Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cobb planners hold rezoning request for Sanchez amid vehicle and occupancy violations
Summary
The commission held Francisco J. Garcia Sanchez’s rezoning request for 30 days after code enforcement reported business vehicles, expired tags and unauthorized residents on the property; staff had recommended denial as inconsistent with the future land‑use map.
Vice Chair Deborah Dans opened the March 3 hearing and staff called the first held case, Z1, a request by Francisco J. Garcia Sanchez to rezone a parcel from R20 to LI for a truck service.
Staff recommended denial, saying the parcel is surrounded by residential uses and the rezoning was inconsistent with the future land‑use map. Mr. Peterson, planning staff, told the board the application “was not a good fit to put an industrial type use in that area” and recommended denial.
The applicant testified through a family member and translator that the property had been cleaned since the prior hearing and asked the board to approve the request. Applicant family member Francisco said cleanup included removal of debris and re‑arranging vehicles so “it looks nice and neat now.” Anna Laura Alvarado, who spoke about a February 25 inspection, said the inspector gave a report indicating the site “looked good, clean” but noted other violations remained.
Cobb County code enforcement presented the inspection findings: multiple business vehicles on a single‑family parcel, expired vehicle tags, business equipment stored outside, and occupants beyond the single‑family occupancy limit. The code official said the ordinance permits one business vehicle under 12,500 pounds for a customary home occupation and that the current number of business vehicles exceeded that allowance.
After discussion — including a commissioner’s suggestion that the applicant retain counsel to address the land‑use and subdivision issues — a commissioner moved to hold the case for 30 days to allow the applicant to secure counsel and to pursue a course of remediation. The motion to hold passed 4–0.
Next steps: the applicant was instructed to work with community development and zoning staff, and to return to the planning commission at the next hearing. The board did not vote on the rezoning itself; the matter remains pending while code‑enforcement and zoning issues are addressed.
