Wesley Chapel Road subdivision proposal gets initial approval

Wesley Chapel subdivision plans
To view a larger version of the revised site plan, click here.

The Cobb Planning Commission is recommending approval of a proposed 81-home subdivision on Wesley Chapel Road that has drawn substantial opposition from nearby homeowners.

By a vote of 4-1 the planning board endorsed an R-15 rezoning request by Brooks Chadwick Capital, LLC for 49.5 acres on either side of Wesley Chapel between Garrison Mill Elementary School and Mabry Park.

(You can read the initial rezoning request here.)

A number of nearby residents and a representative of the Cobb County School District spoke against the application during a public hearing Tuesday.

The land is among the last undeveloped tracts in a fast-growing part of Northeast Cobb. North of that property, land formerly owned by the Mabry farming family and across from Mabry Park is being developed for upscale single-family homes.

Brooks Chadwick’s plans for what it’s calling Willis Woods include 81 homes of at least 3,000 square feet, with prices starting at $800,000 and surpassing $1 million, according to Kevin Moore, the developer’s attorney.

He said the R-15 category not only is consistent with surrounding subdivisions, but the density of the development, at 1.65 acres, “is on the low end” of both.

But those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning weren’t as concerned about density as they were other matters.

Residents in the nearby Highland at Wesley Chapel, Loch Highland and Beacon Hill subdivisions were concerned about traffic, school capacity and stormwater runoff issues.

Proposed Wesley Chapel Road subdvision
A rendering of a home style planned for Willis Woods.

David Fortenberry, who also lives nearby on Wesley Chapel Road, said “at minimum,” the developer should provide impact assessments for traffic, flooding and stormwater, especially since the development contains Sweat Creek Run, which flows downstream into nearly Loch Highland.

Residents of that neighborhood said they have spent $1.5 million of their own money over the last decade fighting back runoff from streams in the area that are affected by development.

“It’s time we stop asking downstream homeowners to keep paying for upstream development,” said former planning commission member Andy Smith, who was speaking on behalf of Loch Highland and other residents.

Charles Sprayberry of the Cobb school district estimated that Garrison Mill, which is near capacity, would have an overflow of 40 students with the new development.

The two planning board members representing East Cobb spoke at length in favor of the rezoning.

Judy Williams of District 3, which includes the Willis land on the western side of Wesley Chapel, said Glennis Fricks Willis, the property owner, opposed the Highlands at Wesley Chapel rezoning when that took place in 2007.

She then placed her land in a conservation easement, but Williams pointed out the undeveloped land “was not their buffer.”

Tony Waybright of District 2, which includes the Willis land east of Wesley Chapel, said school projections for a decrease in Garrison Mill “look solid.”

He made the motion to recommend approval and Williams seconded it, subject to stipulation letters more sent on Aug. 26 and on Monday (you can read them here and here.)

The Brooks Chadwick application also was supported with the stipulations by the Cobb zoning office and the East Cobb Civic Association.

The changes mostly pertain to setbacks, buffers and architectural styles. A revised site plan includes amenity and retention areas near the creek areas.

Voting against the board’s recommendation was Fred Beloin of North Cobb.

The planning commission’s board is non-binding and advisory. The Cobb Board of Commissioners will make a final decision on Sept. 15.

In another Northeast Cobb rezoning case, the owner of the Sandy Plains Village Shopping Center has withdrawn a rezoning request to convert part of the retail center into 41 townhomes and other retail.

Cobb Zoning Division manager John Pedersen said at the start of Tuesday’s meeting that Site Centers Corp. has withdrawn the application without prejudice, after two delays due to community and staff opposition.

The Sprayberry Crossing redevelopment plans were to have also been heard in September, but Atlantic Residential asked for its application to be heard in October.

Related content

Get Our Free E-Mail Newsletter!

Every Sunday we round up the week’s top headlines and preview the upcoming week in the East Cobb News Digest. Click here to sign up, and you’re good to go!

2 thoughts on “Wesley Chapel Road subdivision proposal gets initial approval”

  1. It is not sufficient, in my opinion, to “provide impact assessments for traffic, flooding and stormwater”. The results of that study should be taken into serious consideration before these new developments are built. I live in Loch Highland and am sick to death of having to pay to remove the silt from our lakes which come into our lakes unhindered by houses that took the place of trees that had previously soaked up most of the water coming downstream. In a heavy rain last week, at least one house was flooded and many docks were topped. That’s without these proposed subdivisions.

    All of these new subdivisions bring new tax revenue into the county – all we get are the tax bills and the silt removal bills, without help from the county. That’s just not right.

    Garrison Mill is already almost at capacity; these subdivisions will push it over the edge. The traffic on Wesley Chapel is going to be increased at about the same time as Mabry Park and the new subdivision across the street from it are getting cranked up. The streets adjoining Wesley Chapel Road are not right across the street from each other, further complicating how traffic is handled right near Garrison Mill Elementary School.

    Without impact studies on all environmental and traffic concerns and effects of the proposed remediations, I will continue to oppose the construction of these subdivisions. As an adjunct to Garrison Mill to replace the science area now taken over by yet another subdivision, it’d be fine – and a lot more beneficial to the area in many more ways than one.

Comments are closed.