The ball is back in the County Commission's court in the ongoing tennis match concerning proposed new development standards for Ga. Highway 85 north and laws concerning mailbox supports.

Members of the Planning Commission returned the County Commission's most recent volley with only minor changes in spin.

The County Commission will consider the planning panel's latest suggestions during its Feb. 25 meeting, 7 p.m. at the County Administrative Complex on Stonewall Avenue, Fayetteville.

The Planning Commission unanimously voted to return the 85 overlay ordinance, a set of standards designed "to establish and maintain a scenic gateway into Fayette County," with one change in the allowed number of curb cuts in commercial developments. Shopping centers with more than 500 feet of road frontage will be allowed two entrances/exits, as long as curb cuts are at least 250 feet apart, including those on adjacent properties.

County commissioners had asked the planning and zoning board to consider changing two other provisions in its proposed ordinance easing the requirement that commercial buildings screen rooftop equipment from view, and allowing more parking in front and less on sides and in the rear of shopping centers. Developer Julian Lee had argued that the parking requirement would create a dangerous situation for customers parking behind strip shopping centers.

But the Planning Commission last week declined to change that provision.

Doing away with the requirement that 50 percent of parking be on the sides and behind buildings would defeat the purpose of the ordinance, said Planning Commission member Fred Bowen.

"This [ordinance] is a clear attempt to require a different approach to building layouts that will promote a different look than strip shopping centers," said Bowen, "to encourage a unique approach that will make Fayette County, particularly the north 85 corridor, look different."

There might be a rare situation in which tree buffers make roof screens unnecessary, added chairman Bob Harbison, but the requirement is not burdensome, he added.

Planning commissioners and county commissioners have been batting the proposed ordinance back and forth for about a year.

The first time the proposed ordinance came up for a commission vote, the governing body sent it back to the Planning Commission for more public input. After receiving more public input, the planning panel has sent the document back to the commission twice, and has received it back with suggested changes.

Rules governing mailbox supports have gotten similar treatment. The County Commission early last year asked the Planning Commission to look for ways to improve enforcement of the law banning brick, stone and other unyielding mailbox supports from along county roads and streets.

The Planning Commission sent a suggested change in development regulations, requiring that the mailbox be included in a home's final inspection, but the governing body rejected that idea, saying they didn't want to delay the final inspection for a mailbox.

County commissioners suggested doing away with the ban on subdivision streets, enforcing it only on major thoroughfares, but county attorney Bill McNally said that idea wouldn't pass the legal test.

Planning commissioners last week voted unanimously to send proposed new language that better defines the type mailbox supports that are banned (using state Department of Transportation language), and including the mailbox ban in the county's code section on encroachments on public rights-of-way.

If county commissioners agree, banned will be "massive supports that, when struck, could damage vehicles and cause serious injury to vehicle occupants."

"I'm a conservative and I hate laws and I hate rules and I hate regulations," said commissioner Al Gilbert, but "I think this is a public safety issue, not an issue of rights and anyone losing their rights."