Loganville Mayor Ray Nunley has vetoed a vote that was taken Thursday on property that was currently being considered for a dual purpose development. Nunley gave as his reason for the veto that the applicant had asked for time to submit revised plans and the council should consider this request in the light of any new material. He asked that his veto, which was filed on Feb. 18 within the five day requirement following the vote, be entered into the minutes at the next time a quorum is present at a council meeting.
part of the property was being rezoned for a lower density than the current R8 apartment zoning and a variance had been requested to increase the density on the balance to allow for three-story apartments. The requests were made by Mahaffey, Pickens Tucker law firm on behalf of the developer. The property runs from Highway 78 to Mount Zion Cemetery Road, adjacent to Loganville High School.
At the January meeting, the matter was tabled when David Gussio, attorney for Mahaffey Pickens Tucker, LLP, agreed to look into issues related to fire safety with three story apartments presented by Loganville Fire Chief Danny Roberts.
At that meeting, however, Gussio had stressed that although separate applications were filed, the requests went essentially one project.
“These two request go hand-in-hand – at the moment the entire property is zone for apartments,” Gussio said at the time. “This rezoning is a net reduction in density of the land."
When he learned that the application had been put back on February's calendar, Gussio advised the council at the outset that if it were not looked at in it's entirely, it would be in violation of the applicant's constitutional rights. He asked that he be given time to resubmit plans for the entire project. He said the revised plans would not include three-story apartments, but would likely need to use some of the property included in the rezone request in order to balance out what was being lost on the third story. He said if the project was not considered in it's entirely, whether it be approved as it stood, denied as it stood, or continued as it stood, he would be filing suit on behalf of his client.
The council went ahead, however, and voted on both issues, approving the rezoning on the back portion of the property and tabling the vote on the front section. This essentially denies the applicant the opportunity to use the back portion to even out some of the density that would be lost by going to two-story apartments as opposed to three. Any apartments, however, are not a popular choice for residents in the surrounding community who have raised objects based on traffic and safety issues.
This is the second time within a year that Nunley has vetoed a vote.