Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers rezoning and variances at 6699 Bells Ferry Road tied to road-widening easements
Summary
County staff described a board‑initiated rezoning for 6699 Bells Ferry Road to light industrial to accommodate an auto-related business expansion; variances for setbacks, parking and signage and a settlement contingent on easement conveyances were discussed but no final vote was recorded.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff (Thomas, S6) briefed commissioners on a board‑initiated rezoning request for 6699 Bells Ferry Road (approximately 1.508 acres). The county proposed rezoning the property to light industrial to preserve and allow expansion of an existing auto-related business and to provide additional right-of-way for a planned Bells Ferry Road widening.
Staff described requested variances: a reduction in required parking (from roughly 57 to about 45 required spaces), reduced landscape-strip widths and reduced side setbacks to accommodate a proposed roughly 6,000‑square‑foot building addition. The property contains existing nonconforming features (parking and lanes close to the property line) that trigger expansion requirements under article 13; staff said some parking islands and buffer adjustments would be needed and that they had received four letters of neighborhood support.
An applicant representative (S8) told the board an agreement with the property owner and the necessary easements is nearly complete and asked that approval be contingent on execution of the settlement and easement language, with a five-business‑day close after board action. County counsel (S9) said he had not yet reviewed potential contract‑zoning legal issues and deferred that question to counsel who had been assigned the lead.
Commissioners discussed whether rezoning and associated variances should be voted on together or separately; legal counsel advised separate votes for rezoning and variances would be appropriate. The board did not take a final vote at the work session; staff said language to make approval contingent on executed settlement documents could be provided if the board chose to act at the public hearing.
