Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners want engineering‑level feasibility studies to screen speculative rezoning
Summary
Staff recommended new feasibility requirements (engineering studies, infrastructure timelines, funding/partner disclosure) for rezoning applications, aiming to reveal infeasible proposals early; staff noted utility letters may not provide firm delivery dates.
Staff and the consulting team described Section 2 of the draft code changes, which would require applicants seeking rezoning to submit feasibility information, including engineering studies for sewer and water and documentation of partners, phasing and funding. The consultant explained that an engineering‑level feasibility plan will reveal quickly if a proposed development is infeasible and that the requirement aims to reduce staff time spent evaluating speculative proposals.
Staff also discussed letters from utilities that confirm service availability but do not always include firm delivery timelines; staff said Atlanta Watershed and Fulton County have long‑range plans and that timing (not withdrawal capacity) is often the limiting factor. Council members and staff debated whether phase‑1 environmental assessments or phasing of environmental studies should be made mandatory in the application packet; staff said environmental triggers are generally market‑driven and are not currently required by the draft amendment.
