Wednesday, January 17, 2001

[Editor's note: The Citizen received two faxes Monday from Peachtree City Mayor Bob Lenox. The first is addressed to the publisher and the second to Fayette County Commission Chairman Greg Dunn.]

Dear Cal,

I Really enjoyed your front page editorial. If I am the king and Mr. Basinger is my viceroy, I guess you must be the court jester.

Please don't take offense court jesters are highly regarded and respected. I just wish you had the intelligence, political acumen and sense of humor to be good at it.

Bob Lenox

Dear Greg,

I noted with interest your comment in the newspaper that you deemed my letter as mayor on the rezoning at Redwine and Georgia Highway 74 as, "So far out we don't need to respond." I did not write it expecting a response.

As one of your constituents, however, I would like to pose the following serious questions to you and I would expect the courtesy of a reasoned written response, as would any other citizen of the county.

1. Your professional planning staff and your Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, and Peachtree City asked you to deny the petition. Why did you therefore feel you should approve the rezoning?

2. Did you feel that you ran the risk of having your decision overturned in court if you denied the petition?

3. I certainly agree with your comments that the land is no longer suitable as A-R, no longer rural, and not an appropriate site for 5-acre lots. Did you ask your planning staff or planning commission to study the area and recommend appropriate uses taking into account your land use plan and surrounding development?

4. Your land use plan clearly precludes any commercial development on Hwy. 74 South. Why did you choose to ignore it?

5. Did you impose any controls as part of the rezoning to preclude "big box" or other massive uses on the parcel either now or in the future?

6. With so much land available, did you take any steps to improve setbacks, buffering or landscaping to make the development more aesthetically pleasing and less intrusive to the surrounding neighborhoods?

7. Since Hwy. 74 is slated to be four-laned, did you take this into account and ensure that setbacks and buffering on the parcel would be appropriate after this is done?

8. Again, with so much land available, did you ask the applicant to consider providing right-of-way land for the widening?

9. Did the county acquire ownership of the 53 acres of adjacent A-R property that is supposed to remain undeveloped?

10. If title was not acquired, what steps did you take to preclude future development of the 53 acres?

11. What is your position with regards to the remaining undeveloped land on Hwy. 74 South? Do you intend to permit further commercial and office development?

12. If this is not your intention, how do you now assess your legal position relative to precluding such further development?

Greg, thank you in advance for your timely response.

Bob Lenox

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page