Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Udo Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norcross council advances UDO amendments after technical objections from residents
Summary
The Norcross City Council opened a public hearing and moved to adopt amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) clarifying appeals, design-review authority and adding tree-preservation education language after residents raised detailed concerns about formatting and omitted review categories.
The Norcross City Council opened a public hearing on proposed amendments to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, then moved to adopt changes intended to clarify procedures for architectural interpretation appeals and the authority of design-review and historic-preservation boards.
A city staff member told the council the updates “make improvements for the studio to become more clear for both the public and staff to be able to enforce this amendment process of procedure and authority for appeals of the architectural import decision” and align mixed-use and commercial provisions with recent ordinance changes.
Several residents spoke during public comment. One resident supported many of the changes but urged the city to “completely scrub the document” to fix technical problems in tables and cross-references, saying the draft omits items such as change-of-occupancy and multifamily residential categories from table 1043d and that new definitions elsewhere were not consistently applied. The commenter asked that zoning-administrator review be required for certain certificates before issuance.
Staff said they would double-check formatting and noted a recommended insertion to section 13-8(h)(38) to add public-education duties for the tree preservation board, so the section would include “public education related to urban forest stewardship.”
Council members discussed timing, appeals-process language and whether particular zoning districts needed additional clarification. A motion was made to approve the amendments to chapter 100 and related sections; the mayor then moved the meeting forward to consider the motion and accompanying amendments.
The council did not record a roll-call vote in the public transcript excerpt; the meeting proceeded after the motion. The council also directed staff to follow up on the technical table issues raised by commenters and to ensure any necessary formatting or cross-reference corrections are completed before final adoption.
The public-hearing process, as described by staff, reserves ten minutes per side for comments and allows an applicant rebuttal before the mayor and council act on the item. The council indicated it will continue to solicit clarifying edits from staff and the public as it finalizes the ordinance language.
