PTC Planning Commission unanimously against Kedron rezoning

Tue, 08/11/2009 - 4:05pm
By: John Munford

A rezoning that would have allowed seven additional lots on a 9-acre tract in north Peachtree City’s Kedron Hills area got a thumbs-down vote from the city’s Planning Commission Monday night.

Commissioners noted that it was determined in a similar 2005 city rezoning denial that rezoning the property on Greenwood Lane was against the city’s land use plan. The matter ultimately will be decided by the City Council at its Aug. 20 meeting.

Piedmont Homes is seeking an R-22 rezoning for property that was zoned R-43 with minimum lot sizes of one acre and ER for minimum lot sizes of three acres. The R-22 zoning category allows lot sizes of half an acre.

The tract was annexed into Peachtree City in 1999; previously it had been incorporated as part of the town of Tyrone and as such it sits on Peachtree City’s northernmost boundary.

Piedmont Homes owner John Higgins said the rezoning is needed in large part due to the dwindling market for homes with larger lots, as many new homebuyers don’t want to have to care for them. The rezoning also would allow the land to be designed as a subdivision instead of having six separate driveway access points on Greenwood Lane, Higgins said.

Although some neighbors were for the rezoning and others were against, most everyone agreed it was beneficial to all to see the property appropriately developed as soon as possible to rid the area of the vacant lot eyesore.

Beth Pullias, president of the Kedron Hills Homeowners Association, which opposed the project, pointed out that the Piedmont Homes parcel was not contiguous to any other property zoned R-22. Pullias said rezoning the property to R-22 would allow other adjoining parcels to seek the designation.

Several opponents of the rezoning said they worried that would happen, creating a major traffic issue in the neighborhood.

The commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the rezoning petition.

Commissioner Lynda Wojcik said the city doesn’t have the responsibility of marketing the property through rezoning.

Several commissioners suggested Higgins could meet his goal of making the development more like a subdivision under the current ER and R-43 zoning for the parcel.

Commissioner Larry Sussberg said he felt the rezoning request was a “lose-lose-lose” for Piedmont Homes, Kedron Hills and the city.

“The longer the property stays vacant and overgrows, the more detrimental it will be to people in Kedron Hills,” Sussberg noted.

Commissioner Theo Scott agreed that the lot appeared “desolate” when he visited it recently.

“Y’all probably look for snakes in there,” Scott said.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by gsgirl45 on Wed, 08/12/2009 - 8:50am.

Let's see:
> Land owner wants to make lots more appealing

> Land owner proposes plan to Kedron Hills HOA
- - they UNANIMOUSLY vote to support it

> Neighbors don't like HOA President & decide to
protest plan (but won't look at plan in meeting.
Would rather spout rhetoric about why it is bad)

> Kedron Hills HOA reverses position

> Land left as is

Is this really the way these things should be decided?


Embarassed Kedron Hills Homeowner
-> present at both the KH meeting & planning
commission meetings

Submitted by jillymac on Wed, 08/12/2009 - 5:54pm.

I also attended the KH homeowners meeting and was embarrassed by the stupid questions. My neighbor who was concerned the new homes would be nicer than hers so hers would be harder to sell. Heck yes they were going to be nicer than most of the homes in KH. But instead of saying how lucky we were to get a developer who wanted to improve the subdivision we decided to block him. The extra lots would have been the same size as 95 percent of the lots in KH and the homes better than 100 percent of them - go figure – small minds

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Wed, 08/12/2009 - 4:53am.

You tell them no - even if it creates and prolongs an eyesore. Any deviation from the land use plan is a bad idea. Use this decision as a fine example of how a planning commission is supposed to act.

And when the developer (as he certainly will) says "Let's see how the city like all the weeds growing there" - fine his butt and make him cut the grass every two weeks - like the city does on its property.

As a reminder you don't approve residential in the industrial park even though it is an obvious attempt to start a chain of similar rezonings. And you don't offer developers the sale of our streets and extra traffic lights.

Steve Brown's picture
Submitted by Steve Brown on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 9:50pm.

It is nice to have two Comprehensive Land Use Plan advocates on the Planning Commission. Sussberg and Wojcik remind me of some of the commissioners from days gone by, willing to say the plan rules, so follow it.

Nice job.

Submitted by Spyglass on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 12:11pm.

Nothing at all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.