Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers rezoning of 273.89-acre Rico property after strong public opposition
Summary
After extensive public comment and questions about traffic, application errors and environmental impacts, Chattahoochee Hills council voted unanimously to defer rezoning application 25‑006 (proposed Hamlet Mixed-Use on ~273.89 acres) for six months and asked for further planning-commission review.
The Chattahoochee Hills City Council voted to defer consideration of rezoning application 25‑006 for six months after a lengthy public hearing and council discussion about outstanding questions in the application packet.
Staff described the parcel as roughly 273.89 acres currently zoned rural (RL) and said the proposal would rezone most of the property to a Hamlet Mixed-Use (HMMU) district, allow about 274 residential units and preserve roughly 71% of the site as protected open and civic space. Planning staff also noted the planning commission voted 2–4 against recommending approval and that the applicant’s traffic study and other materials were available on the city website.
Multiple neighbors and landowners urged denial or delay at the public hearing. Ken Hearn, who said his family owns 70 adjacent acres, criticized a “lack of communication and transparency” from the applicant and urged council to deny the request. David Robinson addressed the council on legal standards in the UDC and argued the applicant had not met the burden to show the property lacks a reasonable economic use under current zoning, citing sale and per‑acre figures.
“I come tonight in support of the RICO project,” said John Crespo, who noted the applicant offered to place some acreage into permanent conservation up front; the applicant team’s representative, Chris West, said the group would provide additional materials and had consultants available online to answer questions.
Applicant Harrison Merrill disputed factual claims that circulated at the hearing — “We did not buy the property in 2018,” he said — and described working with a leading regional planner on a “thoughtful plan.” Councilmembers, however, cited alleged flaws in the application packet, outstanding traffic and safety questions (including potential protected wildlife), and public concern as reasons to seek more information. Councilmember Beak moved to defer the item for six months to allow additional study and to return the matter to the planning commission for further public review; the motion was seconded and passed with no recorded nays.
The council asked staff to clarify application materials, ensure environmental and traffic issues are resolved, and consider returning the item to the planning commission so residents get another opportunity to be heard before the item returns to the council.
