-
A capacity crowd gathered inside and outside the planning commission meeting room Monday night to make their voices heard on a proposed mixed use development for Dawsonville Highway and Pink Williams Road.
It was a full 20 minutes until the start of the scheduled planning commission meeting on Monday night.
A large crowd already filled the lobby and vestibule of the Lumpkin Planning & Development building and had begun to spill outside. Citizens huddled under the roofline to avoid the evening’s relentless rain.
On the jam-packed agenda were three variance requests and three different proposals awaiting review and approval. But it was the final item, the presentation regarding the proposed Flourish Community, that seemed to generate the most public interest.
This proposal for a 100-unit inclusive community ultimately hit a major roadblock when, in an unexpected twist, the property owner said he'd been misled about the nature of the development.
As new arrivals filtered in to the lobby that night, a staff member asked which agenda items they were there to comment on.
Because the planning commission meeting room has a maximum occupancy of 50 people, citizens were asked to only enter the room once their specific agenda items had been brought before the commission.
FLOURISH COMMUNITY
After nearly an hour and a half, the meeting reached the final proposal on the agenda, the Flourish Community.
The meeting room stayed relatively full for the entire meeting, but now every single seat was taken, with the overflow crowd watching a live Zoom stream from elsewhere in the building.
“This request is related to a proposed Class VI subdivision on Dawsonville Highway and Pink Williams Road, which is parcel 022-066,” Community & Economic Development Director Rebecca Mincey began. She then read aloud the relevant County code related to Class VI subdivisions and explained the process for the hearing.
“The planning commission will review the first preliminary plat for the concept, which is what we’re doing tonight, and make recommendations to the developer,” she said.
Mincey then reviewed some stipulations that the department had relayed to the applicant prior to the meeting.
“It’s the Road Department’s determination that Pink Williams does not meet County road standards, so an engineer traffic study would be required as well as improvements from the driveway back to Dawsonville Highway. It’s also the road department’s recommendation that the Georgia Department of Transportation provide a letter of support for the additional traffic that would be pulled from Pink Williams onto Dawsonville Highway,” Mincey said before turning the presentation over to applicant Seth Barnes, Jr.
“We’re proposing a residential community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” Barnes said.
He said his plan is an amalgamation of ideas gleaned from other similar community designs in the country.
“The proposed model is essentially similar to a 55 and older community with an attached HOA [Home Owners Association] … It has attached amenities, a meal plan, some employees that would be able to provide varying levels of care. The financial model would be homes for sale, homes for rent or rooms for rent,” he continued.
Barnes explained that only a high concentration of homes would be able to keep those HOA costs down at reasonable levels, which is why his plan calls for as many as 47 duplexes and 66 one-eighth acre lots on the 77 acre property.
“As far as the specifics of the development, it would have a state approved septic system situated in the back. We would widen Pink Williams Road from Dawsonville Highway leading up to the entrance to the community. We anticipate pretty low traffic, because the nature of the people that are living there. Most of them are not going to be driving,” Barnes added before reserving his remaining minutes for a rebuttal.
SHOWING SUPPORT
Planning Commission Chair Barbara Bosanko then asked for any public comments in support of the proposed development.
Jacqueline Daniel, founder and director of ConnectAbility, seized the opportunity.
“As I’ve come to know families over the years and asked ‘What are your biggest needs?’ It’s always the same needs: the need to have a sense of belonging and connection with the community to combat the isolation and loneliness, a job, transportation and housing. Our organization ConnectAbility is committed to providing those things in our community because there’s a great need,” Daniel said before endorsing the plan.
The only other resident to speak in support of the plan was Michelle Steinberg.
“There are a lot of people in this community who do not have a place to live … I understand as residents of Dahlonega what we want our community to look like. But we also have to care about people and provide shelter and work for solutions,” Steinberg said.
PUSHING BACK
Next up were those in opposition to the plan, led by Lani Henning.
“First off I want to commend your vision,” she said, addressing Barnes. “I have researched your association, and it’s impressive what you’ve achieved. But I do believe this property is not the right property for this.”
Henning pointed out the owner of the property, Larry Tanner, who was seated in back of the room.
“When he first started negotiating with your agent, it was going to be a camp for disabled children,” Henning began.
After talking for several minutes about Tanner’s health problems and his wishes for the property, Bosanko interrupted.
“What is your opposition?” she asked.
“Total opposition. We do not want this community,” she replied.
Bosanko pressed Henning for specifics.
“The board is wanting to hear what your opposition is,” Bosanko repeated.
Henning ultimately cited traffic concerns, runoff, the geographic isolation of the property and its corresponding lack of public water and transportation. She also suggested that the development “doesn’t fit into the aesthetic” of the community.
As Henning and Bosanko spoke, Nickie Rogers, another resident, made a negative comment from the back of the room.
Bosanko slammed her gavel down in frustration at the interruption.
Henning showed Bosanko a list of 160 signatures from residents opposed to the plan, before yielding the podium to Rogers.
Rogers began aggressively reiterating the group’s list of concerns about the project.
“Nickie, Nickie. Lower your voice,” Bosanko instructed.
“I teach teenagers. This is me. I promise you I’m not yelling,” Rogers said before accusing Bosanko of being “rude and disrespectful.”
Henning returned and said “we need a whole lot of studies done before we can move this thing even slightly forward.”
With 45 seconds remaining, Skip Sevier was the last to speak in opposition. He suggested the commission gather some more information on the traffic impact on Pink Williams Rd.
DEVELOPER REBUTTAL
Barnes returned and ceded his remaining time to his engineer of record, Payton Anderson.
He called for an onsite sewage treatment facility with an Environmental Protection Division-approved drip emitter system, which elicited loud groans of disapproval from the audience.
Barnes insisted that the system is safe and would be maintained and regulated by the state EPD, which led to more murmurs from the crowd. Bosanko hammered the gavel again to regain order.
“Please, let’s not have outbursts from the audience,” she pleaded, before noting that the preliminary plan did appear to be light on details.
“As a resident, I would want to know a whole lot more than what was provided,” Bosanko acknowledged.
“We intend to come back with a more robust plan,” Barnes responded.
SURPRISING TWIST
Mincey briefly reviewed the site plan for the benefit of the audience.
“The plan that we have is very raw, very preliminary. There’s not a lot of information given to the board that can give us what we need,” Bosanko reiterated.
“This meeting was never intended to be a meeting for voting, it was intended to gain feedback from the community and so far the only feedback we’re getting is ‘not at all,’ Anderson responded.
Bosanko suggested that the developer consider gathering all of the interested members of the public in a larger venue to discuss the local impact, something Barnes and Anderson said they were already working on setting up.
“The residents here have a lot of questions,” Bosanko said.
With that, Tanner raised his hand and asked to speak.
He said he had been told that the project would be a camp for disabled children, not a subdivision, and claimed that he had been lied to.
Mincey gave the commission options to table the proposal, approve the proposal or deny it altogether.
Bosanko strongly recommended tabling the proposal until a wider public discussion could take place.
“You see the crowd that’s here. You’ve got a lot of questions, Seth, that need to be answered,” she said.
Members of the audience suggested that the project should be denied because the idea was misrepresented to the property owner.
A representative for the project briefly entered the room to refute the allegation, but Bosanko told him the developers' time to speak had already expired.
Mincey offered Tanner the opportunity to withdraw the property owner’s authorization, and he indicated that was what he wished to do.
“So what needs to happen is the property owner needs to come forward and revoke,” Bosanko said.
“If he’s revoking his application for the project to be heard, the application cannot be heard by the planning commission,” Mincey said.
Tanner came forward and signed the relevant document. Mincey said the proposal could be brought back before the commission only if the developer regains the property owner’s approval.
Once the commission voted and Bosanko announced the item officially tabled, the crowd broke out in raucous applause.