Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables decision on contested rezoning, residents demand geotechnical and stormwater reviews
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment, the Lithonia City Council voted to table a rezoning request for 6801 and 6787 Parkway Drive. Residents and speakers raised safety, reservoir stability and traffic concerns and asked for geotechnical, watershed and traffic studies to be made public before a final vote.
Lithonia
The City Council on July 6 tabled a decision on a developer27s request to rezone two parcels at 6801 and 6787 Parkway Drive after extended public testimony and a presentation from the applicant.
The tabling motion came after residents opposed to the rezoning described narrow streets, a nearby city reservoir they said might be structurally unsafe, and concerns about increased traffic and compatibility with adjacent single-family neighborhoods. Nathan Garner, who said he lives at 2580 Reagan Street, told the council he was worried the reservoir could be unsafe to build on and asked whether soil contamination and structural risk had been fully evaluated.
Developer Michael Seifel, who identified himself as the applicant, described the project as a 78-unit active senior development, said the team has completed a Phase I environmental assessment and an engineer-prepared impact analysis, and said the buildout is expected to cost about $32,000,000. Seifel said the developer plans to extend the adjacent roadway, increase setbacks and provide other measures to mitigate impacts.
Several speakers urged the council to delay a final vote until an updated geotechnical subsurface investigation, watershed and sewer-capacity evaluations and a comprehensive traffic-impact study were included in the public record. Steve Watson, speaking for area residents, cited the DeKalb County comprehensive plan and asked the council for a "full cycle deferral" until the requested studies are available.
A staff speaker read aloud state and federal fair-housing provisions and explained that whether the project can be limited to residents 55 or 62 and older depends in part on the financing: private, market-rate developments can limit occupancy under certain statutory frameworks while projects using federal funds are subject to federal rules. Council members pressed for clarity on whether the project would rely on public funding and how occupancy restrictions would be enforced.
After applicant responses and multiple resident interventions, the chair moved to table the rezoning decision for further review; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The council set follow-up work to collect and make available the referenced studies and to revisit the application at a later meeting (the chair referenced a July 20 follow-up date for further discussion).
The motion to table did not include a recorded roll-call tally in the public record of the meeting. The council27s public hearing record and the applicant27s submitted studies were identified during the meeting as the next items for staff to circulate to the public.
What happens next: The rezoning application remains pending. Council and staff indicated they would obtain and publish the geotechnical, watershed and traffic analyses and return the item to the council for further consideration.
