City/Developer Continue Push for High-Density Development Downtown
With a 15-Acre, 157-Unit Development of Zero-Lot-Line Houses and Townhouses.
On Monday, January 13, the City Council is scheduled to conduct another public hearing for case RZ 24-004, a request to rezone two parcels totaling 4.61 acres at 1036 and 1040 Whitehead Road.
The applicant and the developers for the case are asking the Council to rezone the parcels 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).
The case has been generating controversy since August 2024, when the applicant (John Mansour), developers (David Smith of Terracraft Homes and Pam Sessions of Hedgewood), and their realtor (former Sugar Hill City Council Member Nick Thompson) initially refused to provide information about their plans for the property. The City of Sugar Hill also refused to follow its own policies requiring basic information from rezoning applicants, such as a complete application, letter of intent, and site plan prior to public hearings.
The case has bounced back and forth between the Planning Commission and City Council, with the developers and City slowly releasing information to the public. However, both are still withholding all of their plans to this day.
Initially, the only information about the case was what was on the public notice sign that indicated plans for a “future single-family development.” RS-100 CBD, which is VERY different than the similarly named RS-100 zoning, only allows single-family housing in the form of townhouses, row houses, and zero-lot-line houses. At that time, there was no indication of which one of those the applicant intended to build, even on the incomplete application form he submitted.
The City of Sugar Hill Planning Department presented the case to the Planning Commission at their August 2024 meeting and glossed over the fact that there was no information to review. However, the Planning Department still recommended that the Commission approve the rezoning request.
When the case was discussed at the September 3 City Council Work Session, the Planning Department staff report indicated that “there is not currently a site plan included in the application” and offered no information about the development that was planned. That did not stop the Planning Department from again recommending approval of the rezoning. Staff stated in the report that, “the future single-family development would be required to go through the Design Review Board process to be approved,” which is not entirely true. The Design Review process exists to allow the City Council (which serves as the Design Review Board for those cases) to stipulate the appearance of approved projects, not to stop projects entirely.
The City Council did not discuss the case at the September 9 meeting and voted unanimously to table it at the developer's request.
After Real Deal Sugar Hill and the broader public called them out, the developers and the City FINALLY revealed to the public at the October 2024 Work Session (almost two months AFTER getting their first hearing in Sugar Hill) that they were requesting the rezoning for a 15-acre, 180-unit housing development consisting of townhomes and zero-lot-line homes mostly priced between $400k and $800k around a small park around the City’s recently ballyhooed “Champion Tree.” The project also included plans for 2,700 square feet of commercial space off West Broad, 27 on-street parking spaces on Whitehead Road, and an extension of Bailey Avenue connecting Whitehead Road and Highway 20. The large project would include not only the two parcels of RZ 24-004, but also an adjacent parcel owned by the applicant and already in the Central Business District, and several parcels owned by the City of Sugar Hill.
At the October 2024 City Council meeting, right after Council Member Gary Pirkle made a motion to deny the project, Council Member Joshua Page swooped in with an incorrectly made substitute motion to approve the project with a list of conditions, prematurely aborting Pirkle’s motion to deny. Page’s motion, supported by Council Members Taylor Anderson and Alvin Hicks passed. A week later, Mayor Brandon Hembree vetoed the vote, without giving a clear reason for the veto.
To override the veto, four of the five Council Members would have had to approve the rezoning ordinance again. Instead, the Council voted to table the matter in November. In December, no one took action to approve the rezoning ordinance again, allowing the window for a veto override to pass, and the Mayor’s veto to stand.
According to the City Attorney, that still leaves the matter of RZ 24-004 open and the City Council is required to take some action regarding the rezoning request. At the December 2024 meeting, Anderson and Hicks wanted to table the matter until the January 2025 City Council meeting where a vote would be conducted without another public hearing. That action was voted down in a 2-3 vote, with Avery, Page, and Pirkle voting against.
Avery, Page, and Pirkle wanted the matter to go back before the Planning Commission for another public hearing in December 2024 and come back before the City Council in January 2025 with another public hearing prior to a vote. That course of action was approved in a 3-2 vote, with Anderson and Hicks voting against.
The Current Plan
Prior to the December 2024 Planning Commission hearing, the developer tweaked the site plan, reducing the number of units to 157 from 180, removing the on-street parking from Whitehead Road, removing the commercial buildings from the park, and changing the path of the road that would connect Highway 20 and Whitehead Road.
Remaining Unknowns
Even with the slow drip of information supplied in response to public demand, some details about the project remain unclear.
Agreements Between the City and Developer
At the December 16 Planning Commission hearing, developer David Smith said “Just for clarification, we are showing our primary entrance on Whitehead Road through a portion of the City property.” He added, “We have not offered to purchase the property from the City. That's not our intent. Our intent is to work with the City.”
On September 3, the City Council took a vote in Executive Session to authorize the City Attorney to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Sugar Hill and the City’s Downtown Development Authority. That type of document has been used by the City in the past to help specify the details of a working relationship between the City (through its DDA) and a private entity. To date, that document has not been released to the public, even upon the Open Records Request submitted by Real Deal Sugar Hill, and no one has provided any information about its content during the public meetings.
Status of the “Champion Tree Park”
Smith also expressly indicated that their desire for the project hinged on the “Champion Tree” park, stating that “We're basing our desire to be here and do this proposed development because of the City Park, and the potential for the City Park, as well as to be part of the Central Business District."
Mayor Brandon Hembree began pushing more aggressively for the “Champion Tree” Park in November with a Facebook post and write-in campaign to apply public pressure to Council Members Meg Avery and Gary Pirkle, who requested a delay in the implementation of the park during the 2025 budget approval process that was happening at the same time as part of the RZ 24-004 discussion. Hembree presented his support of the park as an environmental move to preserve greenspace Downtown, which has decreased dramatically in the last decade due to the construction of the E Center, seven apartment complexes, and townhouse developments within the “Downtown” area.
In both the first and second versions of the site plan, City-owned property is used for the development itself, not just as a park for the “Champion Tree,” which would actually be getting considerable, additional encroachment from man-made structures with this project.
Although the second version of the site plan does not show commercial buildings, Smith said at the December 16 Planning Commission meeting, “It's to be determined how the City may pursue a park, or may pursue commercial uses along these parcels that the City currently owns. That's yet to be determined.”
Ultimately, it’s not entirely clear how much green space will be preserved in that area. The “Champion Tree” Park may be less of a focus for the project and more of an afterthought.
Final Planning Commission Hearing and Vote
At the December 16 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Department again recommended approval of the project, continuing their crusade on behalf of the development even in the face of the remaining unknowns. Commission Member Brian Shebs moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request due to concerns about the project’s density and the implications of expanding the Central Business District down Whitehead Road, a residential street. The motion failed because Commission Members Phil Olsen, Rosemary Walsh, and Jason Jones voted against it. Commission Chair Phil Olsen subsequently moved to recommend approval of the rezoning in accordance with the Planning Department's recommendation. This motion passed 3-2, with Olsen Walsh and Jones voting in favor of recommending approval and Shebs and Daniels voting against.
The Downtown Dense Housing Hub
If approved. this project would be just one of the dense housing projects planned and pondered for this immediate area.
Just north of the RZ 24-004 parcels is a 10.5-acre area (site of the recently demolished Bailey Cabinet Shop) that was approved for 126 four-story, for-lease townhomes in September 2021. That development will have two driveways, both on Bailey Avenue.
In addition to the six City parcels closest to the roundabout that would be part of this project, the City of Sugar Hill also owns four parcels consisting of about eight acres at the corner of Highway 20 and West Broad.
For a couple of years (2019-2021), the City’s Downtown Development Authority had been discussing “Gateway West,” an active adult residential project at that corner that would have consisted of 150 age-restricted housing units.
The Downtown Development Authority stopped discussing the project at public meetings in mid-2021. It’s unclear whether the project disappeared or simply went underground. The conversation could very well have continued in the lengthy Executive Sessions routinely held by the City Council and Downtown Development Authority.
Either way, the City seems to have a serious interest in using those parcels for additional dense housing at some point.
Summary
The City Council plans to conduct what is expected to be the final hearing on Monday, January 13 at its regular monthly meeting, followed by a vote on RZ 24-004.
