Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alpharetta council reconsiders Waters Road two‑lot subdivision after tree‑preservation confusion; defers final action
Summary
Council initially approved a two‑lot subdivision and setback variance at 10235 Waters Road but moved to reconsider after staff and the applicant disagreed about which plan had been adopted; council deferred final action to Jan. 26 so the applicant can supply architectural footprints and elevations.
The Alpharetta City Council on Nov. 17 initially approved a rezoning and variance to split 0.84 acres at 10235 Waters Road into two for‑sale single‑family lots, but immediately moved to reconsider and then deferred the item after a dispute about which site plan had been adopted.
Planning staff told the council the recommended approval would reduce the front setback on Lot 2 to 50 feet while keeping Lot 1 at the 65‑foot setback to preserve a 28‑inch water oak in the front yard. The applicant’s civil engineer, Barry Dunlop of Paradigm Engineering, said his preferred layout would instead move both homes forward to preserve rear canopy and avoid extensive retaining walls, and warned that the staff‑recommended plan would remove many rear trees.
Council members voted 5‑0 to approve the staff‑recommended motions, then the applicant said the plan that passed would clear rear trees; staff responded that their recommendation and the plan intended by staff would save the 28‑inch front oak. Because councilmembers acknowledged confusion about which plan they had voted on, Councilman Mitchell moved to reconsider; that motion passed 5‑0. After further discussion council voted unanimously to defer the matter to Jan. 26 to allow the applicant to provide architectural footprints, elevations and final site plans for council review.
What changed: The procedural reversal came after a disagreement in the council chamber about which of two alternative site plans (labeled 09/23 and 09/24 in staff materials) had been the subject of the motion. Staff said the recommendation that was intended to be approved would save the 28‑inch front water oak (plan 09/23), while the applicant had relied on a different layout. To resolve the disagreement and allow clearer review, council deferred the matter.
Next steps: The applicant is to return on Jan. 26 with finalized architectural footprints, elevations and any revised site grading/stormwater information; council said it expects to consider finalized plans, tree protections and any required conditions at that hearing.
