|
|
Planning commission rejects Wilksmoor ‘reaffirmation’ |
2009-10-15 |
By Trey Alverson |
The Peachtree City Planning Commission rejected an unusual reaffirmation request concerning the 2007 annexation and rezoning of two large tracts in the Wilksmoor Village. The tracts in question are owned by John Wieland Homes and Brent West Village. The two developers received permission two years ago to extend MacDuff Parkway and develop over 1,000 residential units on just under 800 acres. Some of the housing units are age-restricted, designated for seniors only.
The original annexation and rezoning was controversial. After the city council approved the plan, Peachtree City resident David Worley challenged the validity of the rezoning and annexation in court.
He sued Peachtree City on several technical and procedural grounds, losing the initial trial and the first appeal. The case remains active, however, as Worley continues the appeals process at the state level.
Lawyers representing John Wieland Homes and Brent West Village asked the planning commission to ‘reaffirm” the original annexation and rezoning Monday. They also presented a plan to de-annex a 10-foot wide strip along the northern portion of the nearly 800-acre property -- creating a narrow strip of unincorporated county land separating Peachtree City and Tyrone.
The 10-foot wide line is designed to connect two pieces of unincorporated Fayette County property bordering the northern section of the planned development to unincorporated Coweta County. The two unincorporated Fayette County tracts are currently “islands” surrounded on all sides by Peachtree City and Tyrone -- which is not allowed under Georgia code. The lawyers, who also said they spoke on behalf of Peachtree City municipal attorney Ted Meeker who was not present, indicated that the de-annexation of the strip of land would help prevent further litigation.
Planning commission member Lynda Wojcik rejected the idea.
“My problem is that we’re being asked to do something here that circumvents a current court
case,” she said.
“I think that in a lot of ways, this whole thing was pushed through without enough public input. There were an awful lot of petitions going around protesting this development. I did not see people in this city who wanted this. Maybe these legal challenges could give us a second chance to look at this thing from the beginning.”
The other four commission members voted to de-annex the 10-foot strip, but only Theo Scott voted in favor of “reaffirming” the entire annexation.
Larry Sussberg abstained because he, like Wojcik and Joe Frazar, was not on the commission when this project first came forward. Wojcik and Frazar voted against reaffirmation, as did chairman Patrick Staples.
“I’m casting a no vote on the reaffirmation. I just don’t think it’s necessary. This is not a no vote on the city’s previous actions,” Staples explained.
“I think we did everything right in the first place. I think asking us to reaffirm this thing undermines those previous decisions. Whenever you act to reaffirm, it implies that there was a problem in the first place.”
The lawyers explained that they were primarily asking for the reaffirmation to open up funding channels for their clients who are anxious to start the project.
According to builder Bob Rolader, financial institutions are not lending previously available money because of the pending litigation, which could “take years to resolve.”
Planning commission votes are non-binding. Both issues will ultimately be decided by the City Council.
|
We Welcome your Comments
Please understand we believe if you are going to comment you should be bold enough to identify yourself. Please fill out the form below and your comments will be submitted. Comments will be edited for vulgarity. Please provide either your email address or telephone number so we can verify the source.
