Property Across From The Forum to Be Developed
A large apartment complex is slated to be built on the undeveloped acreage on Peachtree Parkway across from the popular Peachtree Corners open-air shopping center.
Editor's note: A correction to the story posted on Monday, Jan. 14. Only the engineers and the permitting department will have any control over the building plans. If the plans meet the conditions, there is no intervention required by the city. Jan. 16, 2013.
It's long been the dream of many in Peachtree Corners that the 20+ acres across from The Forum would be developed into a multi-use area that all could enjoy.
That dream is about to end.
Charlie Roberts, the owner of the coveted land, and the last undeveloped acreage in the city, has announced he will soon sell the property to Lennar, a Miami, Florida-based company to be developed into a high-end multi-family complex of some 250 or so apartments.
Despite a decade-old fight to keep apartments from being built by community activists including the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association (UPCCA), a large apartment complex is planned for the property. Construction could start as early as May, 2013.
"It's not the best use of the land," agreed Gray Terry, Vice President of Land Use for the UPCCA. The civic organization had been fighting against the property being developed into an apartment complex.
The UPCCA fought to keep the property from being developed into apartments. Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners denied Roberts request to rezone for apartments to keep apartments from being built on the property. Then Roberts took the county to court.
"It went through the courts," said Terry. "The Superior Court of Gwinnett County ruled in favor of the property owner."
Diana Wheeler, the city's Community Development Director, said the ideal mix of homes to apartments for a city is somewhere in the 70-30 to 60-40 percent range. The city is currently at 50 percent homes, 50 percent apartments, the additional 250+ apartments proposed for the property will put the city over the current 50/50 mark.
The land was originally zoned residential (R-100 and R-75), but Roberts later was successful in getting the property rezoned for apartment use (RM-13).
Roberts had planned to develop the property himself some five or six years ago but the 2007 recession forcing him to delay his development plans. The purchase price for the property is nearly $7.6 million.
"The community had hoped it would be developed into a mixed use area," said Wayne Knox, the former V.P. of Land Use for UPCCA.
The development falls within the Simpson Elementary School district so students living in the new apartment complex will attend the Peachtree Corners school.
Because the property falls inside the Overlay District established in 2007, the City of Peachtree Corners does have some control over the development, explained Knox. The development must adhere to the signage, architecture and landscaping controls of the Overlay District.
Wheeler said no plans have been filed with the city.
Are you disappointed that the land will be developed into an apartment complex? Use the comment box below to let us know.
Keep up with all of the Peachtree Corners news, sign up for the free Peachtree Corners Patch newsletter. And check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Bea
9:10 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
It's very ironic that one of the reasons many voted for Peachtree Corners to become a city is to have more control over development and now we are getting something that most people do not want.
T Frayer
11:24 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
My thoughts exactly!!! The stand the Vote Yes crew kept talking about was how they were going to be a voice and protect from this kind of thing. So what are we paying this new city council for exactly? This stinks!
AL
9:10 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
I'm more that disappointed...I'm outraged. Gwinnett is already littered with way too many reminders of how it became ruined by "stupid" planning over the past two decades, and yet HERE WE GO AGAIN with yet another developer ruining yet another piece of property with yet another example unneeded/unwanted/stupid growth. I was confident that the city wouldn't let us down by allowing this to happen...I am extremely disappointed.
If anyone wants to start a grass roots campaign to put a stop to this, I'm all on board.
ACB
9:54 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Just last week, a plan was posted for more retail space - what happened to that plan?
Jody Reeves
11:53 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
There are actually two different retail projects in development - one behind Piedmont Bank and the other on the opposite end across from Office Max/Dreamland. The apartments are the third development in planning.
Judy Putnam
10:02 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
That was approved by the Planning Commission last week and will come before the City Council for final approval in the near future.
Junie Brown
10:15 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
The establishment of the city of Peachtree Corners, had given us all hope that we could make this a lovely place to live in a county that is already over run with apartments. Now we are in danger of turning into an area like that surrounding Gwinnett Place--apartments, apartments, apartments everywhere, over crowding our schools, raising the crime rates, dumping litter on the streets. And to tell truth, I think that type of development is killing Gwinnett Place Mall. It's just not a place I want to go anymore.
I'll join your grass roots effort.
Veritatem
7:16 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Likewise. Also, I think Gwinnett Place is pretty much dead, although there are continual efforts to miraculously revive it. This, yet another increase in apartments that were already overbuilt, does not portend well for the bright future of Peachtree Corners that Mayor Mike Mason and others were trying to sell us, and little over 50% of the voters innocently bought into.
Bob
10:43 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
And anyone who thought that incorporating would stop this land from becoming apartments was misguided. Simply by incorporating we were not going to be able to rezone that piece of land. Anyone who told you otherwise sold you on a promise that he or she could not keep.
Amanda Helmstetter
10:47 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Extremely disappointed..... This is exactly what the voters were told wouldn't happen if we voted for "Yes" to becoming a city. How on earth can this happen. And do we have any recourse to change this?
DH
10:51 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
"Disappointed" would be an understatement. I had hoped we were beyond the point where shortsighted developers call the shots while the government functions as "Their" rubber stamp enabler.
Jody Reeves
11:26 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Wow! Before we voted to become a city, I was specifically told by a person, who is now on the Zoning Board, that there are so many restrictions on that property it would not be feasible to develop it into apartments.
Robert J. Nebel
11:36 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Will the so-called benefits of adding more residents to the area outweigh its liabilities? Indeed, more folks will flow into The Forum, thus expanding the city's tax base. There is no doubt that traffic will increase on both Peachtree Parkway and Peachtree Corners Circle. Equally, the schools will see an increase in their student bodies, further stressing out the teachers, administrators and support staffs.
Jody Reeves
11:54 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Norcross High is over capacity right now.
Veritatem
3:49 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Will most of these "high end"(?) apartment occupants shop at The Forum? Don't think so. Most "high end" occupants would purchase a condo, or are not planning on hanging around longterm. We probably shouldn't have made the effort to stop the Walmart. I have nothing against apartments. However, the apartment dwellers in our new, apparently unneeded, City tend to be more transient, have lower income, and don't have the vested interest in our area as residential property owners. Maybe we can get Norcross to annex my neighborhood.
Judy Putnam
12:03 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
The UPCCA fought to keep the land owner from developing it into apartments and even took him to court but the Gwinnett Superior Court ruled in the owner's favor.
Judy Putnam
1:52 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I believe it was actually the county, in behalf of the community, not the UPCCA, that went to court and lost the battle to keep apartments from being built.
Sheila caudell
12:31 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I am very very disappointed. It is going to ruin this great area! I cannot believe this is going to happen. I thought when Peachtree Corners became a city we would have more control over this happening. This is not what we were told before voting on becoming a city.
Michelle Wehrheim
12:49 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I am shocked that so many of you have such a negative take on apartments. When I was first married I lived in an apartment. My son now lives in an apartment. In stead of complaining, lets work together to make sure that quality apartments are built. I believe this land was zoned prior to the city being approved. If you did not do your research and believed that it would not happen, we'll shame on you. Look how nice the Forum is because the community made sure of the quality that was built. I will be writing my representative to make sure my voice is heard.
AL
5:07 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Many of us (myself included) did the research. Considering everything that was presented (pro and con), pro-city seemed a reasonable choice to ensure a bright future for Peachtree Corners. I see no shame in wanting that. No...if this development is allowed to go forward as planned (and with little or no opposition from our city leaders), I can think of plenty who will truly deserve shame.
Veritatem
5:58 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
The developers are purchasing the property to make money. Unless you have apartments in Buckhead, etc., the so-called "high end" apartments will not be so "high." Perhaps, at best, requirements as to set-backs, green-space, parking accommodations, and construction materials can be made. We'll see. No matter - having over 40% built in apartments has been shown to be detrimental to stable and improving quality single family residential property and value. Since most of us did not go from our childhood homes straight to home ownership, I think most of us have lived in apartments. However, we just did not have the same "roots" in the community that the single family residential owners did. Even if the apartments are wonderful, the other problems are with density: taxing infrastructure, increasing traffic, crowding schools and, generally, degrading quality of life that single family home purchasers who want to put down "roots" shy away from. Thus, residential owner occupied single family property values will continue to regress and many citizens who we would like to retain their property values and quality of life will seek greener pastures. If you are a homeowner and don't believe this - shame on you.
Judy Putnam
1:00 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
There is a City Council meeting tomorrow night (Tues. Jan. 15 at 7 p.m.) and there is a period for public comment during the meeting. This might be an ideal time to let your City Council know your feelings on this development.
Bob Meyer
1:07 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I hope that the developer foots the bill for all negative impact on the city. If Simpson Elementary or NHS need changes or additions, let the developer pay for it. If a traffic study shows the need for additional traffic signals or additional lanes on Peachtree Corners Circle or 141; let the developer pay for it. A surety bond covering maintenance of the development for the next thirty years guaranteed by hard assets should be required. Perhaps the development should be walled/screened with adequate setbacks to prevent an eventual eyesore.
Bob
1:24 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Why stop there? Why not just add the folks who reside in these apartments are only allowed out on weekend passes?
Veritatem
6:42 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Bob, in your satire you're missing the cogent facts and position against more apartments.
Robin Montri
1:47 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
There is a BIG miss in not utlizing some of that land for greenspace. Currently, Peachtree Corners does not have any central gathering spot or green space for its residents (think festivals, concerts, farmer's market, etc.). I was hoping we'd head in the direction of Suwane's townsquare, which is a mix of green space, retail, etc.
I'd like a real estate specialist to weigh in on how the apartments would potentially impact property values (Nancy Minor?) and how school zoning would impact the project increase in numbers of students at Simpson (Mary Kay Murphy)? Judy- perhaps you can reach out to Nancy and Mary Kay to write a voice piece addressing these topics. Thanks!
Nancy Minor
4:43 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
First of all I would like to say that Peachtree Corners becoming a city, had nothing to do with this apartment complex project. The fight against this land being developed into apartments was led by the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association (UPCCA) long before the City existed. Those working on behalf of the area included our present Mayor Mike Mason and various UPCCA members. Before becoming mayor he and other UPCCA members were advocates for the Peachtree Corners area.
UPCCA members did all they could to fight this development without any legal standing or compensation. Their voice was heard by the Gwinnett County Commission who took up the fight on UPCCA’s behalf. The Gwinnett County commission fought it to the Georgia State Supreme court and lost as the Patch article above states.
As far as this apartment development’s impact on the area from this Realtor's point of view is that adding 250 potential families to our schools, public services and roads can only be a detriment to the community.
Our driving force behind our property values is the strength of our schools.
Traffic issues, demands on services such as fire and police all lead to concern about the apartment complex being developed.
Some have stated that we should purchase this land for open space. To pay the going rate of fifty million dollars for the land would be well out of the budget of the City of Peachtree Corners..
Judy Putnam
4:53 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
The actual purchase price is just slightly under $7.6 million, the original figure was incorrect and has been corrected.
Veritatem
6:46 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
As pointed out, above, the property is not $50 million, and is actually slightly under $7.6 million. Since the city takes in over $2 million a year from us in taxes, we could have raised the purchase price in four years and owned an income producing property instead of paying for another layer of government of little worth. On the other hand, if the impotent city was empowered to, it could have taken out a loan or created bonded indebtedness to pay for the property, developed it for a profit for its citizens, set aside some green space, and could have occupied part of the development instead of paying rent. But, noooo, we have a horse and buggy city in an automobile society, one that's upkeep is much, much more expensive than what it is worth, and those who had us buy, and are directing, this horse and buggy are just as worthwhile.
Robin Montri
12:15 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Thanks for taking time to answer my question Nancy. I was afraid that would be your answer :(
So folks, a highly qualified, reputable and knowledgeable realtor, with decades of experience in the Peachtree Corners area is saying this development can only be a detriment to our community.
What option do we have other than finding a way to stop the project, even if that includes the city purchasing the property? Is it not in the best interests of the citizens of the the community?
I'm unable to go to the City Council evening this evening, but I'm hopeful that many will show to voice their disapproval of this project. Looking forward to reading the update in tomorrow's Patch!
Nancy Minor
4:47 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
On a final note. Had we been a city at the time this project was proposed we may have had more clout and the ability to fight it. We now control our destiny. We did not at the time this was approved.
Veritatem
6:50 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I doubt having a city some time ago would have made a difference especially since the county could not stop this apartment development. As it is now, we would be better off with the UPCCA and no city. The City of Peachtree Corners just duplicates county services at more expense. The UPCCA raised money for landscaping Peachtree Parkway, but the city doesn't even have the power to do that. According to the city charter, there is not even a position for a city manager that the mayor and council has unilaterally added at taxpayer expense contrary to the charter. So we have a mayor and council that can pad their résumés, increase their egos, enact expensive provisions that are counter to the charter (including hiring a city manager for a higher salary than he had while manager of a full service city where he oversaw 225 employees and seven departments, and hiring a community development director and community development liaison where there is nothing to develop), but are only allowed to deal with garbage collection, planning and zoning, and code adoption and enforcement when these were handled by the county at less expense. I agree that the apartments are a community detriment. The new city is just an expensive bellwether for the continuing loss of single family residential property values and degrading quality of life that now has an official city name.
Michael
6:14 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
There goes the neighborhood.
What if the city council refuses to approve the project?
Veritatem
6:49 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
We get to pay for a lawsuit through the city taxes we pay.
Veritatem
7:02 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Not only will Peachtree Corners have over 50% apartments, this does not include all the other rental property in our new, expensive city. Another lesson in under-regulated capitalism and politicians expanding government for no reasonable purpose. Along with the apartments, further reduction in school quality, and increased traffic, when your residential property values increasingly underperform compared to other areas, remind me about the freedom to use your property any way you wish and the reason for more government. Thanks, Charlie Roberts, for putting money ahead of the common good. Thanks, Mayor Mike Mason and your "Yes" followers for selling us a impotent, counter-cost-productive, additional layer of government. By the way, again, why did we need a new city government that takes over two million dollars a year from businesses and property owners? Last I checked, the city has accomplished nothing for about $2 million a year than to pad a few individuals' résumés, and provide them photo ops and public exposure, employ an attorney and a few government workers that are not authorized by the city charter, worth the pay or are underemployed, rent more space than is needed for the three employees, mayor and council, to purchase at our expense a middling logo, for city welcome signs on the perimeter of an apartment haven, and spend millions of our money to do what Gwinnett County was already doing (without any equivalent reduction in county taxes).
Harry Dorfman
10:30 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Dont forget, very soon we will be spending money on consultants so that we can have our trash picked up in a way that is sure to amaze. I want the hauler to leave a bow on my can and spray something in the can so it will smell nice.
Wouldn't it have been great if we were a city in time to fight this? Of course, because then we could pick up the tab on a legal fight that would have been lost. This so-called city has done nothing but what Veritatem says above. Failed and its barely a year old.
Greg Yu
9:37 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
I am not only disappointed,but very,very disappointed about adding this apartments in our neighborhood. What can we do to let them quit?
Judy Putnam
6:42 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Greg, contact your City Council member and let him or her know how you feel. Peachtree Corners City Hall number is 678-691-1200.
Michael
10:28 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
"All plans will be subject to review by the city's Planning Commission with the ultimate approval falling on the Peachtree Corners City Council."
I believe the city actually has a lot of leeway in rejecting a development under current case law. We voted to create the city so that a legal entity could prevent this from occurring. The city must not capitulate before exercising all options. The city council must not give up, and if a lawsuit results, so be it. The result would likely be different than the County's case, since it would be repeated rejection of a proposed development, rather than a rezoning.
Veritatem
12:22 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Unfortunately, the zoning is what it is, and its for apartments. The council may approve reasonable requirements, but unless the mayor and council find a negotiated alternative or another buyer or some other way to dissuade the seller or buyer, there will be + – 250 more apartments in Peachtree Corners. While Mayor Mike Mason and the council were busy approving a tax rate netting around $2 million of our taxpayer money per year, paying too much for a city manager and other employees, having a budget far beyond that calculated by University of Georgia's Institute of Government, renting digs that the city can't fully use, having an open house, approving a logo, getting their pictures taken, updating their résumés, not lowering our garbage rates, and other important matters, they apparently were just too busy to take the time for an unimportant matter like being proactive first thing, from day one, in trying to figure out an alternative to the type of the present buyer, negotiating an alternative to apartments, rallying the citizens to oppose this sort of development (Athens just got a Walmart for its downtown nixed due to pressure, despite zoning), and taking every action possible to oppose this sort of property use from the get go.
Veritatem
12:27 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In the alternative, are there connections between any of our public servants and Charlie Roberts? Regardless, as it turns out, the city can't do what many promised, and apparently the mayor and council weren't so inclined, weren't able, or were too incompetent to have found alternatives early on. As such the city has turned out to be a multimillion dollar boondoggle we are paying for, and will continue to pay for as our schools suffer, traffic increases, single family residential property values fall below comparable homes elsewhere, and our quality of life suffers year after year in the future. Yes, adding more politicians to Peachtree Corners has really made a difference. Let's hope the lemmings that voted for our expensive city and a new crop of politicians wake up sometime.
Judy Putnam
1:08 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Veritatem, it's my understanding that the mayor and council never promised that once a city was in place, they could have a say in the Roberts property. It was not a matter of being "inclined" as you suggest. I covered quite a bit of the campaigning and attended numerous meetings about cityhood and never did I hear anyone promise that by becoming a city they could control property that had already been rezoned by a court order. An alternative to deciding on what becomes of the Roberts property would require the land be purchased by someone or entity that would like to do something with it other than build apartments.
K Wade
6:15 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
That Gwinnett Transit bus stopping right in front of those apartments will certainly ensure the high-end apartment dwellers.
Judy Putnam
3:31 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It's my understanding that the city cannot stop apartments from being built if that is what the developer is determined to do. The property had been rezoned for apartments some years ago after the property owner sued the county when the county turned down his rezoning request and he won in court. Perhaps Lennar (the company that is purchasing the property and developing into apts) is who you need contact. The company's headquarters are in Miami, Fla.
Veritatem
5:47 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
So stopping 250 more apartments being built falls on the public just like it was before we had an expensive city government? While many voting for the city were under the impression that the new city could do something about development of the Charlie Roberts property (and neither any "Yes" supporters, nor any publications including Patch, pointed out that the new city would be able do nothing about the property zoning), you are correct about the inability of the city to stop the building of apartments. However, the city charter reads that "the city shall exercise the powers... for the purposes of planning and zoning... ." So, why can't the mayor and council lead the way, contact the parties including Lennar and Roberts, and organize opposition as representatives of the citizens? Although it may be too late because the mayor and council were not proactive regarding the property development from the start, at least they should try. Also, it would help the readers if Patch and the city could find the best contact at Lennar, and a way of contacting Roberts, and publish those in Patch and on the city website so citizens can make individual feelings known.
Michael
12:08 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I do not think the city should give up that easily. Every single legal option should be exhausted, and if Lennar chooses to sue the city, so be it.
AL
12:32 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Considering the substantial list of potential and probable negative impacts resulting from this development, I think we deserve to know exactly how and why the original zoning was overturned in favor of a single developer who could not take "no" for an answer.
Veritatem
12:48 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I agree, Michael. Although it is late in the game, the city should hire attorneys to look into this, turn down plans, refuse building permits, get public support, and do everything it can to be a legal pain in the a*s. Lennar sounds like a tough nut to crack, but there is enough fat in the city's inflated budget to pay for legal action. Heck, the city could get a loan and buy the property considering the revenue stream the city takes from us. I hope our politicians cause me to eat some of my words (not regarding Mayor Mason and the councils willingness to ignore the charter, overspend, and, otherwise, act like worse case politicians, etc.). We will see. If the city can't stop these apartments, the citizens should revisit the need for a city and the résumé padders in office. The vote was close for having a city, and if some of the "Yes" people have another chance they will get rid of this expensive boondoggle if the city can't stop what will be the death knell of Peachtree Corners as we know it.
Veritatem
12:56 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
You're right, Al. Also, I'd like to know if the judge's ruling was ever appealed. If not, maybe there is a way to revisit the matter since the city wasn't a party to the original lawsuit, or by approaching it from a different angle. While our politicians are busy spending our money, maybe they can spare some for some good legal advice.
Ground Chuck
9:06 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Wow, sure glad I moved to the City of Norcross! If anyone thinks this isn't going to negatively affect EVERYTHING about Peachtree Corners, he or she is a complete fool. Better get the City Attorney busy and fast. I know Lennar, and they could not give
a rat's behind about your "quality of life." It's all about the money and the revenue streamproduced by apartments. Wonder if they paid off your Council?!! LOL.
Veritatem
9:56 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Yea, Peachtree Corners is headed downhill - lots more apartments with transient renters, more traffic, overcrowded schools, reduced student performance, and a city that is impotent but takes $2 million from property owners each and every single year for no purpose that the county didn't already fulfill, and without any reduction for county taxes. Sure, families wanting to buy nice houses will really want to move here. Wait for real estate agents selling in other areas to spread the word. Maybe some of the neighborhoods should secede or ask Norcross and Duluth to annex them.
gene wike
5:25 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
what a bunch of fools....peachtree corners will be just fine, the sky is not falling...
Veritatem
1:02 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Another 250 new apartments in Peachtree Corners not a big deal? I smell a troll. If not, notice that there neither is a land line listed for Mr. Wike, nor does he own any property, including not owning his home, in Gwinnett County. Regardless, it's a free country, including the freedom to be stupid and unaware.
Jimmy
1:22 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Hmmm, phone book and property records dont have a listing for anybody named Veritatem either...
But by all means, keep ranting.
Veritatem
1:58 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Yes, 250 new apartments and a boondoggle of a city are unimportant. Insightful and intelligent comment, "Jimmy." Or is it "Gene?" Please take the last sentence of my comment, above, to heart (if you can understand it).
Jimmy
3:37 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What I understand is that somebody is pretty hacked off that he or she voted for a city and now is regretting that decision. I was actually enjoying your rants, hence my exhortation to keep on. But if you want to be a jerk about it I hope the next apartment complex that your toy city cant stop goes in next to your neighborhood.
Veritatem
4:53 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Yes, 250 more apartments and the city government bother me as you noticed (I voted "no" for the city by the way)(we know what "assume" means). Sorry I took "rant" negatively, as it usually has a negative connotation. We're going beyond the topic, and I'm going to default to Judy Putnam's comment, below.
Judy Putnam
2:30 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
While we encourage people to be honest and post what’s on their mind, communities thrive when people care about each other, and as such, Patch expects all of its users to be respectful of others. This means that whether you are being complimentary or critical, whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with the subject of an article or another user’s comment, you should act in a civil manner and refrain from personal attacks – after all, these are your neighbors.
Jimmy Neese
10:03 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
You have a great point there Judy. Its a crying shame the commissioners in Gwinnett County who were doing the land dealings didn't think the same way. They filled their pocket with their neighbors cash and none have gone to jail but one. Sad to see them still walking the streets among their Neighbors. Does seem to leave a little bad taste in your mouth. Especially at times like this and tax time. We hope that our city officials will remember they live among their Neighbors. Over a period of time things will change just look at whats in Washington. It doesn't usually start out bad but it sure has ended up very corrupt. Big money makes people do strange things. Just need to always keep the checks and balances in place. No one treats your money like you do. It seems once its given to politicians its forgotten where it came from. It comes from the people who put you in there. Funny how Amnesia sets in and makes it so easy to spend and remember where it comes from.
Sandra Hetlage
9:16 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I for one do not want more appartment in Peachtree Corners. Our schools are over crowded with appox. 26 children per class room at Simpson already, How does this make any sence for the well being of our comunity. Life as we know it will change with the congestion alone. We need to put pressure on our elected city concil to do the right thing and fight to keep our comminity a wonderful place to live
Rusty Taylor
3:45 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
If we want to keep apartments from being built their is only one sure fire way to do that. We need to get the funds together and BUY the property.Then the city can do with it as it pleases.
debi
10:58 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
I am not sure but is there a zoning of Apartment or is it Multi Family - can the new city of ours require the multi family be Condo and not Apartment? - Not that i support multi family but condo has some investment by the occupant where apartment does not.
Veritatem
7:40 am on Monday, February 4, 2013
Good question, debi. Unfortunately, the property owner can use the land as allowed by the zoning and the city cannot force the owner to build condos if apartments are allowed by the zoning, which is the case here. Lennar wants to build apartments that the zoning allows and, subject to buying the property, the city apparently cannot stop Lennar. The city may be able to require the use of certain materials, setbacks, green space, etc., but I'm not even sure if, or to the extent, it can even do this. Unless something different happens we'll have over 250 more apartments in the city, and a total of apartments way, way more than city planners and residential real estate professionals believe is good for any city.