirements for a proposed three-story office building at 5825 Mountain Creek Road, but the motion to approve staff's recommended conditions failed on a 3'to—2 tie after residents raised concerns about character, traffic and flooding.
A proposed variance to remove required neighborhood transition buffers at 5825 Mountain Creek Road failed on a 3'to—2 vote during the Sandy Springs Board of Appeals meeting on Nov. 5, following extensive public comment and deliberation.
Senior Planner Matthew Anspaugh presented V25-35 and explained staff recommended approval with conditions: retain 20 feet of the vegetative portion of the transition buffer, work with the city arborist on an all-evergreen planting plan (minimum 10 feet tall at planting and 35 feet mature height) and provide a fence or wall as required, and modify building plans to ensure interparcel access.
Applicant Masood Zohedi, a local developer and long-time Sandy Springs resident, said the parcel already contains roughly 360 feet of natural buffer and described flooding, aging sewer infrastructure and a canceled city sidewalk project that he said the redevelopment would address. "I am asking for that variance to make the job easier for me to do what I'm supposed to do to bring this property up to code," Zohedi said.
Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, citing concerns about a three-story office building next to existing homes, traffic and a lack of a clear plan for mixed zoning and taxation. Anne Day, who said she was born and raised on the street, asked what would come next if commercial conversion continued and questioned whether the city's handling of mixed zoning was consistent.
Board discussion referenced the city's comprehensive plan and the intent to transition portions of the area to commercial use, but members were divided on whether the staff-recommended mitigation would adequately protect adjacent residential properties. A motion to approve staff-recommended conditions was moved and seconded but failed on a 3'to—2 vote (three ayes, three nays). The chair declared the motion failed on a tie; no variance was granted.
