Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates rezoning of 7,848-acre Bukhar property in Chattahoochee Hills amid preservation, traffic and fiscal concerns
Summary
Council reviewed a rezoning request for approximately 7,848.25 acres (about 70 parcels) proposed to rezone from rural to mixed-use hamlet; discussion covered required state MRPA/ARC reviews, phased development, preservation commitments, historic-commission conditions, economic impact projections and significant questions about traffic, water and long-term fiscal assumptions.
Council spent the longest portion of its work session on a rezoning application for a large Bukhar property in Chattahoochee Hills. Mike summarized the application: roughly 7,848.25 acres across about 70 parcels proposed to rezone from RL (rural) to HMMU (mixed-use hamlet), with roughly 10 miles of Chattahoochee River frontage and substantial areas regulated by the Metropolitan River Protection Act (MRPA). He said the application would allow development of up to 30% of the land (about 2,355 acres) as mixed-use hamlet while preserving the remainder as open/civic space.
"The overall land is just 7,848.25 acres proposed to be rezoned from RL rural to HMMU mixed use hamlet. There's 70 parcels total...They have 10 miles of Chattahoochee River frontage," Mike said in overview. Mike also described phasing (seven phases, with the first six in the East Planning Area), the need for additional DRI review for West and South planning areas, and several planning conditions the historic commission and council members requested (including 200 acres dedicated to active agriculture, historic-commission review of site assessments and a 60-day documentation hold before demolition of historic features).
Council members repeatedly pressed for verification of the economic impact and fiscal projections in the applicant's report, which several described as optimistic and accompanied by standard disclaimers. One member noted the 33-page report's disclaimer and asked for comparable developer reports and results; another cited specific fiscal projections referenced in the report and asked for verification. Concerns included school capacity, traffic impacts, water and sewer responsibilities outlined in the draft development agreement, sequencing of phases and the risk that market changes could leave incomplete infrastructure.
No rezoning vote occurred in the work session. Councilors asked staff and the applicant to provide more information, documentation of prior development outcomes and technical presentations from transportation, water and school authorities. Council paused the rezoning discussion to keep the work session on schedule and scheduled continued discussion in the regular session and potential future workshops.
