Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers Metro Green rezoning for Maddox Road after split vote and resident opposition
Summary
The Stonecrest City Council heard hours of testimony on a city‑initiated rezoning to allow a large Metro Green recycling and materials‑processing site at 7224–7226 Maddox Road. After public concern over air quality, traffic and process, a motion to approve tied and the council voted to defer the matter to the next meeting for further review.
The Stonecrest City Council on July 27 deferred a city‑initiated rezoning request for roughly 92.2 acres at 7224 and 7226 Maddox Road after an initial 2–2 split on approval left the matter unresolved.
The proposal, tied to a settlement with Metro Green, would change the property from light industrial (M1) to heavy industrial (M2) to permit uses that include ready‑mix concrete, asphalt plants, material recovery facilities, outdoor crushing and stockpiling. The applicant’s representative told the council the city had submitted a draft ordinance and supplemental studies and that staff’s earlier recommended denial had been withdrawn. “This recycling center…is not a landfill,” the applicant said, adding that “we have submitted environmental studies, noise studies, and the permitting structure required by the Georgia EPD.” (Applicant represented on the record by the applicant’s counsel.)
Dozens of residents and written commenters urged the council to pause or reject the rezoning, citing concerns about dust, noise, groundwater and nearby homes. Linda Miller, a resident who said her subdivision lies near the Rock Chapel/124 corridor, told the council: “I oppose it…It’s hurting our property value.” Dave Marcus, a long‑time Stonecrest resident, asked for clearer information about a recent break‑in at City Hall and urged the council to provide more facts to avoid rumor as the rezoning discussion continued.
Council members questioned the applicant and staff about buffers, whether crushing could be done indoors (the applicant said crushing is typically outdoor and that sorting would be indoors), floodplain constraints and the relationship between the rezoning and the city’s comprehensive plan. Staff testified that because this was a city‑initiated rezoning, a companion amendment to the future land‑use map would be required if the council approved the rezoning.
A motion to approve the rezoning failed to win the necessary affirmative votes. After a procedural exchange over the mayor’s role in a tie vote, the council voted to defer the item to the next council meeting for additional review and to allow staff to provide further documentation and clarifications. No final rezoning decision was made; the public hearing record remains open only as a matter of process until the council reconvenes the matter.
