Palmetto moved ahead Monday with annexation plans for 900 acres as the City Council voted nearly unanimously to rezone and annex land on the northwest and southwest sides of the city. Unlike the atmosphere at the Planning Commission the week before, most of the 80 area residents attending objected to the annexations, though their stated objections were far fewer in number.

The first of the rezoning and annexations in the Chattahoochee Hills area brought the Hallman property into the city, followed by the Bowen tract and tracts owned by Vanguard North, LLC. In total, those tracts total approximately 675 acres. Property owners were represented by Eldon Basham, who said the owners had requested to come into the city, adding that they requested no change in the county’s agricultural zoning. Council members also approved rezoning and annexation of two tracts owned by Vanguard South, LLC and totaling approximately 225 acres. The tracts are situated on the city’s southwest side.

The sole vote opposing the annexations was council member John Miller. No stranger to insisting that Palmetto building codes should be updated and strengthened, Miller said he cast opposing votes over concerns that future residential construction on the annexed property would be approved at higher densities than currently allowed.

“We’ve just got to be careful about bringing things in and not making the mistakes of the past,” he said. “I believe the current Chattahoochee Hills overlay will go away and higher density will follow.”

Skeptical of Vanguard’s intentions, some residents questioned the company’s motive for requesting the annexation after only months ago expressing interest in being a part of the Chattahoochee Hills area. Responding to questions about their intention, Basham said only that his clients wanted to be a part of Palmetto.

Also at the meeting, builder Dwight Parks was turned down on a proposal to rezone property on Beckman Street for construction of a condo/townhome development. The proposal was denied on a unanimous vote based on the project being inconsistent with the city’s Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan, council members said.

login to post comments