Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norcross council delays decision on contested 60 Barton Street demolition after hours of testimony
Summary
The Norcross City Council, sitting as an appellate body, heard a multi-hour rehearing on an Architectural Review Board approval for a new home at 60 Barton Street. Residents raised stormwater and retaining-wall concerns; council voted to table the matter to the next policy work session in January.
The Norcross City Council voted to table a decision on an appeal of an Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval for 60 Barton Street after hearing proponents and opponents at a rehearing of the ARB record.
Council, acting as an appellate body, heard applicants' representatives argue the ARB properly applied the city's design standards and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness. Dan LeCroy, representing the applicant, told council that the ARB’s scope is architectural and aesthetic review and that "stormwater runoff concerns have no business in an architectural review board hearing." He and the applicant said they would condition a future building permit on a stormwater hydrology study if required.
Opponents, including resident Brady Reinhart and neighbor Shallon Anton, urged the council to consider runoff and retaining-wall risks, and to honor a previously discussed shared-driveway arrangement. Anton described observed flooding: "I've looked out my window with heavy rains and you're watching gallons and gallons, like, it's crazy how much is coming down." Other neighbors said the proposed house's style and potential tree removal could harm the character of the historic district.
City counsel and staff clarified code thresholds requiring professional stormwater review for certain levels of disturbance and said those engineering requirements are enforced at the permitting stage. Staff noted variances tied to the application (reduced front setback and a slight increase in permissible impervious surface) and referenced relevant sections of the city's development code and the comprehensive plan.
After questions and debate over the proper role of the ARB versus permitting and engineering review, council made and carried a motion to table the appeal until the next policy work session in January to allow additional review and follow-up. No final vote on the demolition or the Certificate of Appropriateness was taken at the meeting.
Next steps: the council will revisit the appeal at the policy work session in January, when staff is expected to provide additional technical information and any recommended conditions.
