Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henry County BZA denies AF Housing request for eight one‑bedroom units near Glasgow Drive
Summary
The Henry County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-0 to deny AF Housing’s Special Use Permit to add an eight‑unit, one‑bedroom building on Glasgow Drive, citing concentrated calls for service and management concerns. Staff had reported 69 calls tied to the existing 10‑unit property over 17 months.
The Henry County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously on June 24 to deny AF Housing, LLC’s request (S‑26‑05) for a Special Use Permit to construct an eight‑unit, one‑bedroom apartment building between 328 and 380 Glasgow Drive in the Ridgeway District.
At the public hearing, Clifton Hill, who identified himself as an assistant to owner Torey Morris, described the proposal as an effort “to meet the community's need for additional housing,” and said existing apartments are well maintained. Board members pressed Mr. Hill on on‑site management, complaint procedures and whether supportive‑services referrals were concentrated at the property. Mr. Hill said an on‑site manager is present daily but does not live on site and that Life Stages provides qualified mental‑health professionals who visit the property roughly 10 hours per week.
Staff presented calls‑for‑service data from the 911 Center covering the prior 17 months showing 69 calls tied to the ten current units, 62 of which were law‑enforcement related and seven medical or non‑law‑enforcement calls. Retired officer and board member Paul Setliff noted roughly 36 responses he characterized as Code 3 (emergency) responses and said the volume had placed strain on law enforcement resources. Neighbor William Iannone told the board he had found shell casings on his property and reported repeated “shots fired” incidents in the area; he also described increased traffic and past narcotics activity connected to a former tenant.
Board members said the data and neighbor testimony raised concerns about whether the owner could manage additional units and about impacts on adjacent properties. Jay Hudson moved to deny the Special Use Permit under Section 21‑209 of the Zoning Ordinance, citing that the proposed use would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of neighboring property; Paul Setliff seconded. The motion passed 4‑0 (1 member absent), denying S‑26‑05.
The board’s denial does not impose new criminal or civil penalties; it rejects the permit application based on the evidence presented and the board’s finding that the permit would adversely affect neighboring property enjoyment. The applicant may choose to revise and resubmit an application or pursue other remedies provided by county code.
