Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose proposed Long Street townhomes at Demorest land-use hearing
Summary
At a Nov. 12 public hearing, several Long Street residents urged the Demorest City Council to keep a parcel zoned residential and opposed proposed townhomes; one property owner asked for rezoning to allow multi‑family rental use while staff and the city attorney noted code and appeals‑board questions.
Demorest — Dozens of neighbors spoke during a Nov. 12 public hearing on proposed amendments to Demorest's land-use code, with several Long Street residents pressing the City Council to preserve single‑family residential zoning rather than allow townhome development.
Ky Kirby (480 Holly Street) asked the council to reclassify his property to allow multi‑family use, saying he operates the house as a rental and that the current single‑family designation does not reflect that use. Multiple residents — including Frankie Smith, Marie Evans, Patti Davis, Allen Evans and a person identified only as Dallas — said they opposed possible townhomes off Long Street and asked that the parcel be kept or returned to residential zoning. Rick Austin (1590 Double Springs Road) urged adding an agriculture designation and raised concerns about a table in the draft code (Table 6‑1).
The hearing was opened by Mayor Jerry Harkness and attended by city staff including City Manager Mark Musselwhite and City Attorney Thomas Mitchell, who discussed how the draft would affect current zoning. Musselwhite and Mitchell told the council that changes raised questions about appeals and recommended establishing or using a board of adjustments/appeals to consider specific requests and variances. Mayor Harkness closed the public hearing after the comments.
Why it matters: The land-use code controls what types of housing and development are allowed in neighborhoods; residents said they fear townhomes could change the character of Long Street and raised questions about traffic, density and property‑use consistency. City staff flagged follow-up items — including how the draft interacts with appeal processes and specific map changes — that the council must resolve before taking final action.
What happens next: The council indicated the land‑use draft will return for further consideration; staff and the city attorney recommended clarifying appeal procedures and specific map designations before final approval. A future meeting will be scheduled to consider adoption of the draft after those clarifications. The public hearing record referenced OCGA 36‑81‑5 as the legal notice for the hearing.
