Habersham again objects to Cook annexation into Baldwin

CLARKESVILLE, Ga. — The Habersham County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Monday to formally object to Cook Construction’s proposed annexation of about 45 acres into the City of Baldwin, citing concerns about traffic, emergency response demands and the proposed change in land use.

The 5-0 vote marks the second time the county has formally objected to a Cook Construction annexation into Baldwin involving property along the Ga. 365 and Duncan Bridge Road corridor.

The latest proposal would bring five parcels totaling approximately 45 acres into Baldwin under Georgia’s 60% annexation method. The property is part of a larger proposed commercial development by Cook Construction.

County cites traffic concerns

Planning and Development Director Mike Beecham told commissioners Monday that county staff continues to recommend opposing the annexation.

Beecham said the county recently received a traffic study prepared for the project. While his previous analysis anticipated approximately 24,500 vehicle trips per day, the study provided by the developer’s engineer projects roughly 26,500 daily trips.

“That’s even going to be more traffic than I put in my staff analysis,” Beecham told commissioners.

He said the county is particularly concerned about the impact on surrounding roads and intersections, including Level Grove Road and Duncan Bridge Road.

While the roads immediately serving the proposed development are state-maintained, Habersham County provides emergency response to traffic incidents in the area. Beecham said increased traffic would likely place additional demands on the county’s emergency response resources.

County Attorney Angela Davis cited accident data at the Duncan Bridge Road and Ga. 365 intersection as another concern, telling commissioners her notes showed approximately 200 accidents at the intersection over the past year.

Davis said the county’s proposed objection focuses on the potential burdens created by the annexation, including financial impacts, changes in zoning and land-use intensity.

County disputes impact of proposed land use

The county’s objection is not based on an assertion that Baldwin could not provide emergency services to the property if it is annexed.

Rather, county officials say the proposed annexation would change the intensity and character of development that could occur on the property.

If the property remains in unincorporated Habersham County, it would be subject to the county’s Suburban Residential land-use designation. Baldwin, however, is seeking to annex the property for development under the city’s Highway Business zoning, opening the door to the large commercial project proposed by Cook Construction.

Beecham identified that change in land use as one of the county’s objections, along with the projected increase in traffic and the resulting impact on surrounding roads and emergency response.

The annexation would shift responsibility for providing municipal services within the property to Baldwin. But county officials said the more significant concern is the effect the proposed commercial development could have beyond the annexed property, particularly on county-maintained roads and intersections where Habersham County emergency personnel already respond to crashes.

The city’s annexation services report states Baldwin has the personnel and resources to provide services to the property if it is annexed.

60% method raises stakes

The latest application differs from the earlier Cook proposal in another important way.

Cook is pursuing annexation under Georgia’s 60% method rather than the 100% method used previously. Under the 60% method, unanimous consent from property owners is not required if the statutory requirements are met.

One property in the middle of the proposed development remains a holdout.

Davis told commissioners that attorneys involved in efforts to acquire the property have acknowledged that the parcel could potentially be annexed through the 60% method even without the owner’s consent.

However, she said Cook is continuing negotiations to acquire the property and has acknowledged that the project could fall apart if the parcel cannot be obtained because of its location in the center of the proposed development.

Beecham said the property in question was not included in the current annexation application, but could potentially be annexed under the 60% method if the required percentage of property owners approve the annexation.

County previously objected

The commission’s action follows a similar dispute earlier this year.

In February, commissioners voted unanimously to object to Cook Construction’s previous proposal to annex nearly 100 acres along Duncan Bridge Road and Ga. 365 into Baldwin.

That objection cited a potential increase in the burden on the county from the proposed change in zoning and the expected increase in traffic. County officials estimated the earlier proposal could generate approximately 24,000 vehicle trips per day and cited roughly 200 crashes at Duncan Bridge Road and Ga. 365 during the preceding year.

The earlier objection moved into the state’s annexation dispute-resolution process.

The current objection will likewise proceed through the statutory process if Baldwin continues with the annexation.

Baldwin hearings continue

The Baldwin City Council has been considering the revised Cook proposal through a series of public hearings which will continue Aug. 18 and then again on Sept. 1

The city previously advanced the revised annexation and rezoning proposal after lengthy public discussion. The proposal includes restrictions intended to limit some uses that could otherwise be permitted under Highway Business zoning.

The broader Cook development has been the subject of multiple public hearings and legal questions in Baldwin as the city considers annexation, zoning and the potential impacts of the project.

For Habersham County, however, the fundamental concerns remain the same.

Beecham told commissioners that the projected traffic, the impact on existing infrastructure and the change in land use are reasons the county should again oppose the annexation.

The commission agreed, voting unanimously to direct county staff and the county attorney to proceed with the formal objection.