Planning Commission Meeting

TYRONE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 14, 2025 at 7:00 PM David Nebergall, Chairman Brad Matheny, Vice-Chairman Terry Noble, Commissioner Joram Kiggundu, Commissioner Jeff Duncan, Commissioner Phillip Trocquet, Assistant Town Manager Ciara Willis, Assistant Town Clerk Patrick Stough, Town Attorney Absent: David Nebergall, Chairman Also Present: Billy Campbell, Council Member I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made to approve the agenda. Motion made by Commissioner Duncan, Seconded by Commissioner Noble. Voting Yea: Vice-Chairman Matheny, Commissioner Noble, Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner Kiggundu. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 26, 2025 A motion was made to approve the minutes from June 26, 2025. Motion made by Commissioner Noble, Seconded by Commissioner Kiggundu. Voting Yea: Vice-Chairman Matheny, Commissioner Noble, Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner Kiggundu. IV. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Consideration of a rezoning petition from applicant Lindsey Yarborough of parcel 0738- 024 at address 962 Senoia Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) to C-1 (Community Commercial). Phillip Trocquet, Community Development Mr. Trocquet stated that the applicant, Christ Church, had submitted a rezoning petition on behalf of the owner for the rezoning of 962 Senoia Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) to C-1 (Community Commercial). He added that the stated intent of this rezoning was to allow for the development of the property in accordance with C-1 development standards, with the ultimate goal of building a church on the site. The property was previously the home of the long-time Tyrone resident, Mr. Harlie Deyton. Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 5 August 14, 2025 In 2020, the Town purchased approximately 3.14 acres of the main tract for the purposes of locating Town Hall along Senoia Road. Mr. Trocquet stated that the property was located within the Town’s Town Center Character Area, which required downtown-oriented, primarily commercial development that supports residential uses. He added that a design-build project should be pedestrian-oriented and centered around strong, multi-use, and vehicular connections. This zoning classification was primarily intended for the Town Center Character Area and was compatible with the comprehensive plan’s purposes and goals for the property. The design and layout of future developments would need to be creatively coordinated with the owner, given the ‘flag lot’ shape of the property, which naturally recesses development away from addressing street frontage. He then read the zoning ordinance compatibility and impact assessment. 1. Would the zoning permit suitable uses with the surrounding properties? Yes, the property was adjacent to C-1 to the east and west, as well as Town Hall to the south, which was a non-residential use. Future development would need to adhere to the appropriate buffer requirements adjoining residentially zoned properties. 2. Would zoning adversely affect adjacent properties? Staff determined that the proposed zoning would not adversely affect adjoining properties unduly. It is recommended that during site plan approval for future development, a shared access easement be more clearly defined for the curb access on Senoia Road. 3. Did the property have reasonable economic use as currently zoned? It was staff's opinion that AR uses do not constitute reasonable economic utility of the property. Being located downtown, with most properties zoned as C-1 or TCMU and accessible to sewer, existing and future development intensity is more reasonably achieved with these zoning classifications, rather than Agricultural Residential. 4. Would the proposed zoning overburden existing infrastructure? Staff determined that the proposed zoning would not overburden existing infrastructure. Downtown Tyrone is intended to accommodate Community Commercial development and zoning intensity. Development conditions and site plan conditions for C-1 and the Town Center overlay will address the intended impacts. Any future development of the property would need to conform to the Town Center Overlay, which requires heightened architectural, landscaping, and urban design requirements. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning of 962 Senoia Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) to C-1 (Community Commercial). Several representatives spoke on behalf of the applicant and requested that the item be tabled due to unforeseen circumstances. Attorney Stough explained that the item could only be tabled to a specific day, not indefinitely. The representatives then expressed that they were open to answering any questions, but noted that they were still in the planning process. Page 2 of 5  Pastor Falon shared that the church was three and a half years old and needed a property to build a church. However, they felt that they were not quite ready to move forward with the property. Mr. Trocquet emphasized that the purpose of the rezoning was to determine if the zoning classification was an appropriate use for the property. He then recommended that the Planning Commission make a decision tonight, either in favor of or opposed to, this zoning classification on that basis. Vice-Chairman Matheny opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to speak in favor of the item. No one spoke. Vice-Chairman Matheny opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the item. No one spoke. Commissioner Noble inquired about the property's proximity to Town Hall and the planned location of the church on the property. Mr. Trocquet pulled up the property map, which showed that the property was located directly behind Town Hall. He also added that he did not know the exact location of where the church would be built at this time. A motion was made to approve a rezoning petition for parcel 0738-024 at address 962 Senoia Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) to C-1 (Community Commercial). Motion made by Commissioner Duncan, Seconded by Commissioner Kiggundu. Voting Yea: Vice-Chairman Matheny, Commissioner Noble, Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner Kiggundu. 3. Consideration of a rezoning petition from the Town of Tyrone of parcel 0738-093 at address 225 Brentwood Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) & R-18 to AR (Agricultural Residential). Phillip Trocquet, Community Development Mr. Trocquet explained that the properties at the terminus of Brentwood Road had a complex history involving multiple revisions aimed at clarifying access and property boundaries. There were six total properties in this area, all of which were accessed via a private easement. He added that several years ago, owners undertook an effort to assemble a more accurate plat by reviewing the existing deeds of each owner. This effort did not create any new lots, but it revealed that many of the properties were non-conforming under their respective zoning classifications and were positioned incorrectly in the parcel layer of the County’s tax map. He further added that the tax map was updated at that time to reflect the corrected parcel boundaries based on this plat. Because the Town’s zoning map was based on the tax parcel layer, this update resulted in zoning boundaries no longer aligning with property lines; most notably, creating a split-zoned condition at 225 Brentwood Road, which now falls partially in R-18 and partially in AR zoning. Page 3 of 5 This property was currently non-conforming under both districts. However, the property owners had submitted a proposal to bring the parcel into greater conformity by revising the plat to increase the lot size from 1 acre to 3 acres. To resolve the split zoning issue and better align the parcel with zoning standards, staff recommended a conditional rezoning, subject to the recording of the revised plat included in the staff report. Mr. Trocquet stated that the property was within the In-Town Neighborhood Character Area, which aimed to promote developments and zoning classifications that reflected the positive aspects of historic downtown communities in Georgia, with developments that aligned with such goals. This rezoning petition would move an existing non- conforming situation and split zoned property into greater conformity with established standards. He then read the ordinance compatibility and impact assessment. 1. Would the zoning permit suitable uses with the surrounding properties? The property was surrounded by AR Zoning to the north, south, and west. R-18 exists to the east. With both zoning classifications as residential, this zoning was suitable for the surrounding properties. 2. Would zoning adversely affect adjacent properties? It was determined that the proposed zoning aligns with that of surrounding properties and would not negatively impact them. 3. Did the property have reasonable economic use as currently zoned? Economic use would be unchanged, but the resolution of a split-zoned property was most appropriate. 4. Would the proposed zoning overburden existing infrastructure? No, existing development potential would remain unchanged. The property would not, as a result of the rezoning and re-plat, be brought into full conformity with the ordinance, but it would move the property towards better conformity regarding lot size, lot width, and minimum housing size, amongst other development standards. He also noted that the property owner desired to add two additional acres to his property for a combined three-acre parcel. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with the condition that the preliminary plat showing partial resolution of existing non-conformities be adopted and recorded within 90 days of the conclusion of the rezoning hearings. Vice-Chairman Matheny opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to speak in favor of the item. No one spoke. Vice-Chairman Matheny opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the item. No one spoke. Commissioner Noble asked if the split zoning issue of the property was the reason the Town initiated the rezoning petition. Mr. Trocquet responded that it was one of the Page 4 of 5  reasons. Attorney Stough further explained the issues with split zoning and the complications it could cause due to the differing development standards for various zoning classifications. A motion was made to approve a rezoning petition for parcel 0738-093 at address 225 Brentwood Road from AR (Agricultural Residential) & R-18 to AR (Agricultural Residential) with conditions. Motion made by Commissioner Kiggundu, Seconded by Commissioner Duncan. Voting Yea: Vice-Chairman Matheny, Commissioner Noble, Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner Kiggundu. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. STAFF COMMENTS VII. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Duncan inquired about the East Group Development project’s timetable. Mr. Trocquet shared that the rain had caused delays, but the project was still progressing at a rapid pace. He added that the permits for the building plans would be approved soon. Commissioner Noble requested an update on the former Sonic property regarding the disposal of various items in the parking lot. Mr. Trocquet stated that the issue was a rolling code enforcement case. He added that the property owners had not taken any action to secure the property and would be issued a citation. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made to adjourn. Motion made by Commissioner Duncan, Seconded by Commissioner Noble. Voting Yea: Vice-Chairman Matheny, Commissioner Noble, Commissioner Duncan, Commissioner Kiggundu. The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. By: Attest: David Nebergall, Chairman Ciara Willis, Assistant Town Clerk Page 5 of 5