The Hall County Board of Commissioners Thursday night voted to deny a 170-unit multi-family development along Friendship Road toward the southern end of the county.
Tim Wilbanks was seeking three different actions by the board, comprised of two rezonings and a variance request, according to county documents. The first rezoning was for 7.33 acres of property from Agricultural Residential to Planned Commercial Development.
The second rezoning was for a 2.72-acre plot move from Agricultural Residential to Highway Business, which would have been used as office space. The variance request originally had to do with adjusting the transitional buffers that are outlined for developments in the area. However, the variance request was vacated by Wilbanks during Thursday’s hearing.
Originally the application was for a 185-unit development, but Wilbanks amended his request to 170 units.
The property in question sits at 1731 Friendship Road at the southern end of Hall County.
Currently, the subject area is undeveloped and wooded with a bisecting creek running through the property. That creek will reportedly be used as a baseline to subdivide the area into the Highway Business and Planned Commercial Development zonings.
Plans submitted to the county by Wilbanks depict a single four-story structure housing 170 units, along with a fully enclosed courtyard and amenity area.
Possible amenities include a swimming pool, bocce ball court and a pavilion. The average size of the units is said to be approximately 900 square feet, including a kitchen, washer and dryer.
Hall County Planning Staff previously recommended approval of the PCD rezoning for the 185-unit structure, citing that plans are consistent with the “mixed-use corridor future land use category as found in the Comprehensive Plan, and previous approval across the street.”
However, they also previously recommended denial of the Highway Business rezoning request, as they state “it would create an isolated district, there are permitted uses within HB that are not compatible with the adjacent developments and there is insufficient information to assess the potential impact of uses.”
The item went before the Planning Commission two separate times, once on Sept. 18, when it was tabled, and again on Oct. 16. During the October meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the project in a 2-2 split decision.
Between the two Planning Commission meetings on the item, 15 people spoke against it, citing concerns for traffic, commercial use, safety, privacy, property values and overall quality of life.
Six people spoke against the development during the Board of Commissioners meeting Thursday, while no one spoke in favor.
