The Newnan City Council on Nov. 25 denied a rezoning request from BrightSky Residential that would have changed 20.73 acres at 459 Jefferson Street from CGN (general commercial) to RMH (multifamily higher density). The application had been revised during the process to reduce the proposed unit count from 140 to 132.

Planning staff summarized the project and the staff conditions: the revised concept increases setbacks (from 40 to 80 feet from the Jefferson centerline), raises off-street parking from 55 head-in spaces to 90, and increases perimeter landscaping. Staff said the application met seven of eight rezoning standards but noted two outstanding variance requests: a 4-foot driveway separation in lieu of the 8-foot standard for townhouse designs and a 20-foot minimum building-line width versus the ordinance’s 26-foot requirement. The Planning Commission had recommended denial.

Attorney Steven Jones and BrightSky representatives presented renderings and described internal greenways, amenity areas, rear-loaded townhome designs and standard finishes. They said environmental constraints limited viable commercial access on the parcel, arguing residential was a more practical land use for the site.

Multiple residents opposed the rezoning during public comment, raising traffic and emergency-response concerns, school impacts, affordability and neighborhood character. A resident described Jefferson Street as a primarily working-class corridor and urged the council to preserve commercial zoning. Other speakers said the project’s parking and vehicle counts would increase congestion and strain services.

Council members questioned driveway widths, building-line dimensions, bus turnarounds and fire apparatus access. Engineers and the applicant said the design would be required to meet the International Fire Code and that hammerheads and internal turnarounds were included; the school-bus pick-up strategy would rely on internal stops rather than traversing the entire site.

After discussion, councilmembers who supported the Planning Commission’s position said the property can be used as currently zoned and that commercial options had not been exhausted. A motion to deny RZ2025-07 was made, seconded and carried by voice vote. The council also accepted the Planning Commission’s report before acting on the ordinance.

The council’s action was procedural: denial of the rezoning request. No formal conditions or approvals were adopted for the applicant; the applicant may pursue other avenues available under local processes.