In a move

that may be unprecedented in Georgia, the City Council of

Peachtree City last week adopted a traffic ordinance that

places new stipulations on what effects future

developments can have on highway gridlock and what

measures must be taken to relieve the traffic squeeze.

But the

ordinance is far from set in stone. Attorneys

representing a number of parties have notified the city

that they believe the new law is unconstitutional, and

council members themselves admitted it will probably need

some tweaking in the coming weeks.

Councilman

Jim Pace, who cast the only dissenting vote (Robert

Brooks was absent), said that rather than doing something

fast, the city should do it right, and he suggested there

is still work to be done before the ordinance is ready.

Mayor Pro

Tempore Annie McMenamin responded that the time is now.

"We've

spent a lot of time on this," she said. "This

will not stop development. But we've got to look out for

the welfare of all of our citizens."

Mayor Bob

Lenox also said that something needed to be done

immediately, even if it were changed at a later time.

Coucilwoman Carol Fritz echoed that sentiment.

Public

safety has been a major issue in the debate over traffic

concerns, which prompted the City Council to even

consider a building moratorium. Many local residents have

charged that traffic in the Ga. Highway. 54 corridor is

so heavy at times that emergency vehicles could not get

through if necessary.

Others

spoke repeatedly of long lines and extended waiting

periods at stop lights, which attorney George Rosenzweig

said is not a good enough reason for the council's

action.

"Mere

convenience of the traveling public is not a public

safety issue," said Rosenzweig, who represents

Pathway Communities. "It is not a constitutional

reason to adopt this ordinance."

In stating

Pathway's opposition, he added that while the ordinance

is "premature," it is a "good starting

point."

An attorney

for Dillard and Galloway also presented a letter for the

record stating opposition to the ordinance. That firm

represents RAM Development, which has applied to develop

the Huddleston property on Hwy. 54 west, as well as

Summit Properties, who plans to build a 399-unit

apartment complex on the proposed Line Creek Parkway.

Meanwhile,

traffic consultant Ed Ellis told the council that there

is room for improvement of the city's traffic woes that

does not violate the federal mandates imposed by the

Clean Air Act.

Showing

traffic volume figures based on current conditions as

well as the addition of the apartments and the planned

Cedarcroft subdivision, Ellis said that two intersections

would reach an E level of service (on an A-F scale, with

F being the worst): Hwy. 54 at Huddleston, and Hwys. 54

and 74.

Simply

adding a right turn lane at Huddleston, which does not

violate the ban on road improvements, would improve that

intersection dramatically, Ellis said, as would taking

two lanes on through the Hwy. 54 intersection on Hwy. 74

and narrowing them later.

<!--

-----------