Is new commercial and industrial development still welcome in Peachtree City, now that its traffic impact ordinance is in place?

That question was raised during discussion last week among the City Council just before it adopted a revised version of the ordinance at its regular meeting.

Most of the potential problems discussed have dealt with how and if the law can be enforced, since developers have repeatedly charged that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Pathway Communities went a step further last Friday, filing suit in Fayette County Superior Court to stop it.

Originally adopted in early October, the ordinance set guidelines for developers wishing to bring projects into the city that will affect the already cluttered traffic, especially along the Ga. Highway 54 corridor west of Ga. Highway 74 to the Coweta County line.

City development director Jim Williams stressed that the original ordinance was not seriously flawed, as some may have suggested, but there were several improvements in the revision. The document was reviewed by city attorneys and traffic consultants as well as some residents directly affected by it.

There was no public comment during this hearing, very unlike when the original ordinance was considered. But council members had plenty to say about it themselves.

Mayor Bob Lenox called the revised ordinance “a pretty good cleanup job. It makes it much clearer.”

But councilman Jim Pace, who had several reservations when the ordinance was first considered and voted against it, expressed concerns about the industrial park. He said that he was unclear as to whether a prospective tenant there would be welcome in the city under the new traffic guidelines.

Williams said that he thinks the new ordinance will lead to improvements that are most favorable for industrial park tenants, such as the extension of TDK Boulevard (Crosstown Drive) into Coweta County, which would benefit everyone in the city.

“But we can't continue to put development out there without addressing traffic,” said Williams. “I think this is positive for the community and not too burdensome for developers.”

Pace said that he does not want to send a message that no more development is wanted in the industrial park, adding that the city's tax base needs it.

“This ordinance will not take one car off the road. The problem will still be there tomorrow,” he said, adding that more immediate solutions such as the TDK Boulevard project and extending lanes on Hwy. 74 should be considered more seriously.

Mayor Pro Tempore Annie McMenamin said that extending TDK is not a new idea, and if the city could do it on its own, it would have been done long ago.

Pace also inquired as to the constitutionality of the ordinance, an issue that has been brought up repeatedly by developers and their attorneys in the past two months. City attorney Rick Lindsey replied, “We'll know in the courts,” saying that he knows of no statute like this one in the state and that balancing health and safety concerns stemming from traffic with the rights of property owners will likely be done in the judicial arena.

McMenamin said that if such a challenge comes, the city must stand up to it.

“We're being held in bondage by the federal government,” she said. “We're being denied our right. If we're challenged, we're challenged. It's [ordinance] not stopping development.”

Pace said the traffic problem is not the fault of the next developer to come into Peachtree City, but everyone who is already here. But this ordinance, according to Pace, will penalize the developers who have yet to come.

“This is a burden that should be uniformly shared by all of us,” he said.

In perhaps the most ironic statement of the entire discussion, Pace said that Peachtree City, with its electric golf carts and acres of open space, is the most environmentally conscious community he knows of anywhere. Yet it is being stymied by federal environmental concerns.

Pace said that it is not a particular industrial company's responsibility to build bridges and roads just for the privilege of locating in a certain area. If a project is in alignment with the existing land-use plan, he said, it should be allowed to proceed.

“This problem is all over Atlanta,” said Lenox. “At least we're trying to do something about it.”

Some industrial prospects have come to the area in recent years with certain assurances by the state that road improvements would be made. Many of those promises have obviously not come to pass, Lenox said.

Pace revealed that a specific industrial prospect had recently come to him inquiring about the state of affairs in Peachtree City and whether new traffic regulations signaled an end to the welcome mat for industrial development. He asked Lindsey if there was a conflict that should preclude him from voting.

Lindsey reiterated his statement from a previous meeting that all five council members are land owners in the city and would technically be affected by the ordinance, but that was not reason enough for a conflict. If, however, the prospect in question had discussed the use of Group VI Corporation, Pace's own development company, then a conflict would exist.

Pace abstained from voting on the revised ordinance, which passed 4-0.

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