On paper, the annexation proposed by Brent Scarbrough and Company looks exactly the same as the annexation approved for the 400-acre site for another developer in May 2007 by the City Council.

There are 650 houses, which will be restricted to adults 55 and older; 120 acres of open space; all on a parcel bordering the south Tyrone limits and extending southward towards Peachtree City. Plus a commitment to join John Wieland Homes in building the extension of MacDuff Parkway so it can reach Ga. Highway 74.

So why is the company asking the city for a new annexation if none of the details are changing?

The simple answer is really a complicated one: a lawsuit. That suit, filed by Peachtree City resident and attorney David Worley, challenges the way the City Council voted to approve the annexation.

Worley’s suit takes issue with the fact that the City Council voted against annexing the Scarbrough property before reversing course at the same meeting and voting for the annexation. The reconsideration took place after the initial developer, Levitt and Sons, offered to cut the density of the project by 17 homes.

The approval vote was 3-2 with council members Steve Boone, Cyndi Plunkett and Harold Logsdon in favor; voting no were then-council members Stuart Kourajian and Judi-ann Rutherford.

Worley contends the initial “no” vote from the council triggered a six-month waiting period required by city ordinance and state law anytime an annexation or rezoning request is denied.

A representative for Scarbrough told the City Council two weeks ago that the suit has lingered in the court system in large part due to the lack of a senior judge being assigned to the case. The company hopes a new vote on the annexation will in effect nullify the lawsuit, thus allowing development to proceed.

Council voted unanimously Nov. 19 to allow city staff to explore the new annexation application, but the matter will come up for another council vote once more before the annexation can be officially adopted or turned down.

Worley, who lives in The Point on Lake Kedron subdivision, told The Citizen initially that he filed the suit over concerns that the 1,075 new homes would have on schools and traffic. Had the property remained in the county, it would have been far less dense under county zoning, which allows minimum lot sizes of two acres.

The annexation and rezoning was initially proposed by Levitt and Sons, but pummeled by economic problems, the company has since backed out.

The rezoning for limited use residential must be adhered to by any future property owner who seeks to have it developed, city officials have said.

In the lawsuit Worley is also challenging the annexation and rezoning of property to the south of Scarbrough’s land: a 379-acre parcel approved for 475 homes with 167 acres of open space, 40 of which are developable.

The suit claims that since the council made the Wieland and Levitt (now Scarbrough) annexations contingent upon the other’s approval, the first vote against the Levitt plan also should have scuttled Wieland’s annexation and rezoning.

A Wieland representative said the company also intends to seek a new annexation for its property.

Under the previous annexation and rezoning, the MacDuff Parkway extension, which includes a new bridge over the CSX railroad, must be completed before construction begins.