Mayor Lenox responds to column, commission

Mayor Lenox responds

to column, commission

[Editor's note: The Citizen

received two faxes Monday from Peachtree City Mayor Bob Lenox. The first

is addressed to the publisher and the second to Fayette County Commission

Chairman Greg Dunn.]

Dear Cal,

I Really enjoyed your front

page editorial. If I am the king and Mr. Basinger is my viceroy, I guess

you must be the court jester.

Please don't take offense court

jesters are highly regarded and respected. I just wish you had the intelligence,

political acumen and sense of humor to be good at it.

Bob Lenox

Dear Greg,

I noted with interest your

comment in the newspaper that you deemed my letter as mayor on the rezoning

at Redwine and Georgia Highway 74 as, "So far out we don't need to

respond." I did not write it expecting a response.

As one of your constituents,

however, I would like to pose the following serious questions to you and

I would expect the courtesy of a reasoned written response, as would any

other citizen of the county.

1. Your professional planning

staff and your Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning,

and Peachtree City asked you to deny the petition. Why did you therefore

feel you should approve the rezoning?

2. Did you feel that you ran

the risk of having your decision overturned in court if you denied the

petition?

3. I certainly agree with your

comments that the land is no longer suitable as A-R, no longer rural,

and not an appropriate site for 5-acre lots. Did you ask your planning

staff or planning commission to study the area and recommend appropriate

uses taking into account your land use plan and surrounding development?

4. Your land use plan clearly

precludes any commercial development on Hwy. 74 South. Why did you choose

to ignore it?

5. Did you impose any controls

as part of the rezoning to preclude "big box" or other massive

uses on the parcel either now or in the future?

6. With so much land available,

did you take any steps to improve setbacks, buffering or landscaping to

make the development more aesthetically pleasing and less intrusive to

the surrounding neighborhoods?

7. Since Hwy. 74 is slated

to be four-laned, did you take this into account and ensure that setbacks

and buffering on the parcel would be appropriate after this is done?

8. Again, with so much land

available, did you ask the applicant to consider providing right-of-way

land for the widening?

9. Did the county acquire ownership

of the 53 acres of adjacent A-R property that is supposed to remain undeveloped?

10. If title was not acquired,

what steps did you take to preclude future development of the 53 acres?

11. What is your position with

regards to the remaining undeveloped land on Hwy. 74 South? Do you intend

to permit further commercial and office development?

12. If this is not your intention,

how do you now assess your legal position relative to precluding such

further development?

Greg, thank you in advance

for your timely response.

Bob Lenox