Is new

commercial and industrial development still welcome in

Peachtree City, now that its traffic impact ordinance is

in place?

That

question was raised during discussion last week among the

City Council just before it adopted a revised version of

the ordinance at its regular meeting.

Most of the

potential problems discussed have dealt with how and if

the law can be enforced, since developers have repeatedly

charged that the ordinance is unconstitutional. Pathway

Communities went a step further last Friday, filing suit

in Fayette County Superior Court to stop it.

Originally

adopted in early October, the ordinance set guidelines

for developers wishing to bring projects into the city

that will affect the already cluttered traffic,

especially along the Ga. Highway 54 corridor west of Ga.

Highway 74 to the Coweta County line.

City

development director Jim Williams stressed that the

original ordinance was not seriously flawed, as some may

have suggested, but there were several improvements in

the revision. The document was reviewed by city attorneys

and traffic consultants as well as some residents

directly affected by it.

There was

no public comment during this hearing, very unlike when

the original ordinance was considered. But council

members had plenty to say about it themselves.

Mayor Bob

Lenox called the revised ordinance "a pretty good

cleanup job. It makes it much clearer."

But

councilman Jim Pace, who had several reservations when

the ordinance was first considered and voted against it,

expressed concerns about the industrial park. He said

that he was unclear as to whether a prospective tenant

there would be welcome in the city under the new traffic

guidelines.

Williams

said that he thinks the new ordinance will lead to

improvements that are most favorable for industrial park

tenants, such as the extension of TDK Boulevard

(Crosstown Drive) into Coweta County, which would benefit

everyone in the city.

"But

we can't continue to put development out there without

addressing traffic," said Williams. "I think

this is positive for the community and not too burdensome

for developers."

Pace said

that he does not want to send a message that no more

development is wanted in the industrial park, adding that

the city's tax base needs it.

"This

ordinance will not take one car off the road. The problem

will still be there tomorrow," he said, adding that

more immediate solutions such as the TDK Boulevard

project and extending lanes on Hwy. 74 should be

considered more seriously.

Mayor Pro

Tempore Annie McMenamin said that extending TDK is not a

new idea, and if the city could do it on its own, it

would have been done long ago.

Pace also

inquired as to the constitutionality of the ordinance, an

issue that has been brought up repeatedly by developers

and their attorneys in the past two months. City attorney

Rick Lindsey replied, "We'll know in the

courts," saying that he knows of no statute like

this one in the state and that balancing health and

safety concerns stemming from traffic with the rights of

property owners will likely be done in the judicial

arena.

McMenamin

said that if such a challenge comes, the city must stand

up to it.

"We're

being held in bondage by the federal government,"

she said. "We're being denied our right. If we're

challenged, we're challenged. It's [ordinance] not

stopping development."

Pace said

the traffic problem is not the fault of the next

developer to come into Peachtree City, but everyone who

is already here. But this ordinance, according to Pace,

will penalize the developers who have yet to come.

"This

is a burden that should be uniformly shared by all of

us," he said.

In perhaps

the most ironic statement of the entire discussion, Pace

said that Peachtree City, with its electric golf carts

and acres of open space, is the most environmentally

conscious community he knows of anywhere. Yet it is being

stymied by federal environmental concerns.

Pace said

that it is not a particular industrial company's

responsibility to build bridges and roads just for the

privilege of locating in a certain area. If a project is

in alignment with the existing land-use plan, he said, it

should be allowed to proceed.

"This

problem is all over Atlanta," said Lenox. "At

least we're trying to do something about it."

Some

industrial prospects have come to the area in recent

years with certain assurances by the state that road

improvements would be made. Many of those promises have

obviously not come to pass, Lenox said.

Pace

revealed that a specific industrial prospect had recently

come to him inquiring about the state of affairs in

Peachtree City and whether new traffic regulations

signaled an end to the welcome mat for industrial

development. He asked Lindsey if there was a conflict

that should preclude him from voting.

Lindsey

reiterated his statement from a previous meeting that all

five council members are land owners in the city and

would technically be affected by the ordinance, but that

was not reason enough for a conflict. If, however, the

prospect in question had discussed the use of Group VI

Corporation, Pace's own development company, then a

conflict would exist.

Pace

abstained from voting on the revised ordinance, which

passed 4-0.