Friday, August 1, 2003
|
Friday, August 1, 2003 |
|
Citizens should speak out on Twin Lakes Dear Editor, Thank you for covering the development of Twin Lakes. How this area of the City of Senoia is developed will not only affect the residents of the immediate area, it will have an impact on the entire city as well as all those who travel busy Rockaway Road. The Senoia City Council under the leadership of Mayor Dianne Cleveland took a responsible stand at the July 7 meeting when the Council and Mayor refused to subsidize this future development. Councilman Robert Belisle has consistently heeded the safety concerns of City Engineer Ben Turnipseed. Mayor Cleveland in particular has devoted much time and energy on the Twin Lakes issue. The city is most fortunate to have this dedicated Council as well as a thorough engineer at this critical time in Senoia's history. Council sent the plan submitted by the Mullen Company on behalf of Twin Lakes Partnership back to the Planning and Zoning Committee with a list of questions regarding the proposal. Although the Planning and Zoning Committee has recommended approval of the plan submitted with the added responses by Twin Lakes Partnership, I strongly believe more changes and greater commitment on the part of Twin Lakes Partnership are needed. First of all, terms need to be defined. Twin Lakes is sometimes used to refer to the entire 800 plus acres. Sometimes, Twin Lakes means the original platted Phase I. Other times "Phase I" refers to the section under present consideration. Twin Lakes is also used as a synonym for Twin Lakes Partnership. "Homeowners" is another confusing word. Does homeowners mean the present residents? the new Phase I residents? any present or future owners and or renters on the entire 800 acres? To avoid confusion and even legal problems now and for many years to come, language must be clear. Second, Twin Lakes Partnership must do more than commit to asking the railroad for permission for a road to cross the tracks. Just as Council insisted that a letter of commitment be received from the county assuring that water could be tapped from the county line running along Pylant Street, Council needs to insist that an alternate exit onto the future Fayette-Coweta Connector be guaranteed in writing before the subdivision is approved. This would alleviate traffic on Rockaway. It would also provide an alternate exit route in case of emergency. In the past, Rockaway has been impassable at both bridges simultaneously due to flooding. An evacuation route in the event of a future disaster is imperative. Third, although I am pleased the green space between the homes on Teal Court and Rockaway Avenue is to be donated to the city, I am against it being used for housing public buildings such as a fire station, library, or police station. Yes, it will directly impact the privacy and quiet of my home and neighborhood. Yes, it could adversely affect the value of my property. There are other reasons, which will affect all who travel Rockaway Road: There is limited visibility along this stretch of Rockaway. Increasing the number of exits and entrances along the road is unsafe. This is a poor place for more impervious surfaces required for parking. Already increased runoff due to road construction causes the pavement at the base of the hill to be in perpetual need of repair. More rain water carrying pollutants from vehicles will rush down the road from paved surfaces and into the water we drink. The health of all those who drink the water is at increased risk. Green space in this section is important for safeguarding water quality. Rockaway is part of an official state bike route. For the safety of bikers, added cross traffic should be avoided. Fourth, the reservoir needs to be protected. Twin Lakes Partnership is assuring that the amount of impervious surface will be under twenty five percent. However, the quality of water significantly decreases when the amount of impervious surface in a watershed exceeds 10 percent. Twin Lakes Partnership may be obeying the letter of the law. The law is not doing enough to protect our health. The cost of our water will be increased as increased treatment of water increases. Some pollutants can still remain undetected and untreated. Fifth, let's not count water as green space particularly in the watershed that supplies our drinking water. Maximizing green space particularly around the reservoir will do much to naturally filter and safeguard our water. For better preservation of wildlife, let's provide continuous belts of green space connecting the wetland at both the north and south end of the development. Let's have a plan with a main focus on preserving the quality of water rather than a plan with a main goal of maximizing profits for the developer. It's time for Twin Lakes Partnership to present a plan conceived as if the members of the partnership, the Mullen Company, their lawyers, landscape architect and engineer were to make the development their home. Council will probably be reviewing the latest proposal at the August 4 meeting. It is time for the citizens to speak out.
Mary Provost From one of the first 15 homes of Twin Lakes Senoia
|
||