Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Convenience Stores topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County proposes two‑mile spacing and clearer design rules for convenience stores
Summary
County staff proposed UDO changes that would require convenience stores to meet clearer lighting, screening and size rules and generally ban new convenience stores within two miles of another, with a narrow exception for intersections; commissioners pressed for stronger enforcement and treatment of existing nonconforming sites.
Newton County staff presented proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance on March 3 that would add distance, lighting and screening rules for convenience stores and clarify the 5,000-square-foot limit for such facilities.
The presenter, Stephanie, said the draft updates the existing use-standards in UDO section 510200 to add a new purpose statement and more specific provisions on outdoor lighting, visual screening, size limits and placement. Under the draft, no convenience store, with or without gasoline pumps, may be located within two miles of another convenience store measured from property line to property line. The draft contains a narrow exception permitting up to two stores at a single four‑way intersection if the stores are diagonally placed and not adjacent.
The changes would keep prior requirements—an eight‑foot opaque visual barrier (or fence combined with evergreen vegetation meeting 95% opacity) and a 5,000-square-foot cap—but the draft clarifies that the 5,000‑square‑foot threshold applies to the convenience store itself, not adjoining suites. The presentation said the ordinance will also provide clearer cross‑references for lighting standards.
Commissioner Long urged stronger enforcement mechanisms, asking for requirements that buffer plantings be maintained (she suggested a 12‑month performance bond or similar remedy) and argued the ordinance should treat the entire building suite as subject to the 5,000‑square‑foot cap to prevent developers from attaching additional retail suites. She also asked the county to address how existing, nonconforming sites will be handled, including reconstruction or redevelopment after damage, and whether idle zoning that never results in construction should revert to prior zoning if development does not occur in a set time frame.
Commissioner Cooper recommended conditional‑use or special‑use review so that large convenience or travel centers return to the board rather than proceeding automatically under zoning. Commissioners said the separation rule would apply only to new applications and not force existing, legally established stores to move.
The board did not take formal action on the ordinance at the work session; staff said the draft reflects the board’s direction and will be circulated for additional edits and legal review before any ordinance hearing.
The meeting adjourned at the close of the work session; further action on the convenience‑store ordinance will depend on future agenda scheduling by staff and legal review.
