First Rezoning Case of 2025 - Update 1
73-Townhouse Development Gets Split Recommendation from Planning Commission
On Monday, February 17, the Sugar Hill Planning Commission held the public hearing for rezoning case RZ 25-001, a request from developer Zak Kittle of Kittle Homes to rezone approximately 15 acres (consisting of 7 parcels) at the corner of Sycamore Road and Appling Road from HM1 and RS-100 to R36 to build 73 townhouses.
The developer is also requesting that the City Council grant them four variances to the existing City Zoning Ordinance:
Reduce the required 30-foot project setback along Appling Road to 10 feet.
Two parcels along Sycamore Road that currently have single-family houses on them are not included in the project. The developer is asking to reduce the 50-foot undisturbed buffer that would normally be required next to those parcels to a 25-foot undisturbed buffer and a 25-foot graded and replanted buffer next to the development.
Reduce the 30-foot front setbacks for the individual lots to 15 feet for the front-garage units and to 0 feet for the rear-garage units.
Reduce the rear setback for the individual lots from 15 feet to 5 feet for the rear-garage townhouses.
Before the Meeting
Kittle and crew were in the locked Council Chambers meeting with new Planning Director Artagus Newell immediately prior to the arrival of meeting attendees, including Real Deal Sugar Hill, the City Attorney, and even one of the Planning Department staff members. No reason for the last-minute meeting was offered when the doors were finally unlocked for everyone.
The Planning Commission typically holds a brief work session meeting just before the actual meeting, and did so for Monday night’s meeting. However, there were whispers and private discussions, none of which could be heard by everyone else at the meeting.
In this video of the work session, you can see and partially hear Member Jason Jones speaking with Kim Landers. Planning Commission Chair Phil Olsen left his seat to lean over and whisper with Planning Department employees Claire Weatherly, then Logan Witter, placing his back to the camera as he spoke to the latter. When Olsen returns to his seat and uses the microphone to close the meeting, you can hear him again.
Notably, Olsen and Jones were the two members of the Planning Commission who ultimately voted in favor of the rezoning, while members Brian Shebs and Mark Daniels, who were not whispering during the Work Session, voted against the rezoning.
Although the Planning Commission has not historically conducted any votes at its work sessions, these meetings are still subject to Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, which applies to every local government in Georgia and every commission they create, every time a quorum of that body has a gathering “…at which any official business, policy, or public matter of the committee is formulated, presented, discussed, or voted upon.”
So, the fact that they aren’t voting doesn’t matter. The fact that the purpose of the work session meeting, by virtue of its inclusion on the monthly Planning Commission meeting agenda, is to discuss public business, does matter.
The City does not record the Planning Commission meetings. They do create and publish a summary within 48 hours of the meeting, as required by State law. That summary does not accurately reflect what happened.
According to the meeting summary, there was “no discussion,” which is clearly not the case as evidenced by the video. The meeting summary also fails to indicate the time at which the work session was closed, 6:55 PM, as you can clearly hear Planning Technician Kim Landers state in the video. Instead, the summary gives the impression that the work session was opened and immediately closed again when it was actually open for several minutes as all the whispering occurred.
During the Public Comments portion of the meeting, I informed them that because the Work Session is a public meeting, everyone should be able to hear it, but that they could not.
During the Public Hearing
Sound continued to be an issue during the public hearing, with only Chair Phil Olsen consistently using his microphone. Other conversations can be heard because there are few attendees and the room was fairly quiet, but they weren’t exactly working to accommodate the general public, who has a legal right to observe the meeting.
First, the City Planning Department presented the case to the public. The details of the case have been covered by Real Deal Sugar Hill in a previous article. Nothing presented by the City deviated from what was known and reported at that time.
Commission Questions (Video 8:04)
After the Planning Department’s presentation, there was an approximately five and a half minute discussion by the Planning Commission. Neither question was really even about the project itself, much less about a major issue that would determine the ultimate recommendation to approve or deny.
Olsen had a few questions about the width of the sidewalks. He seemed most interested in confirming that they would be six feet wide around and throughout the community instead of three or five feet.
Olsen asked if the City ever requires annual increases on the minimum balance for the HOA’s capital reserve fund. Weatherly informed him that the City has not been doing that. This capital fund condition became standard practice for all development rezonings in Sugar Hill a few years ago, as someone on the Planning Commission should know well.
Jones asked a question about the density allowed at the current RS-100 zoning and suggested that the Planning Department start including that information for the Planning Commission. Employee Claire Weatherly, who is leaving the City of Sugar Hill for another position elsewhere, indicated that “we can include that next time.”
Finally, Olsen and Jones thanked the Planning Department for including larger site plans, remarking that it was “unfortunate Rosemary is not here to appreciate it.”
The Developer Speaks
Developer Zak Kittle was accompanied by his attorney, John Constantino, to speak about the proposed development.
Sales Price (Video 18:47)
At the hearing, Zak Kittle informed everyone 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.”
Density (Video 19:06)
He touted the density of the project, which he and the City have represented at 4.89 units per acre, saying that, “most townhome subdivisions are sometimes around ten to twelve units per acre.” The limit in Sugar Hill is actually eight units per acre.
Kittle elaborated that they had calculated the open space on the project as 9.48 acres, which he said was “unheard of.” He did not mention the stream and its associated buffers on the east side of the property or the oddly shaped and narrow parcels at the south end of the property that hinder development.
Variances (Video 19:31)
Kittle indicated that they were seeking two variances, when in fact, they are asking for four.
Reduce the required 30-foot project setback along Appling Road to 10 feet.
Two parcels along Sycamore Road that currently have single-family houses on them are not included in the project. The developer is asking to reduce the 50-foot undisturbed buffer that would normally be required next to those parcels to a 25-foot undisturbed buffer and a 25-foot graded and replanted buffer next to the development.
Reduce the 30-foot front setbacks for the individual lots to 15 feet for the front-garage units and to 0 feet for the rear-garage units.
Reduce the rear setback for the individual lots from 15 feet to 5 feet for the rear-garage townhouses.
He said the second variance was to make it easier for them to grade the property and to improve water flow. He did not specifically indicate why they need the other three variances.
Commission Vote (Video 25:41)
Commission Member Brian Shebs moved to deny the request, and his motion was seconded by Commission Member Mark Daniels.
Prior to calling for a vote on the motion, Commission Chair Phil Olsen asked, “Any other questions,” to which there was no response. After a long pause, he asked "Any further comment on that?"
Shebs responded, "No. If you're asking me why, it's yeah, Sycamore Road is a mess right now, and adding 75 more housing units there? As you were saying, along with all of the school and the other residents that are there, the other townhomes that are coming in already, it is just going to put a traffic burden on that area.”
He continued, "I've talked to many residents up and down Sycamore that complain about it as it is today without adding one more person up and down that road.”
Ultimately, Shebs and Daniels voted against recommending the City Council vote for the development, while Olsen and Commission Member Jason Jones voted for it. Commission Member Rosemary Walsh was not there.
The tie vote was allowed to stand since the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and is not taking definitive action on the case.
Next Steps…
The Sugar Hill City Council is currently scheduled to conduct a public hearing and final vote for case RZ 25-001 on Monday, March 10 at 7:30 PM.