City Council Approves Big 'L' Pedestrian Bridge and Dense Downtown Housing Development
Did Voters "Turn the Page" last November, or Did the City Establishment Turn Page?
At the October City Council meeting on Monday, October 14, the Council held final votes on two massive projects, one for another dense housing project in “Downtown, and another to award a contract for the construction of a proposed $7.1 million pedestrian bridge across Highway 20.
Council Member Taylor Anderson and City Manager Paul Radford were outspoken in their support of the Whitehead Road projects in public meetings. Mayor Brandon Hembree and Anderson championed the bridge on social media, with both elected officials calling up all their friends and internal government cronies to push the more recently elected Council Members to vote for the project when they detected opposition to their pet projects in the general public.
RZ 24-004 Whitehead Road Development
The first item the Council discussed was RZ 24-004, a requested rezoning of two parcels totaling 4.61 acres at 1036 and 1040 Whitehead Road FROM RS-150 (Low-Density Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet), RS-100 (Medium-Density Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet) and AF (Agricultural-Forest) TO RS-100 CBD (Central Business District).
This rezoning was in conjunction with a larger plan cooked up by the City, the applicant, and his realtor to create a 15-acre, 180-unit housing development consisting of townhomes and zero-lot-line homes priced between $400,000 and $800,000 around a small park focused on the City’s “Champion Tree.”
Here’s the full meeting video, cued up to the start of that discussion.
The team benched realtor and former Sugar Hill City Council Member Nick Thompson, their spokesman during the previous three hearings, who was present but did not speak. At this final hearing, David M. Smith of Terracraft Homes and Pam Sessions of Hedgewood Homes pitched the development on behalf of the applicant. It had not changed significantly since it was presented at the October 7 Work Session.
Supporters
Local realtor Clifton Prewitt, who apparently coordinated his speaking engagement with Hembree to some degree, spoke in favor of the project (Video 1:34:53) while presenting a show and tell of images he had collected of older homes in the City that were intended to showcase that the existing homes in Sugar Hill are “aged and obsolete.”
Prewitt talked about the prospect of purchasing/selling an existing home in Sugar Hill and stated to the City, “Sugar Hill housing stock is so deficient by your own reports that it could gobble up an additional 20 to 50 thousand before one can even make it habitable and move in. After these last storms, a roof over 10 years old would probably make it impossible for a new purchaser to buy your home.“
Realtor and Downtown Development Authority Member Josh Mendoza also spoke in favor of the project with the little time left after Prewitt’s presentation, making sure to mention that his brother and his father, Gregory Mendoza, are also in favor of the project.
At the Planning Commission hearing for RZ 24-004 on September 16, Gregory Mendoza cited his long history as a builder (46 years) and developer (15 years) and said, “I believe this project over here will be the Beverly Hills of Georgia.”
Opponents
The people speaking against the rezoning and associated project were Whitehead Road residents Melissa Stock, Amber Chambers, and Paul and Babs Grimes. Sugar Hill residents Marla King, Kalee Weiland, and Andrew Schulz also spoke out against the case.
There were several common threads throughout all of the speakers’ comments.
In addition to concerns about affordability, traffic, loss of Greenspace, and erosion of the character of the Whitehead Road residential neighborhood, speakers questioned the City’s continued emphasis on dense housing within the Central Business District (CBD) despite last November’s losses for every incumbent who had loudly supported dense housing in favor of challengers who spoke out against it.
City Council Discussion and Vote (Video 1:59:49)
Council Member Gary Pirkle made a motion to deny the rezoning, and Hembree asked for a second.
In an odd turn, Council Member Joshua Page moved quickly and immediately asked to make a “substitute motion”, giving no one else the opportunity to second Pirkle’s motion. Hembree allowed it and said that a Substitute Motion takes precedence over the first motion.
The general purpose of a substitute motion is to amend a motion that you like but want to alter with significant edits. Page indicated that he intended to add more conditions to the case, which is clearly entirely different than Pirkle’s main motion to deny the rezoning.
It would have been less complicated to process Pirkle’s motion by either getting a second and voting on it, or letting it die for lack of a second. It wasn’t clear if Page and Hembree preplanned this substitute motion tactic, or if it was entirely Page’s idea. However, the conditions were obviously prepared by someone ahead of time, because Page read them aloud from a piece of paper.
Page rattled the new conditions off extremely quickly, making it impossible to transcribe for those taking notes. Everyone who needed that information had to go back and review the video. It was unclear how many cups of coffee he’d had prior to this meeting or why he felt compelled to move so quickly.
The Sugar Hill Planning Department proposed two original conditions.
The development shall substantially conform to the site plan (Exhibits 1-3) submitted with the application, particularly regarding its general features, placement, and alignments. However, alterations necessary to accommodate requirements from the design review process are permitted without additional Mayor and City Council approval, provided they align with the spirit and context of the approval as determined by the Planning Department.
At least three natural gas appliances shall be installed within each residential unit prior to a certificate of occupancy.
Page added eight (8) additional conditions.
Add a 0% rental cap provision to the HOA CCRs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions.
The road labeled “Bailey Ave” would not connect to adjacent parcels. This road would also remain a private driveway and not become city-maintained.
Increase the buffer that is adjacent to Parcels 7306 011A & 7306 008 from 5 and 10 feet, respectively, to 15 feet on both sides.
The buffer that is adjacent to Parcels 7306 011A & 7306 008 should be substantially screened and professionally landscaped and maintained.
The developer shall fund the HOA reserves in the amount of $1,000 per unit developed (100 units=$100,000, 180 units=$180,000).
The cost of any stormwater detention/retention shall be paid for by the developer.
No more than 7 units per acre for the entire project.
Removal of Whitehead Road parking.
Page stated that the density reduction would change the development to 107 units instead of the original maximum of 180 units. He repeatedly said he thought this was a balance. Page continued, “It's a great product. It serves a product that we currently don't have here in the city limits um and almost going back to, as I like to call it, cradle to grave,” piggybacking on Taylor Anderson’s earlier comment that this development would be good for people who want to downsize.
At the time of the vote, the City did not have a new site plan that would reflect that “lower” density. Because no site plan was available, Condition #1 from the Planning Department was amended to add a requirement that the applicant submit a new site plan that meets all of the new conditions.
Prior to the final vote on the overall motion to approve the rezoning with the new conditions, Council Member Meg Avery said, “Right now, we have 1,669 apartments, 397 townhomes, and 19 row houses. We're looking at 2,085. And I've heard tonight, slow down. And that's what personally, I think we need to do.”
Avery continued, “I'm not convinced that bringing the Town Center overlay further down Whitehead is right. And I just believe that … we do need to slow down and we do need to look at this, and I don't think this is the right concept at this time for our City.”
Council Members Page, Anderson, and Alvin Hicks voted FOR RZ 24-004 with Page’s new conditions, enabling plans for the Hedgewood project to proceed.
Council Members Avery and Gary Pirkle voted AGAINST RZ 24-004.
Campaign Promises
Page has “a demonstrated history of working in the real estate industry,” according to his LinkedIn profile, has held an active real estate license in Georgia since 2019 (except for a brief lapse last year), and owns two real estate-oriented businesses,
Page Association Management Group (since March 2024) and The Page Property Group (since December 2019). Only the management group appears to be active. He parted ways with his previous company, Cumming Property Management, in May of this year.
Early in his 2023 campaign, Page indicated he was for “Smart Growth,” a term often used by proponents of the type of aggressive, high-density growth happening in Sugar Hill and beyond. That’s not an unusual stance within the real estate community.
In a later post, he said that many people had asked him about his stance on growth, and he again mentioned “Smart Growth,” while attempting to expound on the idea. His answer was vague and nothing revolutionary.
For example, he provided a small list of key questions he thought should be asked for projects. However, the Planning Department already routinely presents answers to these questions (sometimes referred to as the “Steinberg Criteria”) for rezoning cases in their staff reports. They did that before Page was elected. They still do it now. However, to this day, it is exceedingly rare that an elected official in Sugar Hill will significantly question the staff reports directly to ensure the validity of the Planning Department’s answers.
Later in his campaign, he began using a platform of “Lower Taxes. Lower Density. Lower Debt.” He circulated door hangers and mailed postcards with the slogan.
On October 23, shortly before Election Day 2023, he began circulating an ad on Facebook with an explicit campaign promise to “say NO to high-density developments.”
On November 5, two days before the election, he distributed a message on Facebook with the “LOWER TAXES. LOWER DENSITY. LOWER DEBT” slogan along with the names and links to Meg Avery and Gary Pirkle’s pages, tying himself to the policies openly and frequently espoused by Pirkle especially, and that Pirkle and Avery have continued to uphold.
Page’s positions moved around during the campaign, but now they seem to have moved back to his original position of “Smart Growth", consistent with his real estate roots.
Real Deal Sugar Hill will exercise appropriate caution here. I cannot prove, and therefore, cannot and will not conclude that Page has illegally or inappropriately used his public position for private profit in Sugar Hill.
However, the opportunity clearly exists, and anyone in Page’s publicly elected and funded position should exercise appropriate caution to avoid the appearance of impropriety. As such, it is his responsibility to be EXTRA transparent. It is not Real Deal’s responsibility to watch him constantly (although that’ll happen to the fullest extent possible 👀), and it is DEFINITELY NOT the public’s responsibility to trust him and assume everything is fine.
It will be difficult to verify anything he says because, under current regulations, there will be no government records regarding any business deals he makes unless he officially signs something with a developer (the law seems hazy on handshakes, winks, nods, and gentlemen’s agreements) and voluntarily discloses it as a conflict of interest prior to a hearing. We’ll never know what is signed immediately afterward.
Creating case-by-case rezoning conditions - or better yet, a standard City policy - requiring developments to disclose in writing which company they are using to provide the type of services Page’s company offers would offer more transparency than there is now.
Any Council Member, including Page, could pursue the implementation of that policy.
Facebookin’ on the Public’s Time
(and Its Dime)
During the meeting, at 10:04 PM, I posted the results of the RZ 24-004 rezoning vote on the public Facebook page I use to promote my work on Real Deal Sugar Hill. I also posted the screenshot of Page’s campaign ad in which he explicitly states, “I will say NO to high density [sic] developments.
At 10:06 PM, Page commented on the post, “YUP!! That’s me!!” as though government confirmation was needed.
The meeting was STILL in progress. At that time, the City Council was actually conducting another public hearing for a design review for a house to be remodeled in the Central Business District on Spring Hill Circle. You can see Page reaching for his phone in the video during the hearing (2:34:31) and again immediately after the vote (2:37:47). He reaches for it yet again immediately after the vote for the next design review (2:41:30).
Page had been smiling and joking with staff and certain other Council Members throughout the meeting and seemed especially jovial and pleased with himself after the Whitehead Road vote.
However, each time he looks at his phone, his mood visibly darkens. While he didn’t comment on the post again during the meeting, other residents did, all expressing dissatisfaction with his vote.
During the Pedestrian Bridge discussion, he appears to be angry and stewing. He picks up his phone yet again during the Assistant City Manager’s presentation on the topic (2:45:03) and types on it for a couple of minutes. Just prior to the Council discussion (2:51:15), he checks it again.
Page’s distracted behavior is further highlighted by the fact that Besseche (who has his phone on the desk but never appears to use it) and Avery are sitting on either side of him in every single shot, working hard and doing what you expect people to do in these taxpayer-funded meetings.
Was Page looking at Facebook all this time while the meeting was going on, or something else? His initial level of interest in the Facebook post and his return to engage with it after the meeting suggest that he was. But either way, he was focused on his phone when he should have been focused on the meeting and getting visibly angry about something.
And, he seems to have carried that anger into the next discussion and vote.
Highway 20 Pedestrian Bridge
The City is not required to conduct public hearings prior to awarding contracts. A number of people came to the meeting to speak on the topic and did so during the Public Comment period earlier in the meeting, at which speakers each had three minutes (as specified in the City Charter) to speak on whatever topic they wanted.
Here’s the meeting video, cued up to the start of that discussion.
Supporters
The establishment politicians had sent out rallying cries on their social media sites, trying to get supporters to appear. The Sugar Hill Running Club (which is run by friends of the government but does not take government money, as far as Real Deal Sugar Hill is aware) had a push to support the bridge, with a call to run around “Downtown” and then attend the City Council meeting to speak in support of the bridge.
The establishment managed to get sixteen speakers, all of whom spoke as though they were just random, concerned residents. Out of that group of sixteen speakers, almost half were or recently had been in the government.
Former City Council Member Jenn Thatcher, who was voted out of office last November after only half a term
Former City Council Member Mason Roszel, who was voted out of office last November after only half a term, sat on the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) prior to that half-term, and was placed back on the DDA after losing his Council seat to Joshua Page
Chair of the Development Authority, Denise Hoell
Vice Chair of the Development Authority, Steve Graessle,
Chair of the DDA, Jack Wolfe
Member of the DDA, Josh Mendoza
Member of the Sugar Hill Historic Preservation Society, Darrell Pruitt
The Downtown Development Authority Members are participants in the project, as the DDA would be the ones selling the City’s land to the developer.
The supporters also included people with obvious business ties to the government.
Jim Eyre of Ackerman Co., developer of a commercial complex planned for the corner of Highway 20 and Stanley Street
Derek Dill of Novare Group, the developer for Conclave Sugar Hill, a 306-unit apartment complex on Stanley Street
Other speakers included:
Greg Mendoza, Josh Mendoza’s father,
Bob Gardner, cross country coach at Lanier High School
Bobby McGraw, Pastor of Sugar Hill Church
Jay Petillo, whose wife is an administrator for the Sugar Hill Running Club
John Smith
Ifeanyi Imachukwu
Bruno Taillefer
Opponents
Residents Tom Lobonc and Amber Chambers, Paul and Babs Grimes, Mark and Jessica Daniels (Mark is a Sugar Hill Planning Commission Member), Marla King, Phil Stedman, Austine Murphy, Rick January, Andrew Schulz, and Kalee Weiland spoke against the bridge.
While the supporters had argued the bridge was needed for events, opponents Lobonc, King, and January mentioned that Marshals could help people cross the streets during events. A couple of speakers mentioned that they routinely (and safely) cross Highway 20 at the existing crosswalks with children in a stroller or on a bike.
Multiple commented that the bridge didn't seem well thought out and questioned the amount of money, especially in light of how few people it would serve throughout town. Several mentioned the possibility that the final price tag for completing the bridge may ultimately be even more than the $7.1 million.
The most notable recurring theme here was compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Speakers expressed concerns that the bridge design just toes the line on ADA standards without really being thoughtful and helpful to users with personal mobility challenges. Rick January, whose wife Stella uses a wheelchair, said the ramps were not practical, calling them a joke.
City Council Discussion and Vote
While the public commentary took place toward the beginning of the meeting, The Council discussion and vote took place toward the end of it. The discussion began with a presentation by Assistant City Manager Troy Besseche (2:41:30). As soon as he concluded his presentation, Anderson made a motion to approve the contract, seconded by Hicks.
Hembree then asks the Council if there is any further discussion before the vote (2:51:49).
Avery remarks that she has gotten a lot of comments and expresses many of the same concerns as the resident opponents of the project.
She also cited some usage data collected by the Gwinnett Department of Transportation with the pedestrian signal lights at the Highway 20/Hillcrest intersection. She explained that they gave her data from August 19th to September 15th for each of the four crosswalks in the intersection (north, south, east, and west) and that there were between 184 and 347 crossings, with an average of 7-12 crossings per day.
She also questioned how the City collected usage statistics for the Greenway and said their figures seemed high to her based on what she actually sees when she bikes and walks on it herself. The City did not clarify how they arrived at their numbers.
When it was Page’s turn to speak, he said, “I do want to address some concerns. You know, I'm purely on the fence regarding this. I've been written about by being on the fence, and that's perfectly fine.”
First of all, nobody needs his approval to write about how he does (or does not do) his job at City Hall. Second of all, if he were truly on the fence, he probably should have been paying more attention to Besseche’s presentation instead of checking his phone repeatedly and stewing over whatever he saw on it.
After that, Page goes into a very curious, rather rambling speech (2:57:30) that seems angry, defensive, and snide at times.
At one point he says,
“I do want to talk about ADA is a concern as you can see right here in the rendering we've all had this rendering we've seen C certain versions of it um the sidewalks are not going away from Highway 20, folks. They're not. The sidewalks are going to be there, so if someone genuinely has a issue you with an ADA, uh going up the ramp, they can simply go down Highway 20, go to the crosswalk, cross Highway 20, and go up the out and Tucker Boulevard extension.”
It’s unclear why he thinks the crosswalks are safe enough for people who need assistance from the Americans with Disabilities Act, but too dangerous for people who can easily walk, run, and bike.
The dismissive commentary about people who need ADA assistance is especially striking given that Mayor Brandon Hembree named Page Chair of the Theo Hutchings Taskforce on Building an Inclusive Environment for Children with Diverse Abilities in June. Let’s hope these kids don’t find themselves in the way of one of the City’s pet projects or need Page when he’s angry.
Council Member Gary Pirkle weighed in, saying, “A lot of discussion tonight has been around cost and investment. I'd like to point out that our last round of City investment on everything you see down here has left us $40 million in debt, and I would estimate we’re maybe $5 million behind on street paving. I don't see how we ever correct those issues if we keep spending $7 million on what I would consider a discretionary project.” He continued, “At some point, we've got to tighten our belts and we’ve got to pay down this debt.”
Ultimately, Page, Anderson, and Hicks voted to approve the contract to award $$7,102,626.50 to OhmShiv Construction for the bridge, with Page shooting his arm in the air so aggressively we should all look twice to make sure there wasn’t a middle finger extended at the end of it.
Avery and Pirkle voted against the contract.
