Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and board push back on convenience‑store variances at SR 34; BZA recommends denial
Summary
The Coweta County Board of Zoning Appeals recommended denial of two variances for a proposed convenience store and fuel canopy at SR 34 and Bruce Jackson Road after neighbors raised traffic, safety and character concerns and board members said the ordinance’s hardship standard was not met.
The Coweta County Board of Zoning Appeals on Monday recommended denial of two variance requests tied to a proposed 4,725‑square‑foot convenience store and fuel canopy at the southwest corner of State Route 34 and Bruce Jackson Road.
Zoning manager Lisa Eschman told the board the applicant (listed as Virginia Singh) seeks reductions to Article 25 buffer requirements and Article 23 front‑setback rules so a canopy and store can fit on a parallelogram‑shaped parcel the applicant says is physically constrained. Eschman summarized staff’s review under the ordinance’s seven‑factor test and outlined conditions staff would recommend if the board were to support approval, including installing plantings and constructing a left‑turn lane to county and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) standards.
“My request is straightforward,” applicant representative Manny Singh said in his presentation. “We are seeking a 15‑foot landscape buffer along the western property line in place of the required 50 feet, a 25‑foot landscape buffer along the southern property line, and a reduction in the canopy setback from 135 feet to 93 feet.” He added the project would limit hours to “6 a.m. to 10 p.m.”, implement buffering, and build a left‑turn lane if required.
Neighbors and nearby property owners strongly opposed the requests. Attorney and neighbor Bridal Duncan told the board the reduction would “surrender about 17,000 square feet of buffer” and warned the proposal could be “the camel’s nose under the tent” for commercial encroachment at the intersection. Robert Winslow, a civil engineer who owns adjacent lots, questioned the technical justification, calling the variance package “not modest” and saying reduced buffers and a wide driveway for fuel trucks would “negatively impact those residential properties with noise, light, spill, and traffic.”
Opponents emphasized safety concerns at the intersection, disagreement with the traffic study, and the effect on neighborhood character. Cindy Millard said residents can “see the wrecks” from their homes and described repeated serious crashes near the site.
Board members discussed two lines of argument: whether the change in buffer requirements since the county’s original 1969 commercial zoning creates a practical hardship, and whether the applicant had demonstrated the narrow‑banded hardship the ordinance requires. Several members said they did not see the necessary hardship; one member noted precedents that had eased redevelopment elsewhere but others disagreed those applied here.
After discussion, a board member moved to recommend denial; the motion carried. The transcript records the board’s recommendation to deny the buffer and setback variances, with the board giving its recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, which will make the final decisions on May 19.
The BZA’s role in these matters is advisory: the Board of Commissioners will hold the final public hearing and decision on the variances. This recommendation will be included in that upcoming agenda.
