First Rezoning Case of 2025 - Developer Chat

An Informal After-Meeting Chat, and Commentary from Real Deal Sugar Hill.

After the Sugar Hill Planning Commission meeting on February 17, Resident Andrew Schulz and I were speaking in the Council Chambers while the meeting attendees were milling around just after the meeting. Schulz had spoken out against the 73-unit townhouse development being considered in rezoning case RZ 25-001 during its first public hearing, citing the number of townhome communities that have recently been built and are currently in the pipeline, and traffic concerns on Sycamore Road.

Developer Zak Kittle approached us in the Council Chambers. I pulled out my phone and held it in my lap to record. Kittle saw the phone and had just witnessed me recording the entire public hearing with that phone, so it was pretty obvious what I was doing.

The discussion was interesting not because it was at all novel, but because it revealed some of the common arguments and attitudes that come from almost all developers when they approach governments seeking rezoning for a new project. It’s also interesting because he uses past controversial decisions made by the City of Sugar Hill government to justify yet another controversial project.

This Won’t Generate as Much Traffic as __________

First, he tried to claim that his project was an improvement because the existing zoning (specifically the HM1, although the parcels are currently zoned HM1 and RS-100) would increase traffic more than his project would. I’ve heard that story and similar stories from multiple developers, and I’ve heard government officials echo it.

The amount of traffic generated from any commercial zoning, including HM1, would vary wildly depending on exactly which use you are talking about. Also, most commercial uses would have traffic streaming in and out over various times while they’re open. Residential developments see the most traffic in and out during “rush hours.” The more dense the development, the more cars there will be. Likewise, the more housing developments in the area, the more cars there will be. Does it take a major study to reveal that? Not if you have common sense.

An argument I HEAR mostly from government officials is that these developments won’t create a lot of traffic because they think people will be walking everywhere, that so many people are working from home, and most of the homeowners will be older people. I don’t SEE them providing real evidence of that in any case, but especially not this one.

During the Planning Commission hearing, Kittle said that “we’re looking to try and get a price range on this one around $600,000,” and continued that they are “trying to hit that more economical price range to get more families in here.” If he achieves his supposed goal and gets more families in there, there will indeed be traffic. All those “mom chauffeur” jokes are funny because they’re based on reality.

Bad Precedents

His second argument was that “you spent all this money to have a great downtown” and that “you got a seven million dollar bridge.” The “Downtown” is a dense housing hub. As I told Kittle then, our Central BUSINESS District is pretty heavy on housing and light on BUSINESS. It’s unbalanced.

Furthermore, his commentary about the bridge should make the politicians who backed the “Big L” cringe. It’s a statement that the people of Sugar Hill didn’t need that bridge and that somehow it’s now our responsibility to help create some use and demand for it.

His third argument was that “There’s not a lot for sale downtown, it’s a lot for rent.” True. And, the people of Sugar Hill have expressed their strong disapproval of that decision, both during the recent update of the City’s comprehensive land use plan (aka “Envision 100”) and during the 2023 City elections in which three council members who were all in for the big density plan were tossed out in favor of those who expressed interest in changing that approach.

In light of that, his sales pitch is still that Sugar Hill residents should take on more dense housing because of the dense housing that was foisted on them before.

Affordability

I asked him whether $600k houses would really fix that problem since that seemed to me to be out of reach for many people. He acknowledged that people under 30 probably could not afford that.

I then suggested that if a person could afford $600,000 for housing, they probably had a lot more options about places to live.

Kittle responded, "Since 2008, we've run out of housing because of denials and City Councils and everything slowing everything down so much." He continued that, “We're 6 million homes short really; that's the problem."

While that “6 million” figure is tossed out there frequently, there are also other figures, both higher and lower. There are probably as many estimates as there are reasons for the shortage - many of which a municipality can’t fix, and none of which the City of Sugar Hill could ever fix on its own, especially when it’s not engaging in any real discussion about the issue and simply following along with profit-driven developers who are oversimplifying the problem to push the solutions that are the most profitable for them.