Friday, July 25, 2003
|
Friday, July 25, 2003 |
|
With no action from council, car wash case heads to Superior Court By J. FRANK
LYNCH
Homeowners from two neighborhoods in the Georgian Park area who packed City Hall last week to protest plans for a carwash at Georgian Park and Newgate Road left outraged after three hours, when three members of the council removed themselves from discussing the matter, effectively killing it due to lack of a quorum. The appeal of an earlier Planning Commission decision that denied a conceptual site plan for the car wash will now be carried to Fayette County Superior Court, said Richard P. Lindsey, attorney for developer John Williams. City staff resigned themselves to the fact that nothing could be done about the matter. "I've enjoyed it, but it's over. We lost," said City Attorney Ted Meeker. "The decision offered by the Planning Commission stands due to a lack of a quorum. Next stop, Superior Court." Said Lindsey, "Gentlemen, see you in Fayetteville." Homeowners shouted "We want a vote" and "We've been here long enough," but eventually gave up and wandered from the chambers, despite efforts by several members of the council to "hear" the case anyway, just to understand the issues that would have been considered. "If you can't take any action on it, there's no point," Meeker pleaded with the council. "The action of the Planning Commission wil be the ruling taken to the Superior Court of Fayette County." Homeowners objected to the location of the carwash, and feared that glare from lighting would intrude on their homes even though city zoning regulations clearly allowed the business to locate there. Councilman Dan Tennant first abstained, pointing out he lives in Ardenlee, the neighborhood directly across Ga. Highway 74 from Georgian Park. Annie McMenamin then recused herself, saying her daughter is an attorney with Lindsey's firm. And then Weed, pausing to take a breath in anticipation of the reaction, said he, too, felt compelled to abstain. "I don't feel that this is reason enough to abstain, but I live closer to the site in question than Mr. Tennant does, so if he abstains, I feel I must, too." Groans, angry shouts and expressions of dismay filled the council chamber. Mayor Brown tried to get Tennant to change his mind, to no avail. "Because of what it is and where it is, I have a personal opinion about this project and how it might affect me financially," Tennant said. "He's got the right to abstain," said Weed in support. "And I'm swept up in that." Meeker quickly ran to check the law books and reported back that he thought state code allowed for reasons of potential conflict to be overlooked in "extreme cases," but this did not qualify as one. Kelly Sommers, a two-year resident of the neighborhood, wanted to know what she and others could do to protect their neighborhoods from future development. McMenamin, who leaves office at the end of this year, was blunt and to the point: "Pay attention to what's going on around you. Trees are not going to be trees forever. This is a planned community. You can go down to City Hall at anytime and see the plan and know what eventually is coming there." But is there anything she and her neighbors can do beyond that, Sommers wanted to know. "You can work to change the master plan," she was told.
|
||