In a move that may be unprecedented in Georgia, the City Council of Peachtree City last week adopted a traffic ordinance that places new stipulations on what effects future developments can have on highway gridlock and what measures must be taken to relieve the traffic squeeze.

But the ordinance is far from set in stone. Attorneys representing a number of parties have notified the city that they believe the new law is unconstitutional, and council members themselves admitted it will probably need some tweaking in the coming weeks.

Councilman Jim Pace, who cast the only dissenting vote (Robert Brooks was absent), said that rather than doing something fast, the city should do it right, and he suggested there is still work to be done before the ordinance is ready.

Mayor Pro Tempore Annie McMenamin responded that the time is now.

“We've spent a lot of time on this,” she said. “This will not stop development. But we've got to look out for the welfare of all of our citizens.”

Mayor Bob Lenox also said that something needed to be done immediately, even if it were changed at a later time. Coucilwoman Carol Fritz echoed that sentiment.

Public safety has been a major issue in the debate over traffic concerns, which prompted the City Council to even consider a building moratorium. Many local residents have charged that traffic in the Ga. Highway. 54 corridor is so heavy at times that emergency vehicles could not get through if necessary.

Others spoke repeatedly of long lines and extended waiting periods at stop lights, which attorney George Rosenzweig said is not a good enough reason for the council's action.

“Mere convenience of the traveling public is not a public safety issue,” said Rosenzweig, who represents Pathway Communities. “It is not a constitutional reason to adopt this ordinance.”

In stating Pathway's opposition, he added that while the ordinance is “premature,” it is a “good starting point.”

An attorney for Dillard and Galloway also presented a letter for the record stating opposition to the ordinance. That firm represents RAM Development, which has applied to develop the Huddleston property on Hwy. 54 west, as well as Summit Properties, who plans to build a 399-unit apartment complex on the proposed Line Creek Parkway.

Meanwhile, traffic consultant Ed Ellis told the council that there is room for improvement of the city's traffic woes that does not violate the federal mandates imposed by the Clean Air Act.

Showing traffic volume figures based on current conditions as well as the addition of the apartments and the planned Cedarcroft subdivision, Ellis said that two intersections would reach an E level of service (on an A-F scale, with F being the worst): Hwy. 54 at Huddleston, and Hwys. 54 and 74.

Simply adding a right turn lane at Huddleston, which does not violate the ban on road improvements, would improve that intersection dramatically, Ellis said, as would taking two lanes on through the Hwy. 54 intersection on Hwy. 74 and narrowing them later.

.

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