Build-to-Rent Subdivisions in the City of Sugar Hill

At the March City Council Meeting, the City Council conducted a public hearing for case RZ-22-006 (66 townhouses and 12 single-family detached houses next to Warrenton and across from Arbor Clos). The City Council ultimately denied the request unanimously, after the Planning Commission had recommended denial a few weeks before.

But, at the hearing, and in separate emails to elected officials on February 27 (in which he also requested a "phone call, a Zoom call, or in-person meeting" to discuss the case privately before the official public meetings), developer and realtor Patrick Bell threatened to develop the property with its current RS-100 zoning as a build-to-rent (BTR) subdivision of 1,600-1800 square-foot houses.

The issue of corporate-owned BTR subdivisions has already come up twice in Sugar Hill. They're a hot trend among developers drawn to the business model's perceived profitability, also making it a hot trend among the developer fanboys in state and local government. Developers and governments fund studies that always support this endeavor, claiming that people are clamoring for more housing that takes up a large chunk of their paycheck so they can't save for a down payment on a more stable situation. However, anyone with even a casual knowledge of studies quickly notices that study outcomes are often favorable to the position of whoever funds the study (remarkable how that happens). My observation is that while some people do want to rent, many more people find themselves with no choice due to conditions resulting from the actions of purely profit-driven corporations and short-sighted governments.

BTR single-family subdivisions are a new enough concept that we haven't seen how they'll age, although it is easy to predict. Everyone knows the renters who take care of property (I was one and so were my parents), but there are far more examples of renters who don't. In landlord-tenant disputes, Georgia law is heavily skewed in favor of landlords, which is probably partially a reflection of those tenants. It also isn't uncommon for a Homeowner's Association (HOA) to include covenants that limit the number of homes that can be leased in a subdivision.

In any case, build-to-rent subdivisions will probably keep coming up periodically unless the City Council changes the City ordinances to limit these developments or change how we handle them to limit the impact of their pitfalls on the community. So far, our City government has shown no willingness to do this.

In August/September 2021, the Planning Commission and City Council both voted unanimously to approve 126 rental townhouses (the proposed rental rate was $2400/month at that time) at the corner of Bailey Avenue and Highway 20.

In January 2022, the City was approached with a request to rezone 27.724 acres off Sycamore road to build a subdivision that was initially planned for 87 single-family detached houses exclusively for rental. The case dragged on for six months. It seemed as though no one from the City Council wanted to deny it, but didn't feel politically safe approving it in full view of a disapproving public that kept showing up month after month.

The Sugar Hill Planning Commission (SHPC) heard from multiple concerned neighbors and expressed their own concerns regarding traffic congestion, site distance, the entrance location, and tree preservation on the site. Both groups largely avoided the rental aspect of the project. SHPC tabled it once before finally voting to deny it in February. Members Phil Olsen, Julie Adams, and Jason Jones voted to deny, while Chairman Jeremy White voted against the denial after his motion to approve the development died for lack of a second. The Planning Director ignored the Planning Commission's decision and continued to recommend approval of the project.

When the case appeared before City Council for the first time in March 2022, Council Member Taylor Anderson added some essentially meaningless conditions to the case, and Council voted to table it for a month to make sure the changes were acceptable to the developer. In April 2022, Anderson and Council Member Marc Cohen voted to approve the project. In a rare divided vote, Council Members Alvin Hicks, Mason Roszel, and Jennifer Thatcher did not vote to approve it. However, no one made a motion to deny the rezoning, so it returned in May with a reduced unit count (from 87 to 77) and an offer from the developer to put $20,000 in a Capital Reserve Fund for the HOA to cover issues with roads, stormwater, etc. Anderson moved to table the case again, and all agreed.

In June 2022, they weakly, and temporarily, turned down the request. After moving to deny the development without prejudice, Council Member Mason Roszel amended his motion to allow the developers to withdraw their application without prejudice. In another rare divided vote, Roszel and Council Members Jenn Thatcher and Taylor Anderson voted to allow the withdrawal, while Council Members Marc Cohen and Alvin Hicks voted against it.

If City Council denies a rezoning request, it can't be heard by the City Council again for twelve (12) months without a waiver from the City Council. A developer has to request that waiver from the Council. Even then, no rezoning can be heard less than six (6) months from its date of denial. By voting to let the developer withdraw their application without prejudice, the City Council allowed the developer to avoid any possible waiting period.

The case experienced significant public opposition from neighbors until the end. My coverage of the case here on Facebook drew substantial interest from the overall community, so much so that the developer contacted me personally in an attempt to initiate a private discussion.

As the case played out in the public arena, most of the Planning Commission seemed genuinely concerned about the project's impact on the Sugar Hill residents. However, City Council Members Taylor Anderson and Marc Cohen were committed to the project to the point it seemed they were fighting for it. No City Council Members expressed real opposition to the project. Mostly, every member of the Council seemed interested in finding a way to allow the project while minimizing political blowback from the community.

Meanwhile, as the City of Sugar Hill seriously toyed with adding a corporate-owned build-to-rent subdivision to our community, setting a precedent for more, two bills regarding this type of development came up in the Georgia General Assembly. Both bills would have made it illegal and imposed penalties if a local government, such as the City of Sugar Hill, tried to impose ordinances restricting all-rental communities.

In the end, both bills failed. Georgia Municipal Association (GMA), the lobbying organization for local governments, mounted a vigorous defense against the bill, as did multiple local governments. Alpharetta, Roswell, Flowery Branch, Forsyth County, and Dawson County spoke out against the bills and passed formal resolutions against them. The City of Sugar Hill issued no statements or resolutions against the bills. However, when GMA wanted to later present Representative Bonnie Rich with an award for helping them defeat the legislation, the City of Sugar Hill was ALL about hosting that event and rubbing elbows with the folks they had refused to assist in the effort.

GMA and some of the local governments simply took issue with the State government curbing the rights of local governments to make development decisions. The City of Flowery Branch, however, had a particularly keen interest in the build-to-rent issue itself. They were burned after approving annexation and rezoning for a 53-acre, 200-unit subdivision presented as a traditional subdivision. After approval, it became an all-rental project, and there was nothing the city government could do about it.

In a situation such as the one Flowery Branch faced, or the one now threatened by a disgruntled developer, the City of Sugar Hill would be equally helpless.

Since the withdrawal of the build-to-rent development on Sycamore, the City has added conditions to some rezoning approvals requiring the HOA covenants to limit rentals to a certain percentage of the development. However, the City's willingness to enforce the HOA's enforcement of those covenants has yet to be tested. Given that their only real recourse may be a lawsuit that drags on, costs the taxpayers a load of money, and may ultimately fail, my guess is that they won't be all that willing.

Developers always approach the City government with excessive personal compliments and a show of concern for the community. The truth is, 100% of the developers who show up at City Hall with a project are in it for the money.

And, there's nothing wrong with that.

The elected officials, on the other hand, are there - SHOULD be there - exclusively to represent the interests of the residents who have already chosen to put their biggest investments, home and family, right here in Sugar Hill.

The people of this community are not beholden to these developers, and our government shouldn't be, either. The people of this community are also not inferior in any respect to the people that politicians want to attract to the City. The actions of our current government demonstrate that our elected officials, City Manager, and Planning Director disagree with both statements.

Instead of the cheap, self-serving politics we've been getting from our government, the People of Sugar Hill deserve public discussion and real action on this issue

.