Taxiway easement dispute leads to altercation after PTC meeting

News
Share this Post

Taxiway easement dispute leads to altercation after PTC meeting

News
Share this Post

A dispute over

plans to develop property adjacent to Falcon Field in Peachtree City nearly

turned into parking-lot fisticuffs after last week's Planning Commission

meeting, according to a police report.

The dispute

involves a proposal from Mike and David Rossetti to abandon a taxiway

easement on property where they want to build an office building and warehouse

with a hangar. The plans for the Jet Limo complex call for a retention

pond to be built where the taxiway easement is currently located.

Former Airport

Authority Chairman David Good, who also owns property near the airport,

has opposed abandoning the easement, stating that he wants to insure his

property has access to Falcon Field in the future.

After the Planning

Commission tabled action on the Jet Limo plan at its meeting last week,

Good exited City Hall when he was confronted by David Rossetti, according

to the report.

David Rossetti

admitted to using several expletives during the exchange with Good, but

denied that he raised his fist in a threatening manner towards Good.

Good had told

police that David Rossetti had pulled back his hand as if he was preparing

to throw a punch.

"I was

legitimately concerned something was going to happen," Good told

The Citizen when he was contacted about the incident. "So I reached

for my cell phone and dialed 911."

Good also said

David Rossetti threatened to beat him up.

David Rossetti

could not be reached to comment for this article, although several messages

to his office went unreturned.

No arrests

were made by police after interviewing both parties.

The Planning

Commission had tabled its action on the Jet Limo plans after reviewing

an opinion on the taxiway easement dispute from City Attorney Rick Lindsey.

Lindsey recommended that the commission should not approve the plans until

all four property owners affected by losing that easement sign an agreement

authorizing the development.

Such an agreement

is required if the property is to be developed, according to the original

easement documents, Lindsey wrote in his opinion.

Stay Up-to-Date on What’s Fun and Important in Fayette

Newsletter

Latest Comments

VIEW ALL
Newsletter
Scroll to Top