Sr. apartments OK'd as PTC caves to lawsuits

Facing not one but two lawsuits, the Peachtree City Council voted unanimously Thursday to rezone a 5.6 acre site for an age-restricted senior apartment complex off Newgate Road next to the Kedron Village shopping center. The rezoning approves 96 units,

The rezoning approves 96 units, all but two of which will be age restricted to persons 62 and over. The two unrestricted apartments will be occupied by facility employees who serve the residents, the City Council was told.

The age restriction requirement is incorporated into the deed for the property and will continue even if the property ownership changes in the future, said attorney Laurel Henderson, who represented the city in both suits. The city will be able to bring forth a zoning violation against the owner if it is ever determined to be in violation of the age restrictions, she added.

The rezoning was denied on a 4-1 vote last June, which led to developer NorSouth Companies filing a fair housing act lawsuit in federal court and also a zoning challenge in Fayette County Superior Court. The rezoning approved by council will result in those suits being dismissed.

Henderson noted that the city could face legal bills into the hundreds of thousands of dollars if it proceeded with the lawsuit.

Because the property was previously zoned limited use residential for a luxury townhome project that was never built, it was already zoned for multifamily use, Henderson said. It was also noted that the multifamily zoning is supported by the city’s land use plan, which calls for more dense housing toward the village center areas.

NorSouth attorney Kathy Zickert said the company would meet all the conditions it had previously agreed to.

Among those conditions were:
• A requirement for NorSouth and all future property owners to follow federal age restriction and verification policies, which include the use of a photo ID listing each residents’ date of birth.
• NorSouth will notify the city of any ownership or management change for the property;
• Provide covered parking for golf carts; and
• Screening of mechanical units.

The apartments are targeting seniors who earn no more than about $30,000 a year, and some have questioned what would happen if the company is unable to fill the complex.

The income limit is set due to a requirement of tax credits allowed for the project that are granted on the construction end to keep rents affordable. Anyone earning more than the income limit can rent one of the apartments at full market price, NorSouth officials have said.

NorSouth representatives have said they have never had a problem finding tenants for its similar properties. The company also has provided a tour of its Atlanta area developments for council members, planning commission members, city staff and the public.

The development would be surrounded on Newgate Road by an existing hotel, car wash, convenience store and gas station, officials said.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Sussberg

You seem to be the guy in the know, after Walgreens and low cost apartments what else is in the works for our fair city?

Any more threatened lawsuits that the citizens don't know about?

Little by little the city's "leadership" continues to degrading our community through either incompetence or stupidity. Or both?

Any ideas on this Mr. Sussberg?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No reporting yet on the Kedron Station Apartment scandal

We do have a couple of puff pieces on Fresh Market - and I really like seeing them here in PTC.
And of course another Steve Brown feature.

But should we not have a follow-up story on why the city council voted 5-0 to avoid a lawsuit that none of us heard about? Seems pretty basic journalism to me? What is being hidden and why?

ptctaxpayer
ptctaxpayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/23/2005
C'mon Bobby...You and your buds

C'mon Bobby...You and your buds used to regularly argue for settling stuff because "we could get sued". Same thing.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Well, well, well. Racism. Imagine that.

Late breaking news at 11:35 PM on Tuesday night. The year-old lawsuit comes to light just in time for the print version of the paper. Very dramatic.

Settling this does save a bunch of money. The Fair Housing people live for stuff like this. They don't need much in the way of facts or proof. They will even provide mind-reading services free of charge because they "just know" comparing Kedron Station to Peachtree Station/Harmony Village/whatever it is named now is racist.

I guess we did have our teachable moment because of this lawsuit, but it says a lot more about the federal government and the Fair Housing leeches than it does about Don Haddix or even Norsouth.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morgan: racism

I am finding it hard to distinguish the difference in racism and simply not wanting any low wage subsidized housing or senior housing that is subsidized.

Is this kind of thinking either way racism?
The question that comes to mind is this: if such people aren't allowed to have subsidized housing anywhere, and especially in a town who does not want them, where are they supposed to live and how?

Now one answer is to not get one's self into a situation where you need subsidized housing and therefore the government won't have to subsidize such housing.
I can hardly foresee a country where everyone has the ability at anytime to provide for their own decent housing. Everyone! So I suppose they live in the children's basement or attic, or under a bridge or at the Salvation Army!

If asked individually, in private, if we should accept whatever people move here, or should we continue to fight against development of homes for some of them by subsidization of rent payments, it is my opinion that the great majority would say that they would rather not have such people in Peachtree City. Is that racism?

I know I hear a great deal of conversation about such developments causing our city to have more crime and fear. Gun talk for instance. Tax expenditures, for instance. Is that racism?

It seems to me that the problem, if one exists, is when the passage of the law occurred to provide such services, it was our duty to help enforce it or change the law later when we could.

That is not racism!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
It is racism because the federal government says it is

Case after case sparked by the Fair Housing people and their entrapment and extortion techniques have clearly expanded the definition of racism to be whatever they want it to be. Obviously the courts have a long history of siding with these people and their enablers at Dept. of Justice.

It is a real stretch to take Haddix's remark - which any sane person would agree with - and interpret that as racist, but that's what happened. Lawyers sued, the court apparently didn't throw the suit out and conventional wisdom was that PTC was destined to lose.

There may be more to this than just the Haddix remark, but I think the remark was all the Fair Housing leeches needed to start the racist accusations. And it certainly seemed to get the city council's attention.

Probably been better if the zoning had reverted to Commercial when the 21 townhome guy went away, then Norsouth would have to deal with a moratorium and a new rezoning. I still smell a rat in that deal.

And I really don't think that every city, town and county has to be responsible for providing every type of housing for every single segment of the market as defined by income, age or anything else. They do have a responsibility to not discriminate, but that is a different thing.

That being said, look for a change of ownership or financing terms or something within a year that will trigger some broken promises and an apartment project that is much different than what is being promoted now. We have been manipulated.

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
Good job council

Thanks for the vote. We need housing like this. It is also in a perfect area, close to kroger, doctors, dentists, and other shopping. All they will need is a golf cart. Good job everyone involved.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
90% or so disagree with you..

It's a BAD decision for PTC. In so many ways.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
WHY, Spy?

Do you live near Kroger northside PTC?

Seems to me the shopping center will welcome them!

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Good job Council??? Not really

No normal, we don't need housing like this. These so-called restrictions are a complete joke. It is simply another apartment project with some front-end assurances that will never be honored. Same as Peachtree Station. Wait and see.

As to Bacon's point on who allowed this daisy chain of mistakes to begin - that would be your city council of 2007. It is all there for you to read in the March 1, 2007 meeting minutes. Plunkettt asked what would happen if the project didn't happen. Rast said the site plan and restrictions would be "codified" in the zoning. Presumeably that included the 3,000 square foot minimums. Rutherford then asked when the project would start. Builder answered as soon as possible, maybe by June 1. June 1, 2007 that is. Of course that was mere months before the market imploded, so I guess that builder is happy he didn't start. He and his bank would have a mini-Lexington Circle on their hands.

Chicks rule! All the right questions were asked. Follow through seems a little shabby though.

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
Hold on there mudcat

I dont understand why you dont think we need senior housing like this. Yes we do. Only 1 percent of seniors can afford 3 to 5 thousand a month for a 2 bedroom at the townclub. Many seniors homes are falling apart. They cant afford to fix them being on fixed income. A center like this is perfect. And what else would you want next to a holiday inn, gas station and car wash. No one would buy a home there. So its an ideal location. Washington state (SHAG) has 62 and older apartment complexes everywhere. They work very well and they do not have a problem with who lives there. It is a blessing for those people out there to have such beautiful places to live. Lets face it Georgia has a bunch of crap for low income seniors to live in. So build on and up

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I'm holding on, normal.

If this were truly senior housing that was going to provide seniors only with affordable rental I would agree with you. Could use some of that. But, this is not that. It will be advertised that way and the first few seniors that move in will be blissfully unaware about what the place will be like in less than a year. When the initial surge is over, there will be pressure to fill it up and the useless and unenforceable age and income restrictions will be relaxed, then bent, then ignored. And the city won't be able to do a thing about it.

It is a scam! The developer sounds sincere now and as I said he will start out trying to attract only seniors, but when the supply of seniors able to sell their house and move in here dries up, regular people (some with kids) will take their place and it will just be a regular apartment project in a questionable location. The chances of a mostly vacant project being sold to another developer or investor within the first year is very high.

It is 100 units! It has to be 90% full to survive. You think their bank will sit back and say "O well, if it takes 5 years to fill up, so what? It is nice for the seniors."

100 seniors that are currently renting, relocating from out of town or able to sell their house in PTC are the groups that can move in here. 100 of them? Doubt it very much.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
MUD I THINK YOU ARE WRONG

If I could get on a waiting list to ensure I could get a unit I would sign up now. My fixed income is killing me on rent and have tried to get part time employment for over 2 years now. How soon do they expect completion.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mud

So the only important thing is money earned and race?

What do you suggest for seniors?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Money earned and race? What does that mean?

Or what does it have to do with what I said?
No doubt economic reality will play a part in the developer's leasing decisions, but who said anything about race?

And what do I suggest for seniors? Sun City Peachree or one of the many retirement communities here and near here. Florida is nice. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that Peachtree City is supposed to become a retirement community, but even so there are plenty of places for seniors to live in PTC if they don't mind paying the high taxes.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mudcat

You know exactly what I said!

Why are you against these apartments?

Maybe these old folks want to stay here and not Sun City or Florida since they can't afford those places anyway!

You sound like, Marie Antoinette--"let them eat cake!"

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mud

Of course it is a low-income project whether they are old or young!

Those people have to live somewhere decent and get them out of other trashy places.

We, as a city, simply need to say they are welcome and try to put them where they should be to fit the town plans.
To do otherwise is hypocritical and selfish.

Reminds me of the minority found in the river with 300 pounds of chain locked around him and the sheriff saying it was the worst case of suicide he ever saw! Circa-1950 GA

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Good job council part II

Normal, that was a very normal comment. The age restriction is written into the property deed, so there will be none of the usual problems associated with high density housing because a trouble causing element will not be there. This is a very much needed type of housing. Of course, regarding the lawsuits, when you got 'em by the b*lls, their hearts and minds will follow.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
A deed restriction, Mr. Unit?

An age restriction in the property deed for rental property? I don't think so. Besides, deed restrictions expire after 20 years, that's why Ruby Tuesday is being torn down - expired deed restriction on use as a restaurant.
It is also why a 35-year old single mom with 2 young kids moved into the "age restricted" community of Lake Forest Glen - the nice stucco house.

This so-called age restriction is a condition of their financing but who here believes that after they get their financing that a single mom (or dad) who is joined later by 2 unruly teenagers will be tossed out by management - especially if there are vacant units and they are paying non-subsidized rent. More to the point, who else is going to toss them out. The lender who has already collected their loan fees upfront and is getting regular monthly payments or is the city going to go in there with a SWAT team and evict them because of a "deed restriction".

The answer is none of the above and we have 100 new apartment units overlooking a shopping center. We have been bamboozled by a fast-talking developer and his lawyer. By the way, why was there a lawsuit over this?

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
My apologies Ms. Mud

I spoke without knowing the details, most unlike me, LOL. It was my understanding the deed restrictions do not expire unless there is a date included when they do, and it is the entity that is benefiting from the restrictions that does the enforcing. I am asking for forgiveness.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No need to apologize to me, carbon

Deed restriction is something that developers and government types talk about as being a cure-all for everything - especially in PTC, but of course the devil is in the details and the details surrounding this apartment project stink out loud.

And all deed restrictions expire in 20 or 25 years under Georgia law (unless an earlier date is specified), but very few people know that. Which is why experienced lawmakers will grant Limited Use zoning when they want certain conditions to be met, since the zoning category does not expire. But, it is a lot of trouble to write a special zoning category for every single parcel, so it seldom gets done. I think there have only been 10 or 12 in the entire history of PTC.

And you are correct the entity that creates the deed restriction is responsible for enforcing. Know who that is in this case? Pathways/PCDC the landowner/seller. Now do you see why enforcement of these pie in the sky age and income restrictions is a joke?

I am really curious about this lawsuit and why council caved in so quickly on this. There is more to this story and I hope we find out what it is.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
MUDCAT FOR MAYOR OR COUNCIL

Ms. 'know it all' get involved where you can do some good instead of just blowing off steam and ranting. When is the last time you served instead of just bellowed?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Last time served? It depends

Either last Thursday Meals on Wheels or last campaign was Matt Ramsey's. Before that Stuart Kourajian's.
Mayor or Council? Don't think so. It is much easier to critique other people that to actually have any responsibility for getting things done.

And I am not against these apartments at all - if they turn out to be exactly what has been promised - an affordable rental project that caters exclusively to seniors. No kids, no crime, stable ownership and management. I would love to be wrong and see it happen exactly that way.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
carbon

Maybe we could "sort" out the troublesome problems? Have a Psychiatrist examine them! Check on their heritage? Ask for "birth certificates?" Profile?

L.Sussberg
L.Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009
Robert W. Morgan

Read the minutes of the city council meeting where Norsouth made their first presentation...look at what the MAYOR said, not the rookies...there is your answer!!!!
You asked a good question...how much did this cost the city...!!!!!!!!!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Did the PTC government pay their webhost bill?

Larry, I've been trying for two days to access PTC meeting minutes on the PTC website, but keep getting random login errors from the Laserfiche document repository that the PTC government uses to house their meeting minutes.

I wonder if they paid their webhosting invoices?

EDITED TO ADD:
FINALLY got in.
Relevant documents to look at are:
3/17/10 Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting (initial proposal)
4/26/10 Planning Commission Meeting (part one) *MAIN DISCUSSION*
5/24/10 Planning Commission Meeting (part two, Staff recommends approval)
6/17/10 Council denies approval 4-1 (Kim Learned in favor)

Based on reading those 4 documents, it would appear that the developer was a little less than upfront with the COUNCIL about higher density, but worked extensively with DAPC STAFF to get a favorable higher density.

The developer did their homework, they're basically locking up a building receiving "developer welfare" from HUD in return for $500 rent for a 1br/1ba apt for 15 years. This is NOT public housing and there IS a need for this, based on what I read.

Kudos to Beth Pullias for really holding developer feet to the fire at the planning commission.

One big snag was that the developer plans to have one parking space for a resident, either Cart OR Car, so parking will be at a premium.

This will be one 3 story (elevator) building with a charming rear view of the Kedron shopping center trash dumpsters.

I'm not real sure why the council denied the rezoning.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
DAPC staff? What are they involved for?

DAPC? Development Authority of PTC? Doesn't seem to be a role for them in this.

Nevertheless, ole Larry wasn't much help in finding out what the mayor said that led to the lawsuit - maybe the answer is somewhere in what you read - most likely the 6/7/10 council meeting, but possibly the first meeting - St. Patrick's Day.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
my error, Morgan

My error, sorry about that. I saw Joint Council / Department Planning Commission and fat-fingered abbreviated DPC to DAPC.

Also, the date of the joint meeting minutes was 3/2/10, not 3/17.

I need caffeine.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Ok, I looked and there is nothing Edited 4PM

The 3/2 joint meeting was not much at all, just a presentation. Only thing Haddix said was he needed to know the specific location before he could lift the moratorium, which seems obvious. Some guy named Brown was pushing Norsouth to acquire an existing property and redevelop it for seniors, no idea what would happen to the existing residents. The other distraction was from people talking about how bad Lexington Circle was, but nothing that would spark a lawsuit.

The 8/9 planning commission meeting had a comment by Sussberg about planning commission acting without regard to comments made by others, but again nothing actionable. Besides, they were talking about cell phone towers.

I guess this is going to be one of the many questions that can't be answered, although if someone had reported on the lawsuit there would have been some mention of why the lawsuit was filed, doncha ya think?

As an aside, reading some of these minutes I realize why council and planning commission meetings are so poorly attended. They are not very well run. There are too many irrelevant and downright stupid comments allowed by the chairperson. When speakers wander off subject they should be cut off and told to sit down. It is fine to speak on the subject, but some of these people are speaking just to hear themselves talk and to inject some personal agenda into the meeting. They do not contribute anything to the subject being discussed, but just use up valuable time. In fact, the chairperson should refer the speaker to these blogs where obviously no one is in control and any fool can ramble on and on endlessly, but completely off the subject - like I just did.

Edited 4PM Ok, I was told at the Kroger by a sharp-eyed reader that Haddix did go over the line on Page 7 of the minutes of the joint meeting/workshop on 3/2/10, so I read them again. Still nothing that would spark a lawsuit with an almost certain outcome. Inappropriate, yes. Even rude to express personal opinion when none is asked for, but lawsuit material? I don't think so. What am I missing here?

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Try this

Planning Comm. 8/9/10 page 15 2nd paragraph.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Fine, fine, fine could you just copy and paste it, please?

Really would be good to know what it says instead of having to go on a treasure hunt.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Aw come on Larry, just tell us what the mayor said

I don't have the meeting minutes or the desire to navigate the city's website. Actually when Norsouth first appeared the mayor was a rookie mayor - it was about a year ago wasn't it?

L.Sussberg
L.Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009
Robert W Morgan

I am not going to quote what he said because he will deny it anyway.
It was enough to bring the suit and most likely the specialized attorney predicted a poor outcome.

City council is the deciding body on planning and zoning issues. The mayor believes he can say what he wants when he wants to but during the planning process, council members (or planning commission) can not vocialize an opinion since it might bias the project. Every developer deserves due process.

The mayor did it durng Calluah Hills and he did it with Norsouth. That is why I resigned from the planning commission and if you remember, the mayor went after me in that process...as we all know he turns things around because he believes he is not capable of making mistakes and does not want to be held accountable for errors.

This time the city got sued and it cost all of us(taxpaper money!). Let's hope that he stops, he has been warned by counsel in the past about this which makes it even more unacceptable.

I'm sure you can read the minutes and see what was said.

Also, its shocking that PTC residents have not woken up to this and other issues going on!

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Council....you got some 'splainin to do..

I flat out don't understand this vote.

I want to change the zoning on my current lot. I want a HIGH rise for about 20 Families, all over 60 and making less than 30K per year...if enough under 30K per year are available. Otherwise, it's FULL BOAT RENT BABEE!! LMAO at this vote.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Spy: Mayor Haddix will be here any minute.....

...to spin it...errr...explain it.

I get the feeling though that the council was in a position of either approving it or fighting a futile and very expensive court battle over denying it again. NorSouth knows what kind of financial position PTC is in and the insurance will not cover the court fight if your GRMA attorney recommends one course of action and you ignore it. Then, you pick up the bill.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
I would have been in favor of fighting it..

They upped the density by 5 fold. Ridiculous.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Probably a $500k payout, spyguy

Now that we have found out that it was a federal lawsuit - albeit one not reported in any local paper - the stakes get higher. You also have the Fair Housing people involved and suits like this are their major fund-raising mechanism. If PTC lost this case it would have dragged out for years and the lawyers would get 300k and we would also have to pay a fine to Fair Housing and $200k is about the average of what those leeches normally extract from defendants.

It is ridiculous, but whoever let a commercial piece get zoned for an innocent-looking 21 units without a reversionary clause or building timetable is the real villain in all this. Wonder who that was?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Morgan nails it
Robert W. Morgan wrote:

It is ridiculous, but whoever let a commercial piece get zoned for an innocent-looking 21 units without a reversionary clause or building timetable is the real villain in all this. Wonder who that was?

☝☝☝ Morgan nails the $64,000 question.

Personally, I would not be surprised to hear that former city attorney Rick Lindsey was involved in the initial rezoning.

Let's hope the ubiquitous, mysterious "Peachtree City Staff" learns their lesson from this clusterfolk and puts reversion/recession AND timetables in ALL future zoning requests, PERIOD.

Bottom line: Another black eye for the quality of life in Peachtree City.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Edited: Only one of the $64,000 questions answered

To me there are 4 big-time questions pending on this:
1. Who let the horse out of the barn by allowing the 21-unit residential zoning without a performance deadline or a reversionary clause?
2. Why was the lawsuit not reported upon until the last council meeting? And what federal law did the city violate?
3. What did the mayor say that Larry Sussberg thinks led to the lawsuit?
4. What keeps Norsouth from tweaking the tenants that get approved to get a higher mix of those paying full-market rent? In other words, how far can they push it and still keep their sweetheart subsidized financing?

All good questions, but thus far questions without answers. Might be fairly easy for Cal or John to pull all this together as a teachable moment for our city council and the citizens of PTC. Make a nice sidebar in next Wednesday's paper.

Edited Tuesday AM: Question #1. Answer is Logsdon's first city council with Plunkett and Rutherford leading the way on asking all the right questions about the 21 townhomes that never got built. Seems like their worst fears came to pass and the city didn't follow through.

Now those other 3 questions still loom.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
$64,000 question #4

Insofar as Norsouth tweaking the tenants, in one of the council meeting minutes, Norsouth admits it is getting developer welfare $$ upfront from HUD. For 15 years, they have to certify to HUD that 80% of their tenant base gets the discount rent, or else HUD notifies the IRS of the project's non-compliance and the project investors get a tax bill.

I tend not to believe anything that comes out of Sussberg's mouth, he's obviously disgruntled and is pushing his own agenda.

Current council seems (from reading meeting minutes) to be more than a bit jaded and cynical about the promises of developers regarding senior housing, hence the unusual original 4-1 vote.

Do you have the date of the meeting about the 21 homes? I'd like to read it.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
March 1, 2007 was the 21 townhome meeting

Looks like Plunkett and Rutherford were asking the right questions. Not sure who dropped the ball afterwards.

Good to hear the IRS has a watchdog role in all this. That should keep enough affordable apartments on the market, although 80-100 of them seems to exceed the demand from local seniors. Maybe we will be bringing them in from surrounding counties. Not sure that is what our city leadership had in mind, but who knows. My friends at the Gathering Place said they were never surveyed by Norsouth or the city about this project - and that seems like a common sense group with which to do a market analysis to determine demand. I guess they just went for maximum density and are hoping for the best.

Sussberg said earlier that Haddix said something that led to the lawsuit in the first Norsouth presentation, but wouldn't quote it and there is nothing I can see in the 3/2/10 meeting which was the joint presentation to Planning Commission and City Council. Maybe Cal and John have gotten curious about this and we will read about it tomorrow.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Thanks Morgan

I concur with your opinion...Rutherford and Plunkett were asking the right questions. 3000 sq ft townehomes never struck me as being particularly viable from an economic standpoint, though.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Builder might have been PCDC beard

My neighbor who spent a lot of time around PCDC and Group VI had an interesting theory.

In his opinion the builder of the 21 townhomes was a beard for the landowner (you know what that means in this context, don't you?) who was sent in with a modest 21 unit proposal that appealed to the relatively inexperienced mayor and council in terms of density and product. Sure 3000 square foot townhomes would never be built, nor sold if they were, but it did catch council off guard and they changed the zoning from commercial to residential. And of course the seller (PCDC) never sold the land, so any deed restrictions or square footage requirements were not enacted. Then 3 years after the sleeper parcel was zoned a new purchaser appears. Since it was already zoned multi-family residential, no need to revisit the moratorium and the new purchaser, who may or may not be a straw man, gets to push it further up to maximum density.

Of course a council that is influenced by tree-huggers and anti-density freaks can easily be distracted by a non-marketable, but attractive (to them) low density product and they wouldn't recognize the non-marketability and to be fair, marketability is not really their responsibility. I'll bet they even congratulated themselves on what they thought this was a zoning coup - downgrading from commercial to residential.

I think that planning something like that requires a lot more intellect than used to exist in the developer's operation, but I think they would if they could - and I can easily see the city falling for it. Not sure who the city attorney was then, but the buck might stop there.

Maybe when the details about this supposed federal lawsuit surface, we will learn more. The 5-0 roll over and play dead vote looks like it came fro fear of losing a slam-dunk lawsuit. Makes you want to know more, doesn't it?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Conspiracy theories

I'm generally not given to conspiracy theories, but I have to admit your explanation does seem entirely plausible.

Hopefully, the Citizen can document exactly what happened and when it happened. A timeline would be greatly appreciated.

It certainly seems that something went seriously wrong with this parcel of land.

EDITED TO ADD:
I just read the actual rezoning application on the Peachtree City website.

38 pages long, lots and lots of pretty pictures. Yet not a single line regarding why 100-110 units is now needed instead of 30.

One eye-opener: Builder is claiming replacing 30 units with 100+ retiree units will DECREASE morning traffic flow by 6 cars per hour, since we all know people over 62 don't have to go to work in the morning.

Another eye-opener: the developer is considering a "golf-cart shuttle service to the Kedron Kroger shopping center".

Third eye-opener: this project will be funded 60% by the State of Georgia under a developmental authority grant that will expire soon. the STATE department of revenue, NOT the IRS, will ensure deed restriction compliance regarding senior citizens.

Seems the owner of the tract of land is PCDC inc. What. A. Surprise.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Ask Tyrone

Ask the folks in Tyrone what happens when you lose in court over a residential development.

pumpkin
pumpkin's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/19/2009
IT IS A JOKE

you as well as the Mayor know it. Since our Mayor is against everything else for this city to increase revenue, times are bad, buildings are empty and Now he flip flops again. WHAT A JOKE What else is he going to flip?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Good job Laurel. How much did you bill the city?

You sure you are representing us? Roll over and play dead to avoid legal fees? Would it not have been better to tell the city council a year ago that this was going to be the outcome - or was all this just a stall to kick the can down the road so that the new mayor and council would have to handle it and get the blame for it?

Now, pay attention to the classic offhand remark slipped in at the end where it will escape most people's notice -----" Anyone earning more than the income limit can rent one of the apartments at full market price, NorSouth officials have said." Well, well, well, methinks some people earning less than $30,000 per year are going to told nothing is available or them since the place is full of tenants paying market rent. You dudes have just rezoned an apartment project - albeit one with "age restrictions". Sure is handy to the gas station, liquor store and the Target parking lot.

So, with all this new information I think we can see that this new project - let's call it Kedron Station for now - will not resemble Towne Club in any way, nor will it be competition for them.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
If Those Full-Rent Payers Get

too lively, the PTC police can do some of those friendly 'community involvement' programs, where they park outside the complex with their blue lights flashing for a few hours, like they did in Wynnmeade a while back.

Thanks for the memories Mayor Haddix!

L.Sussberg
L.Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009
Robert W Morgan

Do you think that possibly the lawyer did her best to represent the city but that possibly something was said or done forcing this result....

ever think about that possiblity?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
You mean like a councilperson speaking before thinkng?

Maybe saying something like he or she doesn't care about property rights, we just do things different here in Peachtree City. Something like that? Or saying we won't zone something because something similar elsewhere in town has vacancies. Something like that?

Sure I thought about that. Happened before, will happen again. That's why I don't think voting out experienced incumbents just for the sake of getting someone in office with no experience or a single agenda is a good idea. Certainly some incumbents need to go, but not all need to go and not all at the same time.

Rookies make rookie mistakes. You don't see the Atlanta Braves starting 9 rookies at the same time.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Lawyer on Senior apts

PTC contracts with GMA/GIRMA for legal defense and advice whenever it is sued or potentially going to be sued, so that's why Laurel Henderson was involved and not Teed Meeker/city Attorney in this instance. Generally, GIRMA legal is pretty competent and if they give you the choice of a) spending a fortune defending an issue that they likely will lose in court or b) rezoning, you as a City are much better off going the Option B route. Every council member agreed in this case also.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Something I don't understand...

I've read this article twice, and there's something I'm not able to understand here...

If a developer asks...and receives....rezoning of a parcel from commercial to low-density apartments, does this developer then have a near-automatic right to unilaterally increase the density of this apartment complex under threat of legal action?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
CPB: The answer is YES

That is typically what can happen when you allow the first rezoning....suddenly, the developer has some "rights" they didn't have before. In this case, the developer was going to use the Fair Housing Act as a hammer against the city, so they were coming at PTC with more ammo than just a simple rezoning request.

I'm pretty open on rezoning issues when the potential benefits outweigh the potential negatives, but you have to remember that Steve Brown's vision as Mayor was to attract as many seniors as possible because he feels the fact that they don't have kids going to school is a big win-win and that seniors also don't commute. He doesn't talk about how seniors are also a major drain on public services and I think sometimes Haddix falls into the same trap of thinking "well, they don't commute so they don't clog up the roads." Uh, seniors clog the hell out of any road they drive on and create traffic jams singlehandedly at times. Last I checked, FC school system doesn't have a "too many kids enrollment" problem either, something that people like Brown had zero foresight on considering not that long ago.