A county commissioner’s garbled requirements for developing a piece of property near Lawrenceville led Gwinnett County to take a second vote for the approval leaders first granted last month.
The county did not have information on how frequently zonings are reconsidered after a decision has been made, but Gwinnett spokesman Joe Sorenson said it is rare.
In the case that was reconsidered Tuesday, developer John W. Rooker & Associates was asking for permission to reduce a buffer for an industrial property on Hurricane Shoals Road, in the Gwinnett Progress Center, that backed up to a residence.
In trying to make both the developer and the homeowner happy, Commissioner John Heard asked for some conditions on the property that neither expected — and that an attorney representing the developer thought might not have been what Heard meant.
“In speaking with the Commissioner this morning, I am concerned that what he tells me that he intended may not be consistent with what I may have heard in his amended motion,” attorney Lee Tucker said in an email to Gwinnett’s planning director after the original Feb. 24 vote. The email was obtained as part of an open records request.
Tucker submitted to the planning department his own interpretation of what Heard meant to say. In one of the conditions, the incorrect direction was used to describe the placement of a building on the property. In another, restricting the hours of deliveries, the original requirements would have forced all deliveries to go to one dock door — even if there were multiple tenants in the building, each with their own dock.
In an email to the resident who will be most affected by the construction, Bill Cloutier, Heard said he was winging it when he described the changes and was “less than clear in my pronunciations.” The new public hearing was “to clear up my intentions,” he wrote.
On Tuesday, commissioners approved the buffer reduction by the same 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Lynette Howard opposed. Heard read the conditions more clearly, and after the vote, Tucker said they reflected what he thought had previously been agreed to.
Cloutier said he was pleased with the result, but not with the process. The county never sent him the updated conditions, and he had difficulty getting in touch with county leaders to find out why the case was coming up again. But he brought Tucker a fishing lure to thank him for his help through the process.
“It was harder for us dealing with the county than with the applicant,” Cloutier said. “I was very disappointed in the lack of responses I was getting from county officials.”
About the Author
