Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norcross mayor pro tem presses to remove cell-tower language as council reviews UDO changes
Summary
Norcross leaders debated proposed Unified Development Ordinance changes that would alter accessory-dwelling and parking rules and—critically—leave language allowing cell towers in the Beaufort Highway zoning district. The mayor pro tem urged removing tower language and asked staff to clarify vague 'feasibility' standards.
Norcross Mayor Pro Tem presided as the council reviewed proposed revisions to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), with the pro tem and other council members pressing staff to remove language that would allow cell towers in the Beaufort Highway zoning district and to clarify vague standards for exemptions.
The mayor pro tem said the draft UDO still permits cell towers in the Beaufort Highway zoning district and asked the council to "get that removed" from the draft so towers would not be allowed there. He also raised concerns about inconsistencies between the proposed changes and the city’s ongoing work on the comprehensive plan and other development documents, urging the council not to adopt provisions that would immediately conflict with prior work.
Staff described multiple proposed amendments: revisions to Chapter 100 addressing parking standards (separating parking for vehicles being serviced from customer/client parking) and changes to Chapter 200 (land use and zoning) that would affect commercial and Beaufort Highway districts. Presenters said some previously automatic bonuses (for green roofs or other creative design features) would be eliminated but that discretionary incentives could still be offered through the city’s SUD (site development) or special-use permit processes.
Council members pressed staff to refine a repeated standard in the draft described as "feasible," asking whether that meant cost reasonableness, technical feasibility or another measure. The mayor pro tem said the word "feasible" is open to interpretation and asked for a more precise test so staff and applicants know how exemptions would be judged.
On accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) questions, council discussed buildable-area limits, setbacks and how incentives might be retained for creative design even after some automatic bonuses are removed. Staff said the SUD/SUP process would allow case-by-case review and the imposition of conditions if something in practice did not work as written.
The discussion closed with staff telling the council they had reviewed the final plat for another project and that a motion and second were on the record; the transcript excerpt did not record a final vote on the UDO package. The item will return for further consideration with the requested clarifications, and council members signaled they prefer amendments that do not conflict with the comprehensive-plan direction.
