Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buffer Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request to cut industrial–residential buffer at Tommy Lee Cook Road, citing lack of hardship
Summary
Coweta County's Board of Zoning Appeals on March 26 denied a request to reduce a required 100-foot buffer to 20 feet for a proposed outdoor trailer-storage facility at 498 Tommy Lee Cook Road, concluding the applicant failed to show the legal hardship required for a variance. The recommendation will be reviewed by the Board of Commissioners April 21.
The Coweta County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a petition March 26 to reduce a required industrial-to-residential buffer at 498 Tommy Lee Cook Road.
Zoning coordinator Nicole Blackwell told the board the applicant, Randall Nick Crawford, proposes an outdoor storage facility on roughly 15.68 acres zoned M (industrial) and has submitted a site plan showing 178 tractor-trailer parking spaces. Under Article 25 of the Coweta County zoning and development ordinance, a 100-foot buffer is required where industrial adjoins residential zoning; the applicant asked to reduce that buffer by 80 feet to a 20-foot buffer along the northernmost segment of the eastern property line. Blackwell flagged potential visual impacts to adjacent residential parcels and presented recommended conditions for approval, including limiting access locations, right-in/right-out controls for additional drives, and stormwater management measures under Chapter 30 of the Coweta County Code of Ordinances.
The project's civil engineer said topography, a Georgia Power transmission easement that crosses roughly a third of the site and elevation changes constrained developable area. "A third of the property ... is encumbered by Georgia Power and Georgia Transmission Corp. easements," the engineer said, arguing those constraints and grade changes limit layout options and parking counts.
Board members questioned whether the constraints amount to the legal hardship required for a variance. The chair responded, "What you're stating is a hardship does not fall under the constraints of the county's hardship rule for a variance of this type," and members cited recent precedent in rejecting similar claims. Following discussion, the chair moved to deny the variance request; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board noted its action is a recommendation and the applicant must appear before the Board of Commissioners, which will take final action on April 21, 2026.
Staff also noted a letter of support from the most-affected adjacent property owner was included in the packet; staff verified the ownership despite a typographic address error in the submitted letter.
