Baldwin advances revised Cook development after lengthy public discussion

BALDWIN, Ga. — The Baldwin City Council unanimously approved the first reading Tuesday of annexation and rezoning ordinances for a revised Cook Construction mixed-use development, moving the proposal forward after hearing a detailed presentation, nearly an hour of public comment and discussion about traffic, future land uses and the city’s role in shaping growth.

The council voted 5-0 to approve the first reading of both the annexation and zoning ordinances following the presentation by representatives of Cook Construction. Councilman Mike Tope made both motions, which were seconded by Councilwoman Nancy Lehman.

The proposal seeks to annex approximately 45 acres into Baldwin while rezoning a total of 65.92 acres, including land already inside the city limits, for a mixed-use commercial development at the intersection of Ga. 365 and Duncan Bridge Road.

Before the presentation began, Mayor Doug Faust stressed that Tuesday’s meeting was part of the city’s information-gathering process rather than a final decision.

“This is not an approval process,” Faust said. “This is a process by which we gather information and vote at a later date.”

Revised proposal narrows development

Alice W.S. Price, an attorney with Underwood Scoggins representing Cook Construction, said the revised proposal differs significantly from the application submitted earlier this year.

She said the development would include a grocery store, retail shops, restaurants, medical offices and senior living, while removing a previously proposed 42-acre tract that had generated questions because no development plans had been identified.

“We have now limited this application to just the area that has a current development plan for it,” Price said.

Price also said the annexation method has changed from Georgia’s 100% method to the 60% method because one property owner whose parcel lies within the proposed development has not yet agreed to sell.

She said negotiations with that homeowner remain active.

“She is not against the project,” Price said. “Her comfort level is to wait and see how the process goes before committing to the contract.”

Developer offers additional restrictions

One of the biggest changes presented Tuesday was Cook Construction’s proposal to voluntarily prohibit numerous uses otherwise allowed under Baldwin’s Highway Business zoning district.

Price said the development would not include residential subdivisions, apartments, townhomes or a data center.

“We want to make sure the community knows that even if they’re allowed in the zoning district, we are comfortable with not allowing them on this development,” she said.

The proposed list also excludes uses such as junkyards, salvage yards, adult entertainment businesses, pawn shops, massage parlors, shooting ranges, bus terminals and solid waste transfer facilities.

Councilman Joe Elam asked whether those restrictions would remain in place if the property were sold decades from now.

Price said the prohibited uses would become conditions of the rezoning and would remain attached to the property unless a future owner successfully sought another rezoning.

“This is not dependent on the landowner or the current applicant,” she said. “It runs with the land.”

Traffic dominates discussion

While council members asked questions about ownership, zoning and long-term

restrictions, traffic quickly emerged as one of the night’s biggest concerns.

Councilman Erik Keith questioned how the existing intersection at Ga. 365 and Duncan

Bridge Road could safely accommodate a major commercial development.

“That’s a big concern for our community is the traffic,” Keith said. “It’s already a fatal intersection. There’s a lot of wrecks out there, deadly wrecks.”

Price clarified that Cook Construction has begun coordinating with the Georgia Department of Transportation but said specific roadway improvements have not yet been identified because the project remains in the planning stages.

She said any required improvements would be coordinated through GDOT.

Residents raise concerns

Several residents urged the council to proceed cautiously.

Former Baldwin Councilwoman Alice Venter criticized the city’s transparency, saying Baldwin has not livestreamed meetings or kept meeting minutes current while considering what she described as a development of regional impact.

She also questioned whether council members were being fully involved in discussions with the developer.

Habersham County resident Jeanette Byrom questioned why the property needed to be annexed into Baldwin, arguing additional commercial development would worsen traffic at what she described as an already dangerous intersection.

Resident Sydney Blackburn questioned whether the concept plan presented Tuesday would ultimately reflect the finished development, arguing the developer repeatedly described the proposal as flexible while leaving open the possibility of future changes. She also questioned whether residents had been adequately consulted about what they want to see built.

Former Habersham County Commission Chairman Jimmy Tench urged the council to consider the county’s long-term planning efforts along the Ga. 365 corridor and questioned whether sufficient traffic and environmental studies had been completed.

Council members say questions remain

After the meeting, Tope said Tuesday’s presentation largely confirmed what had already been included in the revised application, but he expects additional conditions could be added before final approval.

“There’s always going to be questions about what their intentions are,” Tope told NowGeorgia. “I think they’ve been, quite honestly, pretty consistent from the last time they did it.”

Tope said he was encouraged that Cook Construction plans to provide a written list of prohibited uses but said the council may seek additional restrictions.

“There’s probably some conditions I would like to add to that as well,” he said. “There’s certain things I don’t want to see over there.”

Tope also said the proposal represents a different decision than it did several months ago because Cook Construction now owns the property included in the application.

“We’re in a little bit different situation now,” he said. “Cook owns the property.”

He noted the land proposed for annexation remains in unincorporated Habersham County, where it is designated Suburban Residential under Habersham County’s recently adopted Unified Development Ordinance. Tope said the council must now weigh whether the property should remain under county jurisdiction for potential residential development or become part of Baldwin as a commercial project.

“We have to make a choice,” Tope said. “Citizens have to make a choice.”

Tope also pointed to the city’s existing partnership with Habersham County to provide utility service in some unincorporated areas, saying residential development outside the city could still place demands on Baldwin’s infrastructure without generating city property tax revenue.

“They’re going to come to us asking us to connect to city systems,” he said. “We’re getting fees and connection fees and stuff like that, but we’re not getting any residuals.”

He said Baldwin hopes to continue working with the county on infrastructure regardless of the outcome.

“We have a really good partnership with them,” Tope said. “This way, we still think we can build a partnership on the infrastructure and things like that.”

Two public hearings scheduled

Although state law requires one public hearing, Baldwin will hold two before taking final action.

The hearings are scheduled for Aug. 18 and Sept. 1.

After the meeting, Faust said the additional hearing was intended to give residents more opportunities to participate and allow city officials time to respond to questions raised during the first hearing.

“We wanted to make sure that we have the opportunity for the public to give comments,” Faust said. “Also, by providing some time between two hearings, if there are questions raised in the first one, it gives us opportunity to answer them.”

Faust said Tuesday’s presentation also helped clarify several aspects of the proposal.

“I’ve already read the application, so I was familiar with it,” he said. “I think the advantage of what we presented tonight was to clarify that the uses are going to be defined. We also defined the areas much more clearly, and we got updates on what’s happening to the homeowner in the area, and that negotiations are still underway with that.”