Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission denies Genesis site plan at Almondville Road over delivery and safety concerns

Smyrna Municipal Planning Commission · August 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed 6,500 sq ft commercial building at 1975 Almondville Road was denied after commissioners raised safety concerns about truck deliveries, constrained turnaround area, and floodplain constraints; the developer said the lot's floodplain limits prevent a larger maneuvering area.

The Planning Commission on Aug. 6 denied a site plan for a 6,500‑square‑foot building at 1975 Almondville Road after commissioners concluded that delivery vehicle operations posed an unacceptable safety risk on the proposed layout.

Staff explained the property lies partially in both 100‑ and 500‑year floodplains and that the usable build area is constrained by those floodplain boundaries. Commissioners repeatedly returned to truck access and maneuverability: they questioned whether tractor‑trailers, bread or beverage trucks and box trucks could safely enter and exit without blocking Almondville Road. "What happens if two of those trucks show up at the same time?" one commissioner asked. The developer, Chris McGuire of Huddleston Steel Engineering, described the site as "a tricky lot given the floodplain constraints" and said his team had run the town’s 49‑foot fire truck through the plan and provided an L‑shaped turnaround and a 20‑foot dumpster drive aisle.

Commissioners doubted whether deliveries could be reliably staged without blocking the public right‑of‑way and expressed concern that customers and parked cars could compound the problem. One commissioner stated he would not vote for approval "based on safety concerns on the site," and a motion to deny the site plan passed by voice vote. Staff recorded that the denial was rooted in vehicle circulation and public‑safety concerns associated with the proposed layout; the developer was invited to revise the plan addressing turnaround and access and return the project for further review.

What happens next: the applicant may revise the plan with a safer circulation design and address floodplain cut/fill balance if additional fill is proposed to create maneuvering room.