Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stonecrest board denies variance to reduce access points for proposed 47‑lot subdivision at 3810 Evans Mill Road after heavy neighborhood opposition
Summary
After lengthy public comment and debate over traffic, fire access and environmental concerns, the Zoning Board of Appeals sided with staff and denied Parkland Communities’ request to reduce required access points for a proposed 47‑lot R100 subdivision at 3810 Evans Mill Road.
The City of Stonecrest Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 16 denied a variance request that would have reduced the number of required access points for a proposed 47‑lot subdivision at 3810 Evans Mill Road, siding with staff findings that the application did not meet the code’s variance criteria.
Senior planner Ramona Everly told the board the 48.54‑acre site contains floodplain and three streams and that staff concluded the variance would adversely affect adjacent properties; staff recommended denial. The case traces to an earlier 2020 rezoning application for a larger assemblage, but staff said the current parcel must be judged on its own merits and in light of the city’s access and environmental standards.
Michelle Battle, representing Parkland Communities, told the board the parcel is a separate tax parcel and that the applicant seeks to develop 47 single‑family R100 lots without rezoning. Battle said the applicant requested a reduction from four to three access points (and not 4 to 2, as one staff report stated) and submitted a traffic impact study and correspondence from DeKalb County Fire Rescue contending the proposed layout meets fire‑apparatus access requirements. "We are trying to develop this as currently zoned," Battle said.
Neighbors — including the Hunters Communities Homeowners Association president and other residents — urged denial, citing long‑standing safety and traffic issues at Hunters Hill Drive and Salem Road, potential environmental harm to streams and wetlands, and the prospect of through‑traffic and degraded community character. One resident said the neighborhood has coped with a grandfathered single access for decades and warned that cutting new access points through existing subdivisions would worsen safety and traffic conflicts. Comments also raised concerns about rental conversions and impacts on property values.
Board members reviewed code standards for variances and staff’s evaluation that the applicant had not met those criteria. After discussion and motions, the board voted to support staff’s recommendation to deny V25‑005. The transcript records the motion, second and approval but does not include a roll‑call tally.
