NOTE - Any called meeting can occur upon 24 hours notice. Agenda is posted on the lobby bulletin board, but not always on City web site
Council meeting agendas can change, so the Public needs to monitor all meetings despite the upcoming holidays and Spring break vacations. The Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request (5-0) by the owner of 35 Williams Street property on February 28, 2008. The owner has the option to appeal the decision to Superior Court within 30 days.
DDA’s Selling Historic Wingo Street
Property: Lessons Learned
In early 2004, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) agreed a good project to market would be the four cottages on Wingo Street owned by the city. Previously, the city bought the houses to relocate the city shed, but rethought the idea after residents protested the proposed demolition of the historic houses, identified as contributing properties in the National Registry of Historic Places.
An option agreement by the city council to the DDA was not formalized until November 1, 2004. The DDA did not place signs on the property, do updated appraisals, or have a specific Marketing Plan other than placing one ad for one day only in the AJC under Legal Notices in December 2004, and one ad for one week in January under Legal Notices in the Atlanta Business Chronicle.
By the January 14, 2005 cut-off date, only one developer had responded, George Banks or Paladin Properties. At its February meeting, the DDA decided to pursue negotiations exclusively with Mr. Banks.
Unanswered questions surrounding conveyances of $640,000 of city property on Wingo Street by the DDA last November 30, 2005 have some citizens wondering to whom the public property was sold and where the money went?
For the better part of 2005, the full DDA Board believed it was dealing with Mr. George Banks d/b/a Paladin Properties. In numerous meetings, the Board reviewed his plans to build 13 cottages on four Wingo Street lots, rehabbing two of the historic houses that are in The National Registry of Historic Places.
Learning two months after the sale that the property was flipped to a new entity, called Wingo Street Cottages, LLC, prompted one DDA Board member to write a letter to the chairman and read it before the assembled board on February 16, 2006. No response has been received.
Elected or appointed officials and retained professionals have a fiduciary duty to disclose to the citizens and taxpayers the details of all public property transactions. Add to these concerns the Norcross city government, its adjunct DDA, whose Chairperson and designated Committee of One conveyed real property on suspect, expired documents, i.e. Agency agreements, suspect closing and settlement statements, unrecognizable witness and principal signatures, possible closing outside Agency authority, and heretofore failure to acknowledge the conveyance by DDA leadership to the rest of the DDA Board members and the general public.
While not unusual for a developer to create a new Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) for each job site to minimize liability, it is a consumer-beware game. Once the project is completed and the investors paid out, the LLC is dissolved, and the developer can move on without accountability, leaving buyers holding the bag. LLC’s do not have to disclose investors’ names and corporate officer’s names.
Developer Seeks “Administrative Variances” Before Appeals Board
Paladin Properties website touts 50 new “cottage homes” to be completed in metro Atlanta in 2006. Fourteen of these homes are part of the Clear Creek project on Holcomb Bridge Road adjacent to the Norcross historic district. A Stop Work order was issued by the City of Norcross because of alleged changing of plans and stream buffer encroachments. Mr. Bank’s “administrative appeal” before the Variance Board March 23, 2006 was tabled until April 13. The EPA is reportedly involved because alleged waste dumping at the site.
Interesting to note that the “featured cottage” on the Paladin Properties website is 182 Wingo Street, one of the two scheduled to be remodeled under conditions attached to the rezoning obtained last September 6, 2005, leading us to surmise no other model has been completed. ~See CONDITIONS~
Paladin Properties Denied Variances in Historic Chamblee Neighborhood
Paladin’s attempts to construct 22 cottage homes on three acres in Chamblee’s historic Keswick Park prompted citizens to organize Save Keswick Park! Modeled after our Save Historic Norcross group, and to collect 207 signatures on a petition. In Chamblee, the developer sought to remove conditions for buffers and set-backs of 40 feet to 7 ½ feet. The Chamblee city council upheld their zoning regulations, and Mr. Banks withdrew his proposal for the present.
Keswick Park citizens cite the potential disruption of two stabilized WWI –WWII era historic neighborhoods, Keswick Park and Sexton Woods, by infill double their density and creating safety concerns near a children’s play area because of a proposed curb cut which prevailing conditions prohibit. See www.savekeswickpark.com/projectoverview/ and related links (on the sidebar of this page.)
Paladin Properties website includes self-described accolades for “smart growth” and touts “pocket neighborhoods” of 1 ½ to 10 acres for 8-10 units/acre infill. The site would have us to believe their concept is so “new” that it outpaces current zoning regulations, hence needing to draft a list of variances “a mile long.”
What This Sale Portends for Our Historic City’s Future
The potential endangerment of an historic neighborhood in The National Registry of Historic Places.
Are the Norcross city council rezoning Conditions still valid?
Existing specimen trees will be protected with the exception of the one specimen (28” diameter) tree to be removed,
No on street parking allowed,
Wingo Street homes (#182 and #238) will be refurbished and renovated,
There will be 20 spaces of covered parking,
There will be verification of valid conveyance of rights and proper posting of announcements of development of the property,
There will be 13 additional homes constructed – 15 total maximum.
The well-being of 13 adjacent property owners who initially objected to this high density rezoning is at risk, and finally, the endangerment of quality of life in every residential neighborhood in Norcross because of the precedent set by the City rezoning itself for high-density infill, an action tantamount to the Suzette Kello Eminent DomainCondemnation Case with the New London, Conn. Development Authority that resulted in a highly publicized Supreme Court split decision last year that some of us have heard about. As in the case of Suzette Kelo, her property was not in a blighted area and neither is the 1.58 acre tract on Wingo Street.
