GAINESVILLE – An application to allow for 144 single family homes adjacent to the Reunion Subdivision was recommended for approval Monday night by the Hall County Planning Commission, but not in the way the developer had hoped.
Pulte Group - the developer of Reunion Subdivision, a sprawling 570-acre, 832-lot community off Spout Springs Road – is seeking to have an additional 54-acre parcel rezoned and added onto the development. The way those added acres would become part of Reunion Subdivision would be by the construction of an interior connector road into Grand Reunion Drive, just north of Dove Point Lane.
Commissioners recommended approval of the rezoning request as submitted by Pulte but also recommended denial of the abovementioned internal connection. That move appeared to please dozens of Reunion residents who turned out to voice opposition to enlarging the footprint of the subdivision first approved over two decades ago and enlarged several times since.
Brian Rochester of Gainesville land development and consulting firm Rochester & Associates, told commissioners, “I was part of the original team that zoned this back in 1999. This evening, what we ae talking about, is the Bailey Farm…it adjoins Phase 10 of the development and is along holes eight and nine of the golf course. This piece just naturally fits into the overall Reunion.”
Rochester said the application he was presenting met all the requirements and conditions of the original zoning. “This is going to be a continuation of what they (Pulte Group) have done in the rest of Reunion. They are going to build the exact same product that they have been building throughout all of Reunion.”
Additionally, Rochester pointed out, the added property would have access onto Spout Springs Road via an additional entrance point.
That, however, is not how more than 800 Reunion residents view the project according to Marlon McKinney. McKinney lives on Grand Reunion Drive, adjacent to where the new connector road is proposed. He was first to speak in opposition to the proposed development.
McKinney said, “I’m fortunate to have been the recipient of information shared by a surveyor placing flags at the back of my house on the adjacent golf course green space in early May. I’m not sure we residents would have learned about Pulte’s expansion plan until a yellow rezoning notification sign was placed on the golf course lot July 29th.”
“This is not a rezoning of Reunion, it is a redevelopment of Reunion which is a 100-percent sold-out community,” McKinney stated. “And it’s the redevelopment of the golf course green space for a road.”
McKinney said he and other concerned residents started a petition drive expressing opposition to the construction of the connecting road and had 841 signatures as of Monday afternoon.
McKinney added, “Now speaking on behalf of two-thirds of the residents who have confirmed their opposition to Pulte’s redevelopment plan of Reunion, we request…that you deny this request to redevelop our existing neighborhood, staying true to John Wieland’s original plan for Reunion, and request that Pulte be required to file a revised plan for a stand-alone community with their own amenities, green space and roads.”
Grand Reunion Road resident Tom McDermott told Planning Commission members that use of the property where the proposed connector road would be built was in question. “The applicant as shown does not own or control the property leading to Grand Reunion Drive. The property…is currently owned by the golf course, and as of last week the ownership of the golf course has signed an agreement to sell this property to the residents of Reunion.”
“With this clarifying information,” McDermott continued, “…Grand Reunion Drive is closed.” The room erupted in applause.
Rochester used his remaining time to respond to the comments made in opposition to the application, saying, “As far as the access road is concerned, I understand what they said they have done. How that connection is made will be seen in who actually owns that property when the time comes.”
Rochester then simplified the task before the Planning Commission, saying, “Sometimes people get confused about what your job is, and what y’all are tasked to do…is determining is: ‘Is PRD (Planned Residential Development) the right use for this piece of property or is it not?’”
Rochester displayed a map for commissioners to see showing that almost all of the surrounding property was zoned PRD by Hall County or its municipal equivalent.
“Ladies and gentlemen, it is hard to determine that that (PRD) isn’t the right zoning for this piece of property.” Rochester continued, “You are not here to determine if this piece of property should be in Reunion or not. That’s not a matter of zoning, and I know that’s not what people want to hear, but that’s the fact that you have to deal with.”
“I’m asking respectfully for your approval, based on this map that I’ve put before you, (to decide) if PRD is proper zoning,” he added.
Planning Commission Chairman Chris Braswell said as commissioners prepared to vote on the application. “I think what the applicant is proposing for the PRD standards fit the area, (but) I personally am opposed to the cut-through.”
“The primary issue is that we are not allowing the cut-through,” Braswell stated as he called for a vote following a motion by Commissioner Trey Bell removing the provision that allowed for the connector road.
The remaining members of the Planning Commission agreed with Braswell’s position and Bell’s motion and unanimously voted to recommend the application for rezoning to PRD but prohibiting proposed connectivity with Grand Reunion Road.
The final decision on the rezoning for the project, including connecting the development to Grand Reunion Road, will be determined by the Hall County Commission at its Thursday, September 23, 2021, voting session.
http://accesswdun.com/article/2021/8/1031323/hall-county-planning-recommends-rezoning-but-no-connectivity-for-54-acres-adjacent-reunion-subdivision