Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peachtree City council denies variance to build in stream buffer at Seabiscuit Walk
Summary
Council voted to deny a developer’s request to allow a house to encroach into a 50‑ft stream buffer and a 25‑ft impervious setback at 435 Seabiscuit Walk after staff and council expressed environmental and procedural concerns; the developer said redesign or moving the stream would require Army Corps permitting and greater disturbance.
Peachtree City council on June 18 denied a variance that would have permitted construction within a city 50‑foot undisturbed stream buffer and an associated 25‑foot impervious setback at Lot 6 (435 Seabiscuit Walk).
Attorney Stephen Jones, representing the applicant, said the subdivision had been graded under a prior land‑disturbance plan, mitigation credits had been purchased through the Army Corps process, and the lot was pad‑graded to accept a house plan preferred by a prospective buyer. Jones and engineer Matt Gray argued that redesigning the development to move the stream or the buffer would require additional disturbance, further wetland impact and additional federal permitting, and that a regulatory variance would allow construction with less environmental intrusion overall.
Prospective buyer Vaishali Patel told the council the lot and the house plan fit the family's needs and asked for approval so they could build their 'forever' home.
Council members repeatedly cited an earlier rezoning condition that required flood plains, wetlands and associated buffers to be field located and kept out of buildable envelopes; they questioned whether the developer had adequate options beyond the variance and whether approval would set an undesirable precedent that could erode protections for buffers and wetlands. Staff and council noted that the Army Corps and state agencies retain permitting authority for any stream relocation and that a re‑plat or additional federal permits would likely be required to move the stream.
After extended discussion the council voted to deny the variance. Council members said the lot could accommodate smaller house plans that would remain outside the buffer, and many indicated they were not convinced the variance was the least‑harmful alternative. The denial leaves open the applicant's options: seek Army Corps approval to relocate the stream and re‑plat the subdivision, redesign the house plan to fit within the existing buildable area, or pursue other regulatory approaches outside council action.
