The Facts:

• The developer would acquire approximately 6,000 square feet of property next to City Hall which is currently a 15 space surface parking lot (which includes one reserved space for the Sugar Hill Marshal’s office) to construct a three story retail and office building.

• The proposed use is a three story building. This would include two street level suites - one for a high end restaurant and another for restaurant or retail, two levels of office space and an upper floor rooftop experience.

• The current zoning allows the use by right - meaning the developer does not have to rezone the property for the proposed restaurant and office use.

• The developer would purchase the property from the Sugar Hill Downtown Development Authority.

• The property would go from a currently property tax exempt status to privately owned and property tax paying status.

• The proposed use would create dozens of jobs. The current use is a surface parking lot.

• The existing city hall parking deck will remain.

• The decision by Mayor and Council is only for review of the design of the building.

Here is the proposed building per the application available on the city’s website:

DRB-CBD-26-002

671KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is the publicly available application information from the city's website.

Download

Here are higher resolution renderings.

Here is the location from an aerial photo.

History and Planning

The 15 space surface parking lot was intended to become a building. When I began serving on the Downtown Development Authority in 2012, I was told that was why the surface lot was built there by city staff at the time. I was told that water and sewer were in place for the future building.

There’s also plenty of planning evidence of that as well.

We previously covered the 2008 comprehensive plan in a two part series. In the work program, there is a line item about the future city hall. It refers to the acquisition of a 3.7 acre parcel for a “new mixed use City Hall facility”.

Also remember from the 2008 Comprehensive Plan the goals for downtown, which this project would meet.

As previously covered, in 2012 and 2013, the new city hall opened and the direction given by then Mayor Gary Pirkle and City Council to the Downtown Development Authority was to “attract developers and investors and to ease and facilitate the construction of a vibrant downtown for our citizens to enjoy.”

While we haven’t covered the 2014 Void Analysis and Downtown Master Plan Overview yet, here are some relevant portions of that plan that support the planning for this project.

The downtown framework plan shows a building on the parking lot.

What About Parking?

The concern expressed by at least one councilmember has been around the loss of the 15 parking spaces and the parking that will be needed by the customers and employees of the new building.

This is a valid concern. So let’s investigate parking options around the vicinity of the building for parking options and availability.

Option 1 is the existing City Hall parking deck with 64 parking spaces.

Option 2 is the 350 public parking spaces in the Lyric parking deck that is about 350 feet from the center of the deck to City Hall.

Option 3 is the city owned 45 space surface parking on the former Atlas auto repair property. It’s 620 feet from City Hall.

Option 4 is The Landing which is a city owned 55 space surface parking lot. It’s about 900 feet from City Hall.

Option 5 is the city owned E Center parking deck with 85 parking spaces. It’s about 590 feet from City Hall.

Option 6 is the on-street 80 parking spaces between the Eagle Theatre to the historic cemetery and down Temple Drive and Church Street. There’s a lot more parking on West Broad, but this is immediate vicinity.

That’s a total of 679 public parking spaces within the major downtown campus immediately walkable to City Hall and this proposed new development.

This new development will remove 15 spaces (not included in the 679 space count) or about 2% of the total parking space count available. 98% of the parking will remain.

What about parking utilization?

Since I have a downtown business, I’ve been taking pictures throughout the day of the various parking assets outlined above since Monday, March 30th. I plan to add through Monday, April 13th. You can judge for yourself the utilization of the spaces - the Google Photos album linked below includes the meta data for the various times throughout the day. If you’re reading this article prior to April 13th, the album will be updated as new photos are added through the 13th.

What I believe you’ll find is that there is plenty of available of parking - at all times. The parking might not be immediately adjacent to the destination but it will be within a few hundred feet of it. There’s about 40 steps for every 100 feet. Destinations in downtown are within, at most, a few hundred steps of your destination. A few extra steps for the tradeoff of an incredible place within your own community is worth it.

To see the date and time of the photo, click on the “i” for photo information.

Google Photos Album Link

Taking the bigger picture into consideration, the under construction greenway bridge at Stanley Street will make the Sugar Hill Church parking lot easily and safely accessible for downtown. The church graciously allows the public to use for parking for downtown and is especially useful for large events like concerts and Sugar Rush. The bridge will be completed this year. The church parking lot includes hundreds of spaces.

Why This Location?

The developer is proposing a high end restaurant and rooftop that overlooks the Bowl. The reason this property is known as “The Belt Buckle” is because the property is the central location for downtown on West Broad Street - where everything is connected together.

By extending the retail/restaurant from the E Center, it will encourage pedestrians to continue on to the retail that is part of The Lyric down Temple Drive, connecting the two main arteries of commercial development in our downtown. And the more restaurants we have downtown, the more competition there is to drive higher quality.

The location lends itself to a significant architectural building as well as this building will match the quality of the E Center and Eagle theatre, continuing the high quality development of buildings downtown.

We currently have limited space in downtown to allow for the expansion of commercial and office space to attract new businesses and retain existing businesses as they expand. Investment that increases the commercial office space in downtown (this would add approximately 12,000 square feet of office space) is critical to the economic vitality of our city.

Our downtown is built to prioritize people - places for people to live, work and play. The automobile is secondary in downtown. We’re trading a small surface lot for jobs and millions in investment in our city.

Conclusion

The Belt Buckle project will bring one of the highest quality buildings in Gwinnett County to downtown Sugar Hill, adding a high end restaurant and bring more professional service jobs to our city. It represents millions of dollars of investment into our city in exchange for the sale of 6,000 square feet of city owned property.

It will also increase the daytime population for downtown, helping local restaurants increase their lunch time demand.

This is a no brainer. It is exactly the type of development a strong community should want.

1. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan including the 2002 readoption

2. The 2005 Town Center Master Plan

3. The 2005 Land Use Amendment

4. 2006 and 2007 Land Use Policy Changes

5. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Part 1 and Part 2

6. The 2011 LCI Plan

That brings us to a transformative period for the city in 2012 and 2013. As the foundation for the future of the city had been set, new leadership would emerge in these two years along with downtown’s keystone building, the new City Hall.

While there were no substantial policy or planning activities during the period, it would be a time of execution, construction and leadership change.

In this article, we’ll cover:

• New leadership;

• New City Hall and West Broad Street;

• The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) gets active;

• Groundbreaking on the widening of Highway 20; and

• The Lanier Cluster schools becoming part of the city.

New Leadership

2012 and 2013 saw the addition and/or changing of roles of a number of new leaders in the city.

In January 2012, current Mayor Brandon Hembree, who recently won re-election for a second term, would join the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), his first role with the city. I would join him at the same time on the DDA. I had read the vision from the 2005 Town Center Master Plan and was excited to be a part of the team bringing that to reality.

I had been invited to get involved in the city by then City Council Member Marc Cohen.

After submitting my resume and having an interview with then City Manager Bob Hail, I was offered the opportunity to serve on the City’s DDA by Mayor and Council, which I accepted and was sworn in at the February 2012 City Council Meeting.

Paul Radford was hired by Mayor and Council as Assistant City Manager in 2013 and would assume the role of City Manager in mid-2014 with the retirement of long time City Manager Bob Hail. The City’s Charter allows for the City Council to hire the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Accountant and Tax Collector. All other employees are hired by and report directly to the City Manager.

Also in 2013, Mayor Gary Pirkle announced he would not run again after 12 years as Mayor. He endorsed then City Council Member Steve Edwards for Mayor. Steve Edwards was the lone qualifier for Mayor and would assume the role in January 2014.

The new leadership under Mayor Steve Edwards and City Council was to make downtown a priority. The city had already acquired a number of downtown properties under Mayor Gary Pirkle and City Manager Bob Hail. The directive was to move forward on the city’s master plan for downtown now that the Great Recession had subsided and the economy was back on track.

In September 2013, a special called election was held to fill the vacant seat of Steve Edwards. DDA member Brandon Hembree was the lone qualifier for the special election and assumed office in October 2013 after being sworn in by Mayor Gary Pirkle.

In summary, here are the key leadership changes that occurred over those two years:

• Steve Edwards: Mayor

• Paul Radford: City Manager

• Brandon Hembree: DDA and City Council

• Taylor Anderson: DDA

• Marc Orcutt: DDA

New City Hall and West Broad Street

As was outlined in this previous article, the city broke ground on the new City Hall and West Broad Street in October 2010 that were to become the cornerstone and bedrock of the new downtown. Construction continued all through 2011 and 2012. Below are various updates from the city’s newsletter at the time, Sugar Hill Sentinel documenting the progress.

The “new downtown corridor” was taking shape, causing closures and re-routing of traffic during the construction.

The city heralded the completion of City Hall, calling it “the anchor of our new downtown and is the future of our City.”

City Hall’s Grand Opening on Sunday, January 13th with local, state and federal officials in attendance.

The opening of City Hall set the direction for the city and future of downtown.

Downtown Development Authority Gets Active

The City’s DDA had been in existence for several years but really had not made progress until the city began work on City Hall and West Broad Street along with the other infrastructure improvements necessary to see downtown thrive. Now that headway on those projects was being made, the DDA was ready to move forward on the city’s plans for downtown.

We would get to work immediately on promoting downtown and the redevelopment opportunities at the direction of Mayor and Council. DDA Chairman Dawn P. Gober would become a constant source of inspiration and cheerleading for the city with the newly energized DDA. This included a significant presence at a number of events, like the Gwinnett Chamber’s recently begun Redevelopment Forum which would eventually become the Metro-Atlanta Redevelopment Summit.

As part of fulfilling Mayor and Council’s directive to promote and building of downtown, the DDA would engage the public and specifically downtown businesses. On April 30th, the DDA hosted an evening downtown to discuss plans for the future of downtown.

New events were being tested in the yet to be named amphitheater. These early events would lead to the growth of concerts, theatrical plays and many other community events in what will become “The Bowl @ Sugar Hill”.

The city’s push for downtown included attendance at the Gwinnett Chamber’s Redevelopment Tour in Greenville, South Carolina in October 2013. Greenville would become a constant source of inspiration for downtown Sugar Hill, with it’s Main Street between the Reedy River and the Hyatt, and Sugar Hill’s main street, West Broad Street between PIB and Hwy, covering the same 3/4 mile distance.

In November 2013, Marc Orcutt became a member the DDA. Marc would go on to become Chairman of the DDA in 2018 and become instrumental in the lease out of The Suite Spot and the E Center when those projects come to life along with several other projects in downtown. At the time, he was owner of Xenier Media located in downtown.

The DDA led by Chairman Dawn P. Gober would see significant progress in 2012 and 2013 towards the realization of city’s plan for downtown with support from Mayor and Council and the opening of new City Hall and transformed West Broad Street.

Highway 20 Widening Breaks Ground

Another major milestone in the city’s history was groundbreaking on the major east/west highway in the city - Highway 20. The widening of Highway 20 by Georgia and Gwinnett Department of Transportation would bring major attention and a lot more traffic to the city. While this would just be the groundbreaking and the project would be completed for several more years, it was a major change in the city that would have far reaching impacts.

Lanier Cluster Becomes Part of the City

In December 2013, the Lanier Clusters became part of the city through a legislative annexation, solidifying their status as part of the city. The school cluster opened in 2008. However, incorporating the property they sit on within the city limits solidified their importance to our community, forming the foundation of their relationship with the city today.

Conclusion

2012 and 2013 were major transitional years for the city in both leadership and downtown construction. The handoff featured the foundation being completed from both a planning perspective and building/infrastructure perspective.

The future years would see major progress in both planning and construction efforts building on the Strong Community that Sugar Hill had building towards in the prior decade.

What’s The Issue With Dogs?

There was that time last November she followed one of the city Marshal’s to the dog food store where they were getting food for the city’s therapy dog, Marshal Sanford. Marshal Parker, his handler, was going to Hollywood Feed just across the bridge over the river in Forsyth County to pick up dog food. Dog food that is donated by Hollywood Feed for free to Marshal Parker for Marshal Sanford. The “government watchdog” felt it necessary to follow the Marshal, take pictures, then post about it insinuating he had done something wrong. (Link to the original facebook post, if you’re not blocked.)

This blew up, as it should have, as an odd and rather outrageous thing to do. And, of course, there was plenty of public backlash. In usual Ms. Chambers fashion, the threat of blocking people was immediate.

This post predictably blew up within the community and the few people who hadn’t been blocked by her expressed their opinion on her post. So much so that she eventually shut off comments on the post.

And even though it still says 84 comments, when “ALL COMMENTS” are selected, far less than 84 comments are visible. Most of the dissenting comments are no longer visible - either they’re hidden or they’ve been deleted. Including ones from Marshal Parker’s wife explaining what was going on. Here’s a screengrab at the time of the original post when comments were open. The timestamps reflect when the screenshots were taken since Ms. Chambers is notorious for deleting comments and blocking anyone (as she herself stated above) with a dissenting view or, as in this case, refutes her incorrect assertions.

The post that Mrs. Parker is referring to is this post from Mayor Brandon Hembree who took issue with Ms. Chambers’ post and rightly called her out on it.

She recently posted complaining that the Mayor was “bullying” her over the above post from last year and labeling people who agreed with the Mayor that this behavior is odd as part of the “bully brigade”.

Naturally, Ms. Chambers’ article only mention of the actual facts of this situation that Marshal Parker was picking up free dog food for Marshal Sanford was the screenshot of Mayor Hembree’s post. Instead she focuses on procedural matters that have nothing to do with this situation as Marshal Parker was getting supplies, which Marshals occasionally have to leave the city to do. As they sometimes do to get lunch. As they sometimes do to attend functions on the city’s behalf. As they sometimes do even on patrol given the odd shape of the city limits. As they do for training.

She then accuses me of lying as well as “old reliable” - corruption.

In my comment, I was suggesting that she should have simply gone up to Marshal Parker and asked him why he’s at the pet store and outside city limits. I never implied that it was illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer - people post pictures of our Marshals all the time, take pictures and videos of LEOs all the time. What I did say is it’s weird to follow a LEO, take their picture doing a routine thing and post it on social media insinuating that they did something wrong. That if she just asked him why he left the city limits she wouldn’t have to make insinuations or baseless accusations about his actions. That’s what real “journalists” (her term for herself) do. Reading is fundamental.

Oh and, of course, she includes the usual self absorption and self congratulatory remark on her blog. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to come to your own conclusions about the quality of our work.

Perhaps the most amusing portion of her defense of her actions is citing the department’s “Standard Operating Procedures”. I said nothing about him being on-duty or off-duty. Of course he’s on-duty since he’s conducting Department business in a Marshal vehicle. She tries to say that an on-duty Marshal may not leave the city limits except in the case of pursuing someone who committed a crime in Sugar Hill, serving a warrant in another jurisdiction or if the Marshal believes a felony is about to happen and they need to take action to prevent serious injury to someone.

From her blog post.

Here’s where the real problem lies. This section only applies if they’re taking “official law enforcement action”. This defines when they can take action of law enforcement outside the city limits. The Marshals are not tethered to the city limits otherwise in their vehicle - they can and do travel outside city limits on duty for many reasons and that is OK as long as it’s done on “Department approved business” - a section she highlighted herself. Again, reading is fundamental.

The bottom line, Marshal Parker was on Department approved business by getting the city’s dog, Marshal Sanford, his food for free just across the river in Forsyth County for a total of 15 minutes. Pretty simple and very clear.

Ms. Chambers isn’t being “bullied” - she’s just wrong about so much so often while living in an echo chamber, any correction probably does feel like an attack. When you impugn the reputation and integrity of good people and have to delete and block dissents to such actions - well, there is definitely a bully here.

Today is Election Day in Sugar Hill

If you haven’t, please stop by City Hall today between 7 AM and 7 PM to cast your vote.

Vote FOR candidates that support our LEOs, our Marshals and Department of Public Safety. Our LEOs, and especially our Marshals, make us a Strong Community.

Those candidates are Mayor Brandon Hembree and Council Members Alvin Hicks and Samantha Piovesan.

Keep our city a Strong Community and continuing to find reasons to Love Where You Live.

This individual who is running for the current post I serve the citizens of Sugar Hill from posted this on her Facebook campaign page yesterday.

On its face, it’s a pretty typical campaign post. Vague. Populist. Loosely implying inappropriate activities by the local government that she will fix.

So let’s go through it and unpack it a bit.

I’m not sure what “fair growth” means - it’s not defined. What is “fair growth”? The city, as previously documented, is growing slower than ever. The city’s comprehensive plan, Envision100, which is the community developed plan for the city’s growth, is the guiding document. The two city councilmembers who have endorsed this candidate voted against the community developed comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan is the community’s plan - not the elected officials, not the city’s - the citizens’ plan. Is she against this plan? Does she not believe the citizens’ plan is “fair”?

Next, she says that “too much of our city’s resources are tied up in projects that don’t serve the broader community”. Again, no specifics - no projects named, no description of resources, no examples of projects that she would support that would “serve the broader community”.

Current City Projects

Let’s look at the city’s current projects, whose progress are documented monthly on the city’s website.

Here’s the most recent report for your review. Let’s go through the projects:

• TRANSCO Natural Gas Meter Station: This upgraded meter station, the first major investment in the city’s natural gas system since the 1960s, is nearly complete. This serves the entire city plus those outside the city who have Sugar Hill for their natural gas provider.

• 2025 LMIG Street Repair/Repaving: This program repaved 4.7 miles of the city’s streets. The city is responsible for about 76.2 miles of streets. At this pace, the city’s streets would be repaved about once every 16 years. Typical streets need repaving every 20-25 years.

• PIB East and Spring Hill Sidewalks: This project will add about 1,700 feet of sidewalks to the city, further connecting residents to the Greenway and other gaps within the sidewalk network in the city.

• Highway 20 Greenway Bridge: This bridge for the greenway over Highway 20 has been discussed at length, including here on Strong Communities.

• Ridge Lake Park Phase II: The addition of a playground to Ridge Lake Park.

• Cemetery Fencing/Atlas Parking Lot Fencing: Completion of fencing of Sugar Hill’s historic cemetery and city owned property.

• Downtown Greenway: This federally funded project will connect the Greenway currently being constructed with the Highway 20 expansion between PIB and Buford Highway from its terminus at PIB along Alton Tucker to the Greenway Bridge.

• Hillcrest North Greenway: An expansion of the Greenway to the north of Highway 20 through a wooded section terminating at a new trailhead near Richland Creek and tying in the already constructed portions of the Greenway to the north of Highway 20.

• E Center Upgrades: Addition of a shade structure and door hardware

Apparently this candidate will only support projects that “support the broader community”… Whatever that means. I’m not sure which of the above projects don’t serve “the broader community” - perhaps she’ll clarify.

Where has there not been “fair competition for project bidding” and what “additional checks and balances” is she proposing? What does “promote diversity among the vendors our city works with” mean?

The city bids projects in accordance with state law - the city is required to have the bids open to the public. The bidders on a project must be qualified to do the work and the city on construction projects (depending on the funding source, which can dictate other metrics) is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. The city lists all of its bidding and RFPs (request for proposals) on its website.

Checkmark 1: What does “slow the pace” mean? How do you “ensure that our city’s growth truly benefits everyone in our community”? Think about that standard for a second - re-read that sentence. She is promising that, if elected, she will ensure that growth truly benefits everyone. How will she fulfill that promise?

Regarding growth, there hasn’t been an apartment/mixed-use development proposed in the city since December 2021. And it was denied.

Regarding other zonings, here are all the approved zonings from 2020-2025 that were presented during the zoning map update to City Council a few months ago.

The dark orange are townhomes - there are 6 of those and the only one approved since 2022 was a downzoning from condominiums to townhomes. Pair that with the two articles on growth that I previously posted, you’ll see flat to declining rates in our schools and overall growth in general.

In so far as “evaluating traffic”, that’s been done for decades. We live in a car centric development pattern - that’s not going to change no matter how much evaluation you do.

Checkmark 2: This no subtly implies that qualified contractors have NOT had a “fair chance”. That is completely false. All qualified bidders have the same opportunity to win a city project - bidding for construction projects is based on the lowest qualified bidder.

This is irresponsible for a candidate to make this claim and it is incumbent upon the accuser of such a ridiculous assertion to show some sort of evidence that this has not happened.

One community member asked her about this - reading her response makes even less sense.

Checkmark 3: As previously outlined, the Assistant City Manager provides monthly updates on city projects, both major and minor on the city’s website. He also presents that update to City Council at our regular monthly meeting providing Mayor and Council to ask questions about projects.

You should really be careful of candidates who use the word “everyone” often - that’s a promise nobody can deliver on. You should also be skeptical of a candidate who obviously is using ChatGPT for policy positions and responses.

Following A Pattern

This follows a pattern by this candidate. Below is an interaction with her where she was not able to provide clear answers to very straightforward questions about her policy position on the budget. This occurred on a local Facebook group on a thread she started regarding the city’s millage rate hearing.

It started out with a simple question about the millage rate.

I responded to the question with this.

She responded with this.

This is not actually answering the question - this is electoral platitudes. The equavalent of saying you can have your cake and eat it too.

Another resident asked her a question.

Pretty straightforward question - if you rollback the millage rate to hold 2025 city revenue to the same amount as 2024, you MUST make cuts because inflation alone has reduced the value of the dollar over the prior year.

Her response.

This post is full of incorrect information and lack of clarity, so I asked her about it.

Unfortunately, despite questions from myself and others for her to clarify her questions, she did not. So we’re left to speculate on what she meant by her policy positions.

What It Means

The election for Mayor and two City Council positions will be held November 4th from 7 AM to 7 PM at City Hall. Early voting is now through this Friday, October 31st, from 9 AM to 5 PM.

Turnout is typically very low for local elections - one City Council position in 2023 literally ended in a tie and forced a runoff. Another was decided by less than 20 votes.

Your vote matters. Especially in local elections.

A Strong Community is one where the local residents participate and the easiest way to participate is to be an informed voter.

In fact, those responses were so “thin” and “nonsensical” that she embarked on a journey spanning over six years of incredible claims against city officials, three attempts at getting elected to City Council and a current run for Mayor.

Well, what if we revisited those responses and you got to judge them for yourself? She didn’t actually provide them - so we will.

Before we do that, let’s set the table.

The Project Itself

The Whitehead Road bridge replacement project, which started in spring 2019 and wrapped up in fall 2019, became a hotbed of local discussion.

Here’s what the bridge looked like before the replacement.

And here it is after.

The bridge project was wholly a project of Gwinnett County Department of Transportation. The bridge had received a failing grade and was identified in the 2014 SPLOST transportation project list for replacement.

Below are two slides from a December 2015 presentation by Gwinnett County to a citizens’ project selection committee. (Full slide deck below.)

Splost Update December 4 2015 Final

16.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Full slideshow from Gwinnett County.

Download

Bridge replacements are, without a doubt, a disruptive infrastructure project. Even under best case scenario, they will cause disruptions to typical traffic patterns. Because of the lack of connectivity of the typical street networks in suburban Atlanta, they become a major upheaval to the daily commutes for the local community.

The Need for Replacement

That said, failure of bridges result in catastrophic and often deadly consequences. The Whitehead Road bridge had been identified as a “failing” bridge by Gwinnett County. Then City Councilmember Brandon Hembree provided context to the bridge replacement.

The bridge had been subject to frequent scour (erosion around its structural components) and had failed in 1977 during spring storms.

The Atlanta Constitution Thu Mar 31 1977 Flooding Whitehead Bridge

356KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Full article from March 31, 1977 in the AJC on the washout of the bridge at Whitehead Road.

Download

Clearly the bridge needed replacement. As Whitehead Road is owned by Gwinnett County, they determined that replacement was necessary going back to at least 2014. Replacement was scheduled to begin in 2019.

Communication

While Gwinnett County had identified and begun design of the replacement, the county had not shared this information with the city. In January 2019, I noticed detour signs in the area and inquired with city staff about it.

I followed up with Gwinnett County about the impacts and relayed information to city staff.

Because of the nature of the project and the obvious impacts to our local community, I shared this information with the public via my social media.

As a result of this, the city took proactive steps to notify the community about the upcoming project. Below are a sample of the social media posts the city made regarding the project over several days in March 2019.

In addition, the AJC also printed several articles about the project.

The project was discussed at the March 2019 City Council meeting regarding utility relocation.

Nextdoor Social Media Response

While the social media discussion on Facebook was typical and reasonable, that was not the case on Nextdoor. Nextdoor is usually a hub of misinformation - particularly as it relates to local government. As expected, the discussion on this particular project took on a life of its own.

Here is the original post on the project from April 8, 2019:

Now, before we go any further, let’s go back to the recent accusation by Ms. Chambers on her blog.

Here is where Ms. Chambers (at the time, she was going by Amber Chambers-Lobonc) chimes in on the post.

Pretty aggressive language there. Some could even categorize it as a “crazy reaction” - “another good reason for the city government not to exist”. Keep in mind by this time that the city, local elected officials and local media had covered this extensively as previously documented. Pretty easy to find the answers - if you’re willing to do a very small amount of work. Or, if you have questions, simply ask someone at the city directly rather than speculate on social media.

Due to the way Nextdoor presents conversations, there is no nesting so it can be difficult to determine who is responding to whom on a post. But let’s keep going.

Remember - we’re looking for “City of Sugar Hill officials” giving “thin, non-sensical answers” about the project.

The first “city official” to weigh in from the city was then Downtown Development Authority (DDA) member Nic Greene. DDA members are volunteers.

The thread meanders into all sorts of different subjects pertaining to growth, taxes, county assessments among others for quite some time.

Nic Greene eventually weighs in again as the only “official” (if a volunteer DDA member is “official”).

The conversation continues for some time. Here is a sample.

Again, read the reasonable responses from Mr. Butts and then Ms. Chambers response to those. Mr. Butts is not a “city official” by the way - he is the husband of a former city employee who at the time had recently taken a new job with Gwinnett County in their Water Resources Department.

The conversation continues with Nic Greene weighing back in.

Are the aggressive responses Ms. Chambers is giving consistent with what has been said to her so far?

It continues now discussing the city election that would take place later in 2019.

The thread goes on for quite some time more - apologies for tone are given from both parties. Still, no other “city officials” have responded until I weigh in with this response on April 14, 2019.

If there’s something “thin” and “non-sensical” in that post, please point it out in the comments.

Let’s go back to Ms. Chambers’ current post where she mentions a private message from a former City Councilmember.

While he wasn’t named, she is almost certainly referring to former City Councilmember Marc Cohen. I asked Marc if he happened to still have that message. Here is what he sent me. From a timing standpoint, this message exchanges happens 3 days after the original post.

Is there a “very clear threat” in that from Marc? Perhaps Ms. Chambers was referring to a different message from someone else. Marc and I were the only two City Councilmembers to participate in the thread. I did not reach out to her privately. Marc says that was his only private communication he recalls with her regarding the matter.

Ms. Chamber’s even references it in a post April 13th - two days after the message. She doesn’t mention any clear threats about being smeared.

Marc eventually weighs in the public thread himself saying that he had reached out to Ms. Chambers to answer her questions. Marc’s post appeared on April 14th - 3 days after the private message to Ms. Chambers.

The thread continues.

Are you like me - still looking for the “thin” and “non-sensical” answers?

The remainder of the thread is fairly innocuous with some minor conversations about the then recently opened E-Center and a Planning Commission meeting.

This is pretty much the end of the conversation.

So, I ask - where is the crazy reaction? The thin, non-sensical answers? Here are the receipts.

To recap, the only “city officials” which responded regarding this project were Nic Greene (then DDA), Marc Cohen (then City Councilmember) and myself (a sitting City Councilmember).

Because of the nature of Nextdoor locking down posts to particular neighborhoods, below is the entire thread in the event you’re unable to access the actual Nextdoor post yourself which I linked at the top.

Sugar Hill Road Closures—nextdoor

1.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The entire Nextdoor thread if PDF format.

Download

And just in case there’s any question about comments being deleted, here’s the April 16, 2019 version of the thread for completeness.

Nextdoor

554KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The entire Nextdoor thread as it was on April 16, 2019.

Download

Conclusions

The conclusion is fairly self evident. Ms. Chambers does what she has done for six years - take a grain of truth (the community expressed legitimate concerns over the Whitehead Road bridge replacement) and turn it into something that it’s not.

This is how her stories are spun - and here are the receipts and evidence for all to actually read.

The only reason that I went to this effort is that she, now for the fourth time, is seeking public office. The highest office in our city. Ms. Chambers is a public figure seeking public office yet blocks anyone with a counterpoint to her views so responses directly to her aren’t possible. So much for transparency, openness and accountability.

Citizens deserve a Mayor who prioritizes collaboration and truth in communication. More importantly, the Mayor must be someone with integrity.

It is incumbent on us, the citizens of the City of Sugar Hill, to vote to make sure that happens.

In order to have a Strong Community, our elected officials should be accountable and transparent. But without honesty and integrity, there can’t be accountability and transparency.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Under the question of “What do you like least about the City of Sugar Hill, Ga?”, coming in at number 3 was the “new garbage program, bags and recycling”. Sounds familiar, right?

However, there are some wild charts and data in the plan that are worth sharing, particularly where the city would be in 2020.

On page 55, Table 40 indicates that the city would be completely developed by 2020. In fact, it would have zero (yes, zero, 0, zilch, nada) undeveloped acres in 2020. More than 880 acres of new residential development would be added, an additional 450 acres of commercial would be added and an incredible 640 acres of industrial would be added.

Meanwhile, apparently, no public or institutional land use would be added. By the way, public/institutional includes local government uses, libraries, schools and churches. And apparently all this growth would happen and only 30 acres of transportation and utilities would need to be added.

Well, you might be curious, if such an aggressive use of land was actually realized, what would that mean for the city itself from a population standpoint? Table 5 has that answer.

You read that right - the population of the city in 2020 would be 55,000 strong. With an astounding 23,913 households.

What was the actual population of Sugar Hill in 2020? According to the Census Bureau it was 25,076. The 1998 Comp Plan anticipated the city hitting the actual 2020 number around 2007. This plan anticipated the city doubling in size in 7 (!!) years.

According to Envision 100, the city’s most recent comprehensive plan, the total housing units in 2020 was around 8,000. This plan expected to hit the total number of households we have today before 2005. Wild.

You might wonder what the composition of those nearly 24,000 units would be. Well, Table 38 lays it out.

Keep in mind that the city currently has 8,000 households (of all types). In 2020, the Comp Plan anticipated over 18,000 single family homes alone and more than 5,000 multi-family units. Remember, the plan only anticipated a total of 30 acres of transportation and utilities to accommodate this growth. In fact, the city was projected to add 6,400 units between 2015 and 2020, including 5,000 single family homes. That’s an average of almost 3 new homes per day, every single day, for 5 years.

If you think that’s crazy, let’s do some density math. Remember the anticipated new residential acreage from Table 40 is 880 acres between 1996 and 2020. The projected household increase between the same period is 20,920 units from Table 38. Divide the two to get the density: 20,920 units/880 acres = 23.8 units per acre. For reference, the maximum density allowed in townhome developments is 8 units/acre. And that’s rarely achieved.

Below is a link to download this document in its entirety. Safe to say, we’re glad that the city turned away from this document in 2005.

At the same time, it’s fair to ask: Was anyone paying attention to this document before it was passed - twice?

City Of Sugar Hill Comprehensive Plan June 1998 Amended 2002

3.31MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Charts and data taken from this version.

Download

City Of Sugar Hill Comprehensive Plan June 1998

2.88MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Included for reference.

Download

From my personal perspective, I’m a very strong believer in private property rights. If an individual has a reasonable proposed use for their property that’s not already permitted under the property’s current zoning, that should be respected and permitted. What’s reasonable? This article will go into great detail how I define and determine reasonable.

Some context about this article. It is long but I hope it provides important insight not just to this particular annexation and rezoning case but to how I approach a decision on City Council. If you’re not overly familiar with the annexation and rezoning process, my hope is that this article will provide a detailed explanation of it. While I would like to discuss each rezoning at this level of detail, Georgia’s Zoning Procedures Law and related case law caution elected officials against making public statements or commitments prior to the official public hearing, to ensure compliance with due process and avoid the appearance of bias.

Since the official public hearing for this project was held on June 9th, 2025 and the zoning was tabled, it offers this opportunity to discuss how I approach an active zoning case in greater detail.

Balancing Private Property Rights vs Community Desires

All property has an underlying zoning. Meaning, all property is entitled to a permitted use without any decision by the local municipality. This is an important consideration when a new zoning is proposed for property. Here are the questions that I contemplate for every rezoning:

1. Is the proposed zoning substantially different than the underlying zoning?

2. Is the proposed zoning substantially different than the surrounding zonings?

3. Is the proposed zoning in conformance with the city’s master plan?

4. Is the proposed use out of character with the existing uses within the same vicinity of the proposed zoning?

These are the most important questions I consider to find balance with private property rights and community desires.

In June, a proposed annexation and rezoning of property near the intersection of Suwanee Dam Road and Highway 20 came before City Council. You can watch the discussion from that meeting below starting at the 41 minute mark. It’s a good listen if you have the time - either before or after you read this article.

The proposed use is a commercial retail and restaurant center. Below is a map with the parcels for the project outlined in red. Blue indicates property already within the city limits. White indicates property within unincorporated Gwinnett County.

As previously mentioned, the parcels already have an underlying permitted use. Below is a map of the existing zonings. Approximately 2/3 of the proposed project is already zoned BG (General Business) within the city limits, which is outlined in purple. Approximately 1/3 of the proposed project is zoned R-100 and lies within unincorporated Gwinnett County.

Here’s the city’s definition of what the BG zoning is intended to be from the city’s zoning ordinance.

The applicant is requesting that the green outlined property above be annexed into the City of Sugar Hill and rezoned to BG for a retail and restaurant use. The purple outline is already zoned for that use - meaning without any action by City Council, the property owner could build a retail and restaurant use on it today.

That property was annexed and rezoned to BG in March 2008 by City Council and approved by then Mayor Gary Pirkle.

Here are the minutes from the meeting where the property was annexed and rezoned from the county’s O-I (office and institutional) to the city’s BG.

The existing BG zoned property along with an adjoining parcel was previously rezoned from R-100 to O-I in the county in February 1998, so that the existing daycare, Discovery Point Sugar Hill, could be built.

That brings us to the current proposed rezoning of the two parcels currently zoned R-100. R-100 zoning within the county is one of the most common residential zonings in the county.

Answering the Questions

The proposed rezoning would annex the two parcels into the city and rezone them to BG. Let’s answer the four questions from above.

1. Is the proposed zoning substantially different than the underlying zoning?

Yes - it’s fair to say that the proposed zoning of BG (commercial) is substantially different than the underlying zoning of R-100 (residential). Since the answer to that question is yes, that gives pause. That means that the answers to the next three questions are vitally important.

2. Is the proposed zoning substantially different than the adjacent zonings?

No - the adjacent zonings that touch the property are all commercial uses. Let’s go back to the map. Remember that the only property being rezoned is the property outlined in green.

The properties across Henry Bailey Road are also all zoned commercial - C1 or C2 in unincorporated Gwinnett County. The property across Suwanee Dam Road is zoned R-TH (townhomes) in unincorporated Gwinnett County. R-TH is generally viewed as an appropriate transitional use between less dense residential zonings and commercially zoned property.

The properties directly touching this property are zoned O-I and BG (both commercial), including a parcel zoned exactly the same as what is being requested.

3. Is the proposed zoning in conformance with the city’s master plan?

The city has two plans that apply to this property. These plans are community driven desires for how our citizens would like to see the city develop and grow. The first is Envision100 - the city’s most current comprehensive plan that was adopted last year. Since the property lies outside the city, it wasn’t included in our city’s comprehensive plan.

In fact, most of the property in this area lies in unincorporated Gwinnett County. Below is a map showing the surrounding parcels. Unincorporated Gwinnett County is white and city is blue. Red arrows point to the subject parcels. The parcels outlined in yellow were annexed and rezoned to RS-72 (residential) into the city in May.

Despite it not being within the city, the property at the intersection of Highway 20 and Suwanee Dam Road is within an area of a “commercial node” character area. Had this property been within the city, it is reasonable to see this property being included within that commercial node given the surrounding uses. Here’s what Envision100 sees within commercial nodes.

Further evidence is that the majority of the parcel is already zoned BG and the property requested to be rezoned is between the existing BG parcel and parcels already zoned commercial.

The city also has a second plan called Aspire Hwy 20. This corridor study was done in 2018 to solicit the community’s input on the major transportation corridor that bisects our city. Since the corridor contains significant portions within the city and outside the city, this plan was put in place to guide both city and county development to hopefully find a cohesive plan between the two local municipalities.

Here is this node from the plan.

The yellow arrow points to the proposed project and lies within the deep purple, which the study classifies as “High Density Mixed Use”.

Next is to see how the study defines “High Density Mixed Use.”

And what are the specific uses the plan sees for this? Highlighted in yellow is the proposed use on the y-axis and the land use characteristics on the x-axis.

According to the Aspire Hwy 20 plan, the proposed use of retail is a “yes” for the “High Density Mixed Use” land use.

The answer to this question is clearly “yes” - it is in conformance with the city’s plans for this property.

4. Is the proposed use out of character with the existing uses within the same vicinity of the proposed zoning?

This question, while similar to question 2, pulls back farther to look at the zonings and uses that are in the larger vicinity of the project so that we can see in context a bigger picture. For that, we go back to the map showing both city and county zonings in a larger context. Red is commercial zoning, regardless of city or county zoning. Red arrow points to the subject parcels.

In context of even a larger picture, the answer to this question is clearly no - the proposed zoning is not out of character of the existing uses within the same vicinity.

So, we’ve established that while the requested rezoning differs significantly from its underlying zoning, it’s completely in character for the surrounding zonings, city planning documents and uses within the vicinity of the project. That leads to a very strong case that the requested zoning is completely reasonable.

Analyzing the Specifics of This Case

The request is specifically to build a retail and restaurant project with some sort of recreational amenity as the center point of the project.

Ax 25 002 Application

19.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The application package as provided to Mayor and City Council

Download

The overall concept is interesting - a central courtyard with a proposed wave runner style recreation with outdoor dining and retail surrounding it.

The applicant in the public hearing suggested that it could be some other recreational use besides the wave runner but the intent was the recreational component be the central gathering and focal point of the project.

The concept is something different for this area by creating a central gathering point rather than traditional strip retail development like what we see in surrounding commercial uses at the Kroger retail/restaurant area, the Publix retail/restaurant project and the Bellagio retail/restaurant project in front of the Ashford Crossing subdivision. It meets more the intent of the Aspire Hwy 20 plan and the overall BG zoning definition.

What Happens if the Annexation and Rezoning are Denied?

Let’s go back to the ask first so it’s clear what exactly would be denied.

Here is the same map with the buildings and parking overlayed onto the parcels.

The ask is for the outlined green portion above, where most of the buildings are located, to be commercial. This places the buildings closest to the other commercial zonings and buildings and farther away from the residential zoned property within the vicinity.

Denial would allow for commercial to only be built on the existing red portion since it’s already zoned for that. Let’s overlay what was proposed and approved in 2008 on the same plan, just zoomed in on the existing BG zoned property.

This would allow for two entrances (rather than the proposed one entrance) on Suwanee Dam Road in a traditional strip retail fashion pushing the buildings closer to the residential property. It also removes the central recreation component that makes the proposed use more interesting. It does not prevent the project from connecting to Henry Bailey Road since the applicant already owns the residential zoned (green outline) property. He could simply build a connecting driveway through the residentially zoned property to the commercial property.

The residentially zoned property would remain in unincorporated Gwinnett County. The applicant would likely request the property to be rezoned to commercial in Gwinnett County and it almost certainly would be approved. The county allowed for the construction of a car wash at the intersection of Suwanee Dam Road and Hwy 20 over the city’s objections to the use in 2022 and is under construction now.

Here’s the approved plan and vote by the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners for the car wash.

Boc Resolution Sup2022 00010

3.44MB ∙ PDF file

Download

County approved zoning and special use permit resolution.

Download

Here was the city’s objection letter regarding the car wash. However, as the property lies within unincorporated Gwinnett County, it was ultimately the county’s decision and they approved it.

Sugarhillresponse Gcrzc2022 00007

900KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The city's letter of objection over the construction of the car wash.

Download

We can expect that this property will be zoned by Gwinnett County for C1 and possibly C2 for a commercial use - likely strip retail, gas station or convenience store. While the city has prohibited uses like gas stations for the project (as seen below), these conditions would not apply in the county unless they chose to include them.

The project, rather than being an interesting, cohesive restaurant/retail project focused around a central recreation component will be typical suburban strip retail at best with 2/3 of it in the city and 1/3 of it in the county.

The property would be limited to only the conditions in place in 2008, which are:

These conditions, to be clear, would only apply to the existing BG zoned property. If the county rezones the property to commercial, it would be their decision as to what conditions, if any, would apply to that property.

Where I Stand and Addressing the Objections

I plan to vote to approve the annexation and zoning in July, which would not only impose the above conditions on the property, it would add the following staff recommended conditions along with some additional conditions:

I’m proposing to modify and add the following conditions, which I discussed both in the work session and at last Monday’s meeting:

1. No access to Kendrix Road shall be permitted.

2. The access to Suwanee Dam Road shall be limited to one entrance, aligned with Lanier Valley Parkway. A left turn lane from Suwanee Dam Road shall be provided into the development along with other improvements as required by Gwinnett County Department of Transportation.

3. Prior to issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit, a Level 2 traffic study with Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) shall be provided which explores safe ingress-egress options for the development, including analysis of the entrance from Suwanee Dam Road into the development and the intersection of Henry Bailey Road and Georgia Highway 20. Should a signal be warranted as a result of the proposed development, developer shall contribute $50,000 towards the construction of a signal at the intersection. (REPLACE CONDITION 5)

Two City Councilmembers have already signaled their intent to vote against this, which would be a poor outcome for the city and the surrounding residents. The objections expressed by those indicating voting against were largely the same as public comments, can be heard in their entirety in the video above. Some expressed concerns, like loud engines on Highway 20 on Saturday nights, are not applicable to this project. Summarizing the concerns that apply to the project are:

• Objection to access to Henry Bailey Road. The project could still connect to Henry Bailey Road even if denied since the applicant owns all the parcels. The owner can build a drive across the property to access Henry Bailey Road. If/when the county rezones the R-100 zoned property to commercial, those parcels will have to access Henry Bailey while possibly building yet a third entrance to Suwanee Dam Road since the properties front on both roads and there is an existing driveway connection to Suwanee Dam Road. Approval solves all of this now by limiting access to one entrance on Suwanee Dam Road and one entrance on Henry Bailey Road and no access to Kendrix Road.

• Objection due to the current configuration of Henry Bailey Road at Highway 20. This project, through the proposed conditions, gets the community closer to the desired outcome of a traffic light at Henry Bailey Road/Emerald Parkway and Highway 20. In addition, I’ve been working with Georgia DOT, Gwinnett DOT and city staff to make immediate improvements at that intersection, including building an island at the right turn out of Emerald Lake subdivision and adding striping and lane delineators to the intersection. Once again, denial doesn’t alleviate this problem because the property can still be rezoned and developed in the county. My proposed condition 3 deals with this concern as well.

• Objection because of a right in/right out only entrance on Suwanee Dam Road and no place to make a U-turn into the property from Suwanee Dam Road. I oppose a right in/right out entrance on Suwanee Dam Road for a number of reasons which is why I’ve proposed condition 2 to address this. Not only that, a right in/right out would push more traffic to make a left from Suwanee Dam Road on to Kendrix Road. Kendrix Road is a substandard road that has sight distance issues due a substandard vertical curve on it and it’s not really wide enough for even two normal sized cars, let alone larger trucks. Denial of this project will increase the use of Kendrix Road in the likely event the R-100 zoned properties are zoned commercial in the county. These parcels would be disconnected from this project since customers coming from Suwanee Dam Road will use Kendrix Road to access the parcels off Henry Bailey Road rather than going through the intersection of Highway 20 and Suwanee Dam Road to make a right on Henry Bailey Road.

• Objection to “adding cars to Highway 20” from the proposed project. The issue with this is that this property is going to be developed and is already approved for commercial zoning. Denying this doesn’t change that and only pushes the commercial zonings to be even more disconnected and auto oriented without a requirement to actually study what is going on at the intersections.

Part of being a Strong Community is looking deep into every decision that comes before City Council and looking out for the long term best outcomes and bigger picture. Bigger than the understandable emotional reaction of not wanting change. Understanding that the place you live now (unless you’re living in the same place you were born, including the same house) grew, developed and changed to accommodate you. The opposite, stagnation or decline, is certainly not a Strong Community. Supporting development that devalues over time, like traditional strip and big box retail, also doesn’t support a Strong Community. Supporting quality growth that builds connection and diversifies the city’s residential and commercial base built by local developers is how you get a Strong Community.

Have thoughts or questions about this proposal? I welcome your feedback ahead of the July vote.

This article will look closer at data centered around land development. Envision100, the city’s most current comprehensive plan contains a lot of information on development.

Envision100 Final

25.2MB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is the city's comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2024.

Download

The one particular chart related to Sugar Hill’s growth slowing significantly is the total number of housing units built, regardless of type.

Of the approximately 9,500 total housing units built in Sugar Hill since 1970 (55 years), more than half were built in the 1990s and 2000s. And, in reality due to the great recession, the vast majority were built in a 15-year period from 1991-2006. As covered in Part 1 of this article, it was also when the city’s population was increasing 15% each year! There was no bigger boom time or time of change than that period in the city’s history. We added exclusively single family detached lots in auto dependent neighborhoods with virtually zero commercial growth. This led to the congestion that we’re dealing with today on our roads. That’s not a value judgement - I live in one of those houses built in that period - it’s just the nature of that development pattern.

Single Family Permits

Looking at permits issued for single family construction of all types tells a similar story. Here it is presented by year.

The trend line has been a fairly sharp decline for some time now, despite highs of over 230 permits in 2014, 2017 and 2024. The average number of building permits from 1991-2006 (prior to the great recession) was 232 permits per year. From 2012 (the end of the great recession) to 2024, the last year for complete data, the average is 144 permits per year.

Keep in mind that the population of the city in 1990 was 11,399 and 218 permits were issued. That’s 19.1 single family permits per 1,000 residents. In 2000, when 360 permits were issued, the population was 18,522. That’s 19.4 single family permits per 1,000 residents. If we assume a population of 25,889 (last population count from the census through July 2023) in 2024, that translates to just 9.5 single family permits (again of all types) per 1,000 residents. Or less than half the number of permits issued per resident in 1990 and 2000 in 2024. And 2024 was a relatively strong year for permits at 100 more than the 2012-2024 average.

The 53 permits issued in 2025 is through the end of February.

Rezonings

The one item that usually draws the most attention are rezonings. Below is a graph of rezonings over the years - this is inclusive of all rezonings in the city regardless of it being commercial, residential or industrial and regardless of it being approved or denied. The way rezonings were calculated from 2000 to present is if the city issued a rezoning number. Prior to 2000, the data was taken from a data table the city maintains. There are some instances in which a rezoning number (i.e. RZ-24-001) was issued but it was actually a change in conditions for a prior rezoning. That was still counted in the rezoning totals.

Again, the trend line is down for rezonings. Looking at the boom period of 1991-2006, there was an average of 7.3 rezonings per year. From 2012-2024 the average has been 5.7 rezonings per year.

Annexations

An annexation is when property in unincorporated Gwinnett County is brought into the City of Sugar Hill city limits. Below is a graph of annexations over the years - this is inclusive of all annexations regardless of them being approved or denied. The way annexations were calculated from 2000 to present is if the city issued an annexation number. Prior to 2000, the data was taken from a data table the city maintains.

Like building permits and rezonings, the trend line is down. The average number of annexations during the boom of 1991-2006 was 7.1 annexations per year. From 2012 to 2024, the average was 2.4 annexations.

In a separate article devoted to housing in Sugar Hill, which is a different all be it connected issue to Sugar Hill’s slowing of growth, we’ll cover the different types and number of housing types built in the city.

Land Disturbance Authorizations

Perhaps the most visibly obvious signs of growth is earth moving - land disturbance authorizations. There are typically what generates the “what’s being built there?” question.

The city’s available records go back to 1993, which is a couple of years short of the 15-year boom period. During the 1993-2006 boom, the city average 21.6 land disturbance authorizations per year. During the period of 2012-2024, the average has been 11.8 land disturbance authorizations per year. The trend line clearly down.

What Does This Mean?

There is no “good or bad” to what this means. Some will find it good, others will find it concerning. Growth in a city is important to long term financial success. A city can certainly grow too fast to keep up with infrastructure.

There is no “status quo” option.

Why is that? Why can’t things “stay the same”? As humans, we’re constantly changing ourselves. At the most fundamental level, you age. As you age, your needs change so you modify your environment around you to accommodate your stage in life. As a young adult setting out on life, you likely need a small place like an apartment or starter home. As middle age approaches, you may start a family so a larger home may be necessary to accommodate children, pets and all the modern “stuff” of family life. As empty nesters, you may return to a smaller home but maybe nicer than a small starter home or apartment. As seniors, independent living or age restricted single story homes may become attractive. At advanced age, you may require assisted living accommodations. This is the circle of life and important to an age in place community. If things are “status quo”, many of those housing options may not be available - either they don’t exist at all or are in limited supply such that they’re not available or cost prohibitive due to demand. And this only covers the most basic fundamental of the human life - aging. Providing those basic housing types at a quantity sufficient for you to age in place requires growth - assuming you want to sell that starter home for the larger home and so on.

The leaves another option - a dying city in which the population is declining. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand what that means to a city.

While Sugar Hill’s growth has dramatically slowed over the boom of 1991-2006, we continue to grow, all be it at a much, much slower pace. The growth we’ve seen in the last decade has been to add those housing types that allowed many in our community to age in place along with new commercial growth. That’s important to becoming a strong community.

The slowest year over year growth decade? The one we’re currently living in - and it’s not particularly close.

Population Change

The City of Sugar Hill was chartered in 1939 which means there’s 9 decades of census data to view to see how the city has grown over its 85 years of existence.

Here’s how the city has grown through the decades:

That’s likely a shocking truth to most - that Sugar Hill is growing so slow. The headlines would have you believe that Sugar Hill is actually in its largest growth period in history. In fact, if Sugar Hill continues to grow at 1.1% through the 20s, in the decade the city will add just around 3,000 new residents. The lowest number since the 80s.

What about our surrounding neighbors since 2020 - reminder that Sugar Hill grew at 3%? Suwanee grew at 12%. Buford - notable for extremely limiting residential growth because of its school system - grew at nearly 9%. Cumming grew at an astonishing 38%. Flowery Branch grew at 29%. Our nearest neighbors grew on the low side 3 times the rate that Sugar Hill and over 12 times on the high side.

School Enrollment

One of the common stated concerns is school overcrowding. Sugar Hill is made up primarily of the Lanier Cluster of Gwinnett County Public Schools. The other cluster that serves the city is the North Gwinnett Cluster. Since all of the Lanier Cluster schools are within the city limits of Sugar Hill, they’re the best barometer for us even though a significant portion of the enrolled students at each school live in unincorporated Gwinnett County. School enrollment data taken from this source.

Lanier High School

Lanier High School opened in 2008, having been split from North Gwinnett High School due to the explosive growth of not just Sugar Hill but of the entire county during the 1980s and 1990s. Student enrollment peaked in 2021 but has remained largely steady since 2019. The school has an entire fourth floor that has been unfinished since its opening in 2008 in anticipation of growth.

Sugar Hill Elementary

Sugar Hill Elementary, perhaps more than any other school, would be impacted by the growth in Sugar Hill since the primary location of growth in the city has been in its district over the last several years as it serves our downtown residents. Below is a map of the area Sugar Hill Elementary serves.

And here is its enrollment data going back to 1987. This shows a fairly consistent enrollment of around 1,100 students for about the last 15 years with a fairly consistent downward trend since 2015.

Sycamore Elementary

The other school that would be impacted by the growth in downtown on the north side of Highway 20 would be Sycamore Elementary.

The enrollment data for Sycamore goes back to 2005. Sycamore reached a peak in 2009, which was the time that White Oak Elementary opened and many students were redistricted from Sycamore to White Oak. Since that time, Sycamore saw steady but slow growth to a new peak in 2019 and has been on a minor downward trend, mostly holding around 750 students.

White Oak Elementary

White Oak Elementary opened for the 2008-2009 school year to relieve the pressure of the growth to Sycamore Elementary that occurred during the 1990s and 2000s. White Oak Elementary serves the far northwest corner of Gwinnett County.

Enrollment peaked at White Oak in 2015 at around 850 students and has been on a steady decline since.

Lanier Middle School

The opening of Lanier Middle School coincided with the opening of Lanier High School. All three elementary schools in the Lanier Cluster feed into Lanier Middle School. Like the rest of the Lanier Cluster, Lanier Middle School’s enrollment has been steady to a slight downward trend in the last decade.

The North Gwinnett Cluster serves small portions of the City of Sugar Hill, mostly on its western and southern extremes.

Riverside Elementary

Riverside Elementary is located in unincorporated Suwanee near Settles Bridge Park off Johnson Road. The much of its northern half of its district is in the city.

Enrollment at Riverside Elementary peaked in 2009 and has been on a steady decline since.

The other elementary schools in the North Gwinnett cluster are Roberts, which serves primarily the City of Suwanee with just a sliver of the southern side of Sugar Hill, Level Creek which serves primarily unincorporated Suwanee and the Moore Road area of Suwanee, and Suwanee Elementary which serves the western half of Suwanee.

North Gwinnett Middle School

North Gwinnett Middle School is the sole school from the North Gwinnett Cluster that sits within the city limits of Sugar Hill, but primarily serves the Suwanee area.

Peak enrollment for North Gwinnett Middle School occurred around 2017 and has slightly declined to hold steady at around 2,300 students.

North Gwinnett High School

North Gwinnett High School is located in the City of Suwanee and has the same service area as North Gwinnett Middle School. North Gwinnett High School has a long history dating back more than a century when it was known as Suwanee School in the 1890s. Enrollment had been on a steady increase almost reaching its pre-Lanier peak in 2019. After a huge runup in student enrollment from 1995 through 2009, enrollment has held steady at around 3,000 students for nearly a decade.

What does this mean for our schools? We meet regularly with our Lanier Cluster principals. I can say, without a doubt, that these folks are amazing educators and love both their students and our community. They also, of course, have concerns over growth - both positive and negative growth. Positive growth comes with challenges of classroom space and hiring teachers, something that hasn’t faced our schools in a decade. Negative growth comes with the challenges of loss of staff and resources for the students that remain.

What attracted many families in the 1990s and 2000s to the North Gwinnett area was the stellar reputation of the school system. While the school system maintains that reputation, as growth slows, the school system will have to adjust to a declining enrollment likely for the foreseeable future.

In the next article we’ll examine the city’s growth via housing stock and development, including rezonings, annexations and permits going back to the 1980s.

Part of being a Strong Community is having a diverse number of reasons for people to both locate and stay within the community. Schools attracted families to this area. As the population ages and the general trend towards less children amongst millennials and zoomers than prior generations, our community will have to adapt to remain strong and find more reasons to love where you live.

As we are starting a new year, I would like to take several minutes to provide you with a finance update for the City of Sugar Hill. I just finished my third year as Mayor, and our finances continue to be strong and healthy.

We ended 2024 strongly, with nearly $37.8 million cash-on-hand and a fund balance of $24 million. I am most proud of the fact that we currently have $14.5 million in unrestricted reserves. Our reserve fund is our city’s rainy-day fund and savings account, which we have continued to grow each year due to our fiscally conservative budgeting habits. In 2004, the city adopted a policy stating it was the city’s goal to maintain an amount of at least 20% of the annual budget, with a recommended level of 30%, for unbudgeted reserves for contingencies, Capital Improvement Projects, and undefined projects. We have actually set aside, in reserves, nearly 100 percent of our annual operating budget. The city also ends 2024 with over $300 million in city-owned assets, which includes the E-Center, the Eagle Theatre, and other past and recent community investments.

In December 2024, the City Council approved, and I signed a 2025 General Fund Budget that totals just over $16 million. This is $2.3 million less than the 2024 General Fund Budget. The overall budget also includes additional funds from SPLOST and other revenue sources in the amount of approximately $34.4 million to make a total budget of $50.6 million. It includes community investments, in a five-year capital plan, for new parks and other amenities that help us continue to move forward as a live, work, and play community.

As a city, we will soon begin working on our annually required financial audit for 2024. This annual audit is completed by a third-party auditing firm, and I am confident that, as in the past several years, we will achieve an unqualified result. An unqualified audit is great, because the auditor is stating that they have reviewed and analyzed the books of account of the city and can say, without qualification, that they are accurate, sound, and meet all legally required standards.

As 2025 begins, we continue to make progress paying down our mortgage on the E-Center, Solis Parking Deck, and Solis Commercial Spaces. Looking back on the decision made by the City Council to first issue municipal bonds in 2016, had we waited, the E Center, Gym, the Eagle Theatre, and nearly all our Downtown Sugar Hill commercial, retail, and restaurant activity would still be a dream and an aspiration because the cost to build would have outpaced any pay-as-you-go savings plan. As of the end of 2024, the city has paid nearly $41.1 million in principal and has only $30.1 million left on the mortgage. A portion of the mortgage will be paid off in 2033 and completely paid off in 2035.

This financial success also includes savings for the residents of Sugar Hill. In 2023, the City Council approved, and I signed a cut from 3.80 mils to 3.69 mils. In addition, in 2024, the City Council approved, and I signed a cut from 3.69 mils to 3.50 mils. This is in addition to homestead exemptions approved in 2023 that increase the city’s general homestead exemption and senior homestead exemption from $2,000 to $10,000. Prior to these last two reductions, the millage rate remained level at 3.80 mils for nineteen consecutive years. I am proud to say that these last two years of millage rate reductions coupled with homestead exemption changes are the only, much less largest tax reductions in nearly 20 years, providing much-needed relief to the pressures of economic growth in Gwinnett County.

I am excited about our financial strength and health as a city. Our financial successes would not be possible without a dedicated team of elected officials, as well as city employees led by our City Manager and executive team. Please reach out to me if I can answer any questions, and I look forward to an amazing 2025 for the City of Sugar Hill.

The pedestrian crossing of Highway 20 has been a consideration going back at least 20 years. Even though the widening of Highway 20 was more than a decade away at the time, the 2005 Town Center Master Plan rightly considered that a widened Highway 20 would present a physical barrier between the north side of the city and south side of the city to anyone not in a car. In fact, pedestrian access was the main focal point of the final discussion in the 2005 plan.

While the pedestrian tunnel was curiously removed from the plan in 2011, which was discussed at length in a previous article, the need for pedestrian access across Highway 20 was brought back in the 2016 Sugar Hill Greenway Master Plan.

Sugar Loop Greenway Master Plan 2016

25.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Because the city’s planning efforts are coordinated and consistent, the 2017 update to the downtown master plan also included the bridge with more than 20 mentions of the bridge in the report. It also included a detailed discussion on it, which is shown below.

Sugar Hill 2017 Downtown Master Plan

30.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The planning efforts continued into a much more detailed fashion with a concept plan conducted in 2020 of the greenway along Highway 20 between Ridge Lake Park and Buford Highway east and west as well as downtown along Hillcrest Drive to Richland Creek north and south.

This study included more detailed information about the greenway as well as improvements that would further refine the plan.

2020 Sugar Hill Greenway LCI Concept Plan

45.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The pedestrian bridge is discussed extensively in the 2021 Downtown Mobility Study. While that study was referenced for the “What’s in a Traffic Light” article, downtown mobility obviously is heavily pedestrian and bike oriented.

Finally, Envision100, which was the city’s comprehensive plan update adopted this year, also acknowledged the need for the bridge and pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian access within the downtown halo goes back decades of planning. In the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update, under transportation, the stated main objective was, “The goal is to create an environment within the city that is more pedestrian-oriented and less automobile-oriented.”

That covers much of the history of the planning efforts over the last 20 years.

From a budget standpoint, the bridge appeared in the oldest available budget on the city’s website as part of the Capital Improvement Budget in 2016.

The bridge has been in the capital program budget every year since then. Here is the 2024 approved capital budget spreadsheet.

The source of funds includes general fund, which is actually American Rescue Plan Act funds that were set aside in 2022 for the construction of the bridge.

The bridge itself connects the southern portion of the greenway to an additional mile of greenway that has been built on the northside of Highway 20.

This northern portion of the greenway will provide more than 1,800 homes direct access to the greenway and downtown via the pedestrian bridge within the vicinity of Hillcrest Drive and Stanley Street. Even at just 1.5 people per home, that’s over 10% of the city’s population with safe pedestrian access from the northside of Highway 20 to the over 5 miles of greenway south of Highway 20 and downtown. In addition, it will give residents and visitors within downtown and along Level Creek Road and Whitehead Road easy, safe access to the northern portion of the greenway, including the commercial property at the intersection of Stanley Street and Highway 20 that received Design Review Board approval in September.

The bridge provides more than 1,500 homes within a mile of downtown on the south side of Highway 20 direct access to the northern portion of the greenway as well as the developing commercial node at Stanley Street via the pedestrian bridge.

The bridge itself will not only provide safe, convenient pedestrian access to downtown, it will become an iconic structure within the city. Already, family photos, prom photos and homecoming photos have become a tradition within our downtown for local residents. This will become yet another beautiful structure that will no doubt be a selected location for photos and another way that residents and businesses will identify with our city.

The proposed bridge will not require an elevator to access and will allow bicycles, wheelchairs and other mobility challenged individuals the ability to access the bridge without the need for an elevator or negotiate stairs. This makes the bridge truly pedestrian and bicycle friendly and continues the intent and spirit of the greenway itself.

Sugar Hill Pedestrian Bridge Information Investigation May 14, 2024

35.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is a technical document regarding the bridge and is included for completeness.

Download

Finally, one of the most important, if not the most important, benefits of the bridge is safety. As previously mentioned, there are more than 3,000 total homes within one mile of the bridge. That’s thousands of residents who have to deal with the river that is Highway 20. Crossing Highway 20 in a car is a dangerous proposition, let alone on foot. The most recent year traffic counts in 2023 from GADOT was 37,800 vehicles a day on Highway 20 within the vicinity of downtown.

The widening of Highway 20 between Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and Buford Highway from four to six lanes will undoubtably bring still more traffic to this stretch of Highway 20. And it should be expected that someday Highway 20 between Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and the Chattahoochee River will, unfortunately, be widened from four to six lanes as well.

Here are two videos of the current pedestrian experience crossing Highway 20 at non-rush hour. It’s not a comfortable feeling to cross a road where speeds regularly eclipse 50 MPH, which is lethal to pedestrians. Many of the vehicles on Highway 20 are semis as it’s the last crossing of the river before Lake Lanier. Crossing at a normal speed left just 10 seconds after making it across before the light would cycle back to green. Imagine crossing that in a wheelchair, with children or for an individual who has limited mobility.

In fact, pedestrian deaths are on the rise in a significant way. According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), pedestrian deaths are up 83% since hitting a low point in 2009.

Distracted driving, especially due to phones, is also on the rise. The website Smart Growth America highlights pedestrian dangers in its report “Dangerous By Design” but does make the point that safe streets benefit everyone, including drivers. The bridge itself removes a “conflict point” by grade separating vehicles from pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally, pressing the pedestrian button adds an additional 30 seconds to the light cycle, delaying traffic on Highway 20.

The long-awaited greenway bridge over Highway 20 is set to offer safe passage over the busy thoroughfare, bridging the northern and southern parts of our city. This bridge will enhance the city's vibrancy and distinctiveness, while also yielding economic advantages by enabling thousands of residents to conveniently reach downtown and the Greenway without relying on their cars.

The greenway bridge makes us a Strong Community and yet another reason to Love Where You Live.

Since I turned eighteen, I’ve always voted.  I am grateful to both of my parents for teaching me this responsibility even though they always joked that their votes most often cancelled each other out, with mom generally voting for one candidate, and dad the other.  I was a bit more of a passive voter through my 20s and 30s.  I did my research, and I showed up to vote in almost every election, but I wasn’t active in the political process.

More recently I have tried to be an active participant.  I’ve made the effort to personally meet candidates when they speak at local venues, I’ve volunteered at voter registration events with Greater Georgia, I’ve hosted meet and greets for local candidates at my home, and I’ve even knocked on doors for several city council candidates to help “get out the vote”.  Through it all what I’ve sadly learned is that too many people just don’t vote, especially in local elections.

Many people in countries around the world do not have the same freedom to participate in elections, nor did many Americans in centuries past, so why have so many people chosen to take a back seat and allow their neighbors to decide for them who should serve as their elected officials?

The Sad Statistics

According to the Gwinnett County Department of Elections, only 15.13% of registered voters cast a ballot in the May 21, 2024 primary election, and only 3.36% of registered voters cast a ballot in the June 18^th runoff election.

In the May election, residents of Sugar Hill had the opportunity vote for our US House Representative (district 9), our State Senator (district 48), our State House Representative (district 100), the Gwinnett County Sheriff, the Gwinnett County Tax Commissioner, the Gwinnett County Commission Chairman, numerous county Judges, and our Gwinnett County School Board Representative (district 3). 

For the June 18^th runoff, Sugar Hill residents had only two elections left to decide:  A Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge and our School Board Representative.  Both offices equally as important, and yet, only 3.36% of registered voters cast a ballot.

Why are so many people staying home and not making the effort to vote for the people who represent them?

A survey conducted by NPR after the 2020 presidential election cited five primary reasons that Americans chose not to vote in that election:  not being registered to vote (29%), not being interested in politics (23%), not liking the candidates (20%), a feeling their vote wouldn’t have made a difference (16%) and being undecided on who to vote for (10%). While we may not be able to make a direct correlation between this analysis and the low voter turnout in Gwinnett County this past Spring, we can explore these five areas to see how they might relate to local elections.

Registering to Vote

In the state of Georgia, you can register to vote online with a valid GA Driver’s License or a Department of Driver Services Identification Card. 

Voter Registration | GA SOS VR

If you are not sure if you are registered to vote, or if you have recently moved and need to update your voter registration status, you may do this by visiting the GA My Voter Page

GA My Voter Page

The last day to register to vote in the November Georgia General Election is October 7, 2024. 

The Georgia General Election, which will include state and county elections as well as the next Presidential Election, will be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. 

If you are in need an absentee ballot, you must request one before October 25, 2024. 

Absentee Ballot Request | GA SOS VR

Not Being Interested in Politics

According to a 2023 Pew Research Poll, the majority of adults polled described the current state of politics as divisive and described thinking about politics as making them feel exhausted.  Understandable?  Perhaps, especially if you embrace the Oxford Dictionary definition of politics which includes “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power”.  Conflict and power can be divisive and exhausting words. 

However, consider the Webster Dictionary definition of politics which includes “the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy”.  As citizens of the United States, we have the freedom to participate in the election of individuals who will guide and/or influence governmental policy.  That is why it is important to be interested in politics, because governmental policy affects us personally, especially local governmental policy.

Let’s look at one local election which will take place during the 2024 November General Election.  The Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners Chairman. 

The Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners sets direction and formulates policies for the county and its governing bodies, adopts the budget, authorizes expenditures, and approves or disapproves of specific actions, such as rezoning of private property.  These are policy areas that directly affect every person living in Gwinnett County.  Your neighbor may not have the same interests as you, so don’t rely upon someone else to represent you.  Be sure to cast your vote for The Gwinnett County Commission Chairman in November.

Not Liking the Candidates

This is a particularly irksome reason to me for not voting.  Why?  Because in many instances, the candidates in general elections were selected by first running in a primary. 

In 2022, Georgia had a 47% voter turnout in the general election, but only a 23% turnout in the primary election.  How can we expect to have elected officials who represent us if so few people take the time to select them from the wider field of candidates offered in primary elections?  If our elected officials are truly meant to reflect the people they serve, then it is essential that we have widespread participation in all elections. 

When we choose good candidates, good policies are made, and our communities become stronger. Strong communities are the building blocks for a strong country.

Feeling Your Vote Won’t Make a Difference

Let’s look at our most recent election in the City of Sugar Hill where the overall vote tallies will make it clear why every vote makes a difference:

The City of Sugar Hill has 11,838 registered voters.

Last November (2023), City Council Posts 1, 2, and 3 were up for re-election.

Only 1,464 Sugar Hill Residents voted in this election: a mere 12.36% of registered voters.

Post 1 was determined by 19 votes, Post 2 was determined by 177 votes, and Post 3 tied with an equal number of votes for each of the candidates.

The runoff election was attended by only 10.82% of registered voters and was determined by only 19 votes. 

Did you vote in the November 2023 City Council Election?    If not, I once again pose the question:  are you comfortable allowing people who may or may not share your vision for our city to choose your elected officials? 

The Sugar Hill City Council, very much like the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, adopts the budget, authorizes expenditures, and approves or disapproves of specific actions, such as rezoning of private property.  Three of our five council members were elected by only 12.36% of the city’s residents because 87.64% of Sugar Hill’s residents took a back seat and let their neighbors decide who would represent them in these important matters.  As a volunteer who knocked on doors to remind my neighbors to vote, this is very disheartening.

Being Undecided on Who to Vote For

There’s really no way around it, this one takes some work on behalf of the voter.  It’s not a great strategy to simply show up on election day and vote based on name recognition or party lines, especially since many local elections are non-partisan such as judges, school board members, and city council members. 

The internet offers accessibility to the candidates and their platforms, but you can also email or call candidates if you have questions or schedule a meeting with a candidate if you really want to get to know them. 

I know, this sounds like a lot of work and who has the time?  It’s all about responsibilities. Is voting an important responsibility to you and your family? 

Did you know that when a person becomes a naturalized citizen, the applicant swears an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, which entails voting as an integral part of that affirmation.  “Citizens have a responsibility to participate in the political process by registering and voting in elections.”. 

Native born citizens sometimes take this responsibility for granted, but keep in mind that by not voting, an eligible citizen of the U.S. implies consent to governance by incumbent public officeholders.  Some might say that choosing not to vote also equates to forfeiture of any right to voice any complaint about current governmental officials.  “You get what you get, and you don’t pitch a fit!” Yikes! 

A Helpful Hint for Election Day: Print a Sample Ballott

As the November 2024 general election draws near, look for a sample ballot for your voting precincts on the Georgia My Voter Page:

GA My Voter Page

Print a copy of the sample ballot and mark your choices, then bring this ballot with you to the polls.    You cannot use your phone to research candidates real time once you’ve entered your polling location, and you cannot keep a list of your preferred candidates on your phone, but you can bring in a copy of a marked paper ballot (or a hand-written list of your chosen candidates) and use it as your “cheat sheet” at the polls. 

Anyone who voted in the May 2024 primary election knows that it was an incredibly long ballot. One of the poll workers took the time to personally thank me and my husband for bringing in our “cheat sheet” because it expedited the voting process and showed that we’d done our research.

I Do Vote in Every Election, So What Else Can I Do?

Amazing!  Thank you for your commitment and participation in our democratic republic.  You can help by speaking with your neighbors about our elections.  You do not have to “talk politics”.  I am not suggesting that anyone who is reading this article votes for any particular candidate, nor would I engage in that conversation with one of my neighbors unless I was asked for my opinion.   I am simply asking you to remind your friends and neighbors to take part in this very important responsibility as citizens of this great country. 

Remind people about upcoming elections.  Spread the news about the deadlines for registering to vote in November or request an absentee ballot if needed.  Offer to take an elderly neighbor to the polls if they need a ride and would rather vote in person than via absentee ballot and share the link for the “GA My Voter Page” with people so they can update their voter registrations and print sample ballots in order to vote in an informed and responsible manner. 

We had historic numbers of voters show up for the last presidential election and that is great news, but local elections are equally as important.  Don’t let your neighbors decide how your city, county, and state are governed.  Take the time to get to know the people running for local offices and cast your ballot for candidates of your choice.  Let’s build a strong community through full participation in every election!

Nearly all of the property that was donated to the city is, at it usually is, undevelopable property. In the case of Gary Pirkle Park, the property is made up of floodway, floodplain and an emergency overflow easement granted to the Army Corps of Engineers for Lake Lanier. In other words, property of no value to a developer.

The one property the city did purchase was the western parking lot parcel along Suwanee Dam Road. This property, consisting of approximately 5.6 acres was purchased for a rather hefty $590,000 (approximately $860,000 in 2024 dollars) from the Garner family. Of that 5.6 acres, approximately 4 acres is not in floodplain or floodway. With the exception of a small strip of property where the restrooms are located, it’s the only area in the park not in floodplain or floodway north of Austin Garner Road.

The reason for all the floodplain and floodway is that the park is bisected by Richland Creek. From Suwanee Dam Road upstream along Richland Creek to the furthest point north of the main parking lot, Richland Creek traverses over a half mile - some 2,800 feet - through the park.

The park is a popular and heavy utilized active park because of the artificial turf fields for soccer and football. In fact, at opening, the 255,000 square feet of artificial turf was heralded by the city as the largest artificial turf surface in the southeast.

As is likely self-evident at this point, building an active park with structures and artificial turf in floodway comes with a significant amount of risk.

What, exactly, is floodway and floodplain? Floodway has a specific definition from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) but it’s basically the primary area of water movement during a flooding event. This differentiates it from floodplain in that floodplain is the area in which water inundates (or occupies but not the primary flow path) during a flooding event.

In the late hours of Saturday, October 10, 2020, the remnants of Hurricane Delta dumped around 7.5 inches of rain between 7 PM and midnight. This event caused Richland Creek to leave its banks and utilize the designated floodway, including the western artificial turf fields, dumping tons of silt and damaging structures and the asphalt walking trail. The flooding dumped tons of silt in the primary parking lot for the park as well.

This closed the park and destroyed the entire artificial turf field. Below are images from the flooding event.

As a result of the damage, City Council awarded a contract for the replacement of the artificial turf fields in December 2020 for $938,283.15. The field would be out of service until early spring 2021.

NOAA has a gauge on Richland Creek where it cross Suwanee Dam Road and in the discussion of the flooding stages discusses impacts to the fields at Gary Pirkle Park based on the depth of the creek at various flood levels.

Most recently, the city will consider awarding a contract in the amount of $396,977.96 for stream bank stabilization of 300 feet of Richland Creek’s southerly bank that has eroded to the point that it’s compromised the sidewalk at its August city council meeting. That’s roughly $1,200 per foot of stream bank to stabilize a small portion of the nearly 5,600 linear feet of stream bank that abuts either the parking lot, turf fields, walking trail or community garden between Suwanee Dam Road and the northern point of the park’s main parking lot.

The city had already performed work to shore up a bridge crossing in early 2023 due to erosion of the abutments for a pedestrian bridge in the park.

In the aerial image below the centerline of Richland Creek is in blue and its close proximity to the built infrastructure can be seen.

Richland Creek is a very large creek with a major drainage basin associated with it. The area draining through the park is almost the entire area east of Suwanee Dam Road, south of Buford Dam Road, north of Highway 20 and west of Shadburn Avenue.

Here’s what the area looked like prior to the construction of Barrington Estates and Gary Pirkle Park in 2002.

What I believe to be the appropriate direction for the future of the park is for it to become a passive recreation park with the turf fields and most of the main parking area removed. The city should look to build a new active park with soccer, football and lacrosse fields located elsewhere in the city and not in floodway or floodplain.

A reimagined Gary Pirkle Park could be an incredible passive park that would be the eastern end of the National Park Service’s proposed Richland Creek Trail. It could contain walking trails, bike paths and continue to serve (and expand) the incredible community garden among other passive recreation that would present the financial liability the park presents currently.

This is necessary because the park, as constructed today, is a ticking financial time bomb that we don’t know when it will go off. At any time, a large rain event, most likely from a tropical storm, could once again inundate our area and flood the turf fields again.

In addition, Richland Creek will continue to move and reshape its banks as it has for millennia, requiring extensive and expensive streambank stabilization projects both now and again in the future. Streambank stabilization projects are not permanent fixes either - over time, flowing water always wins and will undermine the project that the city is about to spend $400,000 on.

Going back to 2005, when the city accepted the donation of the land from the Barrington Estates developer, then Mayor Gary Pirkle acknowledged in his remarks that the area should be used for passive recreation. The soccer fields, at the time, were going to be natural grass fields - not artificial turf. That decision was made a few years later.

To further illustrate the need to move the active fields elsewhere, there has been great demand for restrooms on the eastern artificial turf fields, so parents and kids don’t have to walk to the far north end of the park on the other side of Richland Creek to go to the restroom. The city has investigated options for adding restroom facilities to the eastern side, however, both permitting and cost issues have kept the city from adding the restrooms because the property is entirely in floodplain where structures can’t be built.

Importantly, the draft of the Parks, Recreation and Greenspace Master Plan indicates the most in demand park type in the city are passive parks.

It would also take out a serious safety concern should the emergency spillway of Lake Lanier ever be engaged. A good discussion on that topic can be found in this article in the North Gwinnett Voice discussing the construction of Lake Lanier in the 1950s.

Gary Pirkle Park should be converted to a passive park over time once the city purchases and constructs a new active park in a proper location that doesn’t present the long-term safety and unknown financial liability that currently exists. This also aligns with the community’s desire for more passive park space in the city, connection to the Chattahoochee River along with other opportunities to expand recreational opportunities in the city.

The focus of this article is the north tract.

The purpose of this article is to focus on what the city had contracted to build on the property in 2007 (and renewed the contract in 2009 and 2011) that would have been FAR different than what is envisioned for the property today. It was only through the inability to finance the project as a result of the Great Recession that the property isn’t a giant parking field, big box retail, hotel and soccer fields - completely devoid of the special character of the property as it sits today.

Of the 268-acre total north tract, close to 170 acres were developed into the Sugar Hill golf course in 1992 and used as a greywater spray field for a number of years. In fact, much of the remaining north tracts also was used as a spray field and is littered to this day with abandoned spray field equipment. Greywater is partially treated sanitary sewer wastewater that is fit for irrigation but not potable water for consumption or bathing. Where the current American Legion Post 127 stands previously was the location for a water treatment facility for much of the city.

The city sold its sewer system several years ago to Gwinnett County and the water treatment plant was shuttered. The golf course and woodlands remained a spray field for partially treated water for many years afterwards until Gwinnett County rerouted all of its greywater to the F. Wayne Hill Water Treatment Plant a few years ago as part of the “Water Wars” lawsuit with Florida and Alabama.

While the golf course still operates today, a nearly 100-acre tract remains.

Over the years, a number of potential uses for the property have been considered. The most consequential and only real proposal for the property happened in 2007 when the city approved a contract without any public input with Global Sports for the development of a “downtown” (Global Sports term used in their presentation - see later in the article) that would have been a massive development of commercial, housing and recreation fields that would have completely cleared and graded the property.

At the time, the city was attempting to brand itself “The Recreation City” from a 2010 AJC article regarding the opening of Gary Pirkle Park:

Nearly a year ago, the Gwinnett enclave of 17,000 started marketing itself as "The Recreation City."

"We didn't just pick something out of the air and make that our slogan and try to become that," said Mayor Gary Pirkle, whose name graces the entrance to the park. "It became very obvious to us that this is what we are ... . The park is an extension of that."

The idea of Sugar Hill marketing itself as “The Recreation City” began back at least in 2007 when Gary Pirkle Park, then referred to as “Austin Garner Road Park” was named after then Mayor Gary Pirkle. There was no plan or any explanation where the idea for marketing the city as “The Recreation City” came from or what the plan was to move forward on expanding recreation assets in the city would be or what the purpose of marketing itself this way would be. For example, was it to draw tourists to the city? If so, the city didn’t contain any hotels for them to stay at. There wasn’t a clear plan or desired outcome of this marketing effort as it pertains to recreation.

From the minutes from May 14, 2007:

As an apparent part of the expansion of the city as “The Recreation City”, in November 2007 the city voted to enter a 50-year lease at $1 per year ($50 total) with Global Sports for the north tract to be developed into 8 soccer fields, a 10-12,000 seat stadium, family athletic and wellness center as well as walking trails. This was done without public input or public comment. (Note that the city would have received 1% of the gross revenues after the 3rd year had the project actually been realized but had turned over the control of the property for $1 a year to Global Sports.)

2007 Contract

5.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The city began to really move forward on the marketing of the city as “The Recreation City” in 2009, with the city newsletter “Sugar Hill Sentinel” headlining the branding efforts in April 2009.

Importantly just a month prior to this article, in March 2009 the city extended the contract with Global Sports for the development of the property.

Following this, in June 2009, then Mayor Gary Pirkle discussed the marketing efforts in his monthly report.

The city had apparently gone all in with “The Recreation City” and the development of north tract was a key component to realizing that effort.

So, what, exactly, was Global Sports vision for the property? We saw bits and pieces of what that would be through the minutes and contracts but nothing that gave an overall scope of the project.

The answer to that question was provided in a presentation that Global Sports made to Mayor and Council at the time. Below is a selection of the more relevant slides from the presentation. The entire presentation is included at the end of the selection of slides included in this article.

In the “aerial close up” slide, Global Sports was looking to develop not just the 90 acres owned by the city, but an additional 84 acres adjacent to the city owned property along Highway 20.

In totality, Global Sports proposed to clear the entire property. They proposed to build, using their description, a “downtown lifestyle center” on the property. Shown below is their version of the master plan in context with nearby city owned recreational assets, expanding the city’s vision of “The Recreation City”.

Global Sports provided a rendering of the “downtown lifestyle center” - Chattahoochee Station.

Their closing slide indicated the partnership that would achieve the city’s vision for “The Recreation City”.

Global Sports Presentation

4.72MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Despite Global Sports failing to deliver anything over the four and half years since the original contract in May 2007, the city’s commitment to the partnership was again renewed in December 2011.

Ultimately, Global Sports would fail, fortunately, to deliver on anything related to the project despite the city’s apparent faith in them. The most troubling part is the contract actually shows that the original proposed mixed-use lifestyle center was nothing more than a pretty picture to tie up the property for 50 years, allowing the developer to control what would be built on the property.

The actual site plan in the executed contract was, in reality, mostly a giant parking field surrounded by big box retail and a hotel with soccer fields shown closer to the river. If the contract had been fulfilled, nearly 1/3 of the property would have been parking, with the only preserved area being a small stream buffer through the middle of the property between the front development and the rear parking field.

2009 Contract Extension

2.56MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The apparent marketing efforts of the city being “The Recreation City” ended sometime shortly after 2009 as it was really never mentioned again, certainly not in any detail or real effort expended, despite the city’s official flag being changed to contain the term “The Recreation City” in August 2012. That flag would later be changed to match the city’s new logo that would be adopted a couple of years later with the term “The Recreation City” being removed.

Other projects would be proposed for the property over the years, however, nothing of any consequence would materialize due to a number of factors. Importantly, none of the proposed projects since Global Sports were approved by City Council or contracts entered into for the property.

That was then.

This is now.

As previously stated, the Riverlands Authority was formed in late 2022 with the directive to provide community access to the property with the primary goals of preservation and recreation with limited commercial development closer to Highway 20 that would support the preserved and recreational components of the property. Certainly, unlike what the city had approved in 2007, 2009 and 2011, clear cutting the entire property and developing it into big box retail and parking is not in any way being considered for the project.

Rather, unlike the original Global Sports project that was awarded without benefit of any public input, the Riverlands Authority has been intentional, open and transparent in the process, inviting the community to provide feedback and input into the property.

Currently, the Riverlands Authority is going through a master planning process using the Envision 100 Comprehensive Plan, which featured incredible public input and was adopted by City Council in February of this year.

It will also incorporate the Parks, Recreation and Greenspace Master Plan which included a tremendous amount of public input into a comprehensive and city-wide assessment and plan. This document is expected to be on the August 2024 City Council Agenda.

Below are some highlights that pertain to the Riverlands.

The Riverlands Authority hosted two open houses in June to solicit public input on the master planning process. The Riverlands Authority then proceeded to start the master planning process with Thomas and Hutton as the consultant assisting them in the process.

As has been stated by the Riverlands Authority chairman, approximately 90% of the property with be either preserved or utilized for recreation. The remaining 10% is proposed for supporting commercial uses. No residential housing is being considered for the property.

The master planning process has been and will continue to be intentional and careful. With no predetermined outcomes, the Authority is utilizing prior planning efforts and the tremendous public input that informed those efforts like the aforementioned Envision100 and Parks, Recreation and Greenspace Master Plan. The Authority will offer additional public input opportunities, utilize a market analysis by KB Advisory Group and coordinate with the adjoining public entities and stakeholders such as the National Park Service, the Chattahoochee Riverlands and others identified through the master planning process.

Additional public input opportunities will be announced as the master planning process moves forward and, of course, the public can always attend the Riverlands Authority meetings as well as email Authority members with questions, comments and concerns at any time.

What I can say is that I’m confident that the outcome will be another reason we’re a Strong Community and why you Love Where You Live.

We’ll be doing a number of articles on the Riverlands, including discussion of the KB Advisory Group market analysis, the south tract and much more.

As is usual with Strong Communities, let’s go back to the beginning.

This is downtown Sugar Hill circa 1938 - a year before the city would be chartered. This probably goes back a bit too far. However, interesting to see none the less. Not much here - some terrace farming. Not much in the way of trees… Although, if you’re an eagle eye, you can just make out the much younger version of the champion oak tree just to the west of West Broad Street and Whitehead Road.

Let’s jump ahead to a document we reference often - the 2005 Town Center Master Plan. All of the concept downtown iterations anticipated both the widening of Highway 20 from a then two-lane road to a four-lane divided highway and an intersection at Stanley Street and Level Creek Road extended.

Even though the widening of Highway 20 was more than a decade from starting construction, the 2005 plan contemplated the intersection more or less as it now exists today.

In many of the city’s planning documents, a constant theme is the lack of a road network, alternative routes, as well as the congestion and volume of traffic on Highway 20. Here are a few examples of that.

The planning documents that showed this intersection in addition to the 2005 Town Center Master Plan are shown next.

The need for the traffic signal and intersection goes back almost 20 years across three mayors and two city managers and has been well documented.

However, the identified need is only one item in the list that will result in a traffic signal at an intersection. Highway 20 is owned and controlled by the Georgia Department of Transportation, so ultimately it is their decision as to what is done within their right-of-way, including traffic signals. The next step after determining the need for the signal is the determination of what’s called a “warrant analysis”.

The warrant analysis is an engineering examination of several different reasons (called “warrants”) that would allow for the installation of a traffic signal.

A warrant analysis examines nine possible reasons for a traffic signal. Those include traffic volumes over a period of time, peak (aka “rush”) hour volume, pedestrians, schools, signal system, crashes, road network and proximity to a grade crossing (i.e. railroad crossing). A detailed explanation of those warrants is available on the Federal Highway Administration’s website.

As a result of this new intersection, and through conditions placed on a zoning for the property along Stanley Street, a signal warrant analysis was done by the developer of the property. A condition in the rezoning of the property required the developer to pay $250,000 for the capital costs of the traffic light at the intersection if the warrant analysis proved the need for the signal.

The result of that analysis was that a signal was warranted at the intersection. The entire 168-page document can be downloaded below.

Georgia Highway 20 at Stanley Road Signal Warrant Analysis

16.7MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Some criticism includes that the light “will make traffic worse”. That question is answered in the warrant analysis in Table 6 in the study.

The city has undertaken a number of studies and planning documents with regard to mobility as well. The most recent was the 2021 Downtown Mobility Study Update whose stated purpose is here.

The full document can be downloaded below.

2021 Downtown Sugar Hill Mobility Study Update

20.4MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Once an intersection is determined to warrant a traffic signal, the Georgia Department of Transportation must still accept the findings and issue a permit for the signal. As a result of the findings from the warrant analysis, Gwinnett County Department of Transportation made a request for a traffic signal in July 2023.

As a result of all of this planning information, studies and documented need along with the requirement for the developer to contribute $250,000 to the traffic signal (the city’s contribution for the construction of the traffic signal was approximately $21,000), city council awarded the contract in 2023 to construct the Alton Tucker Boulevard extension and traffic signal.

Personally, as I’ve stated many times, my priority has been and always will be for the citizens of Sugar Hill and the businesses in our city to have safe access to Highway 20. The vast majority of vehicles on Highway 20 in Sugar Hill are commuters who do not originate nor will they destinate in Sugar Hill. I have no interest in putting the priority on those who commute through our city over our own citizens and businesses which is why I’ve been a steadfast supporter of traffic signals along Highway 20 at any and every intersection that warrants a signal.

In October 2010, the city broke ground for “a New Sugar Hill” as heralded in the October 2010 edition of Sugar Hill Sentinel. The city began construction on what is now referred to as “The Bowl at Sugar Hill” - the amphitheater and amenity pond that was designed to serve as stormwater management for the future development of the eastern half of West Broad Street/Hillcrest Drive area of downtown.

Sugar Hill’s growth rate from 2000-2010 continued at a staggering rate growing from 11,399 residents in 2000 to 18,522 residents in 2010, a 62.5% increase. This was the third largest increase in population in a decade trailing the 80s, when the population increased 84.3% and the 90s, when the population increased 250.1%. The city declared the news in its May 2011 edition of the Sugar Hill Sentinel noting the city had become the third largest city in Gwinnett - trailing just Lawrenceville and Duluth and eclipsing Snellville in size.

The news included a forward look to the new downtown, celebrating the re-construction of West Broad Street in preparation for the coming developments.

As 2011 continued, the city completed a minor update to its Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) plan for downtown. The update was not particularly groundbreaking like the 2005 initial plan and is just 12 pages in length. However, we see the first introduction of a term that is used often to describe the purpose of the development of downtown and additional housing types and options - an “aging in place community”. Aging in place community simply means that there are housing types that if a resident desires to live their entire life in the same community, there are housing types and options that will accommodate the seasons of life of that resident.

In that context, the city adopted new zoning classifications to encourage senior living in downtown along with a zoning classification for “mixed use development through more urban use provisions and design standards.”

The city also noted the improvements to realign Church Street with Level Creek Road to, “improve safety and visibility for drivers and pedestrians”, an upgraded crosswalk at the Community Center and streetscape improvements to West Broad Street. These changes mirroring closely with the improvements currently under construction on the realignment of Alton Tucker Boulevard, Level Creek Road and West Broad Street as well as the plan for West Broad Street 2.0.

The city also indicated an unfortunate deletion from the 2005 project list - the removal of the pedestrian tunnel under Highway 20.

Of other note, the plan also discussed the need for public art as well.

The removal of the tunnel was a huge mistake. Highway 20 had not yet been widened and the time to plan for the construction of the facility to grade separate pedestrians from cars going 45+ MPH was prior to its construction. The city doesn’t give any reasons on why the “element is no longer viable” - it was simply a statement. The cost for the tunnel in the 2005 plan was estimated at $1 million - something that could have been easily accommodated through SPLOST funding or grants.

Grade separation to connect the north and south sides of the city across what is a river of fast-moving vehicles is of critical importance. So much so, that a pedestrian bridge to connect those two sides is under design now with plans for the bridge to be put out for request for proposals (RFP) from construction companies expected to happen later this year.

That grade separation will accomplish two important goals, along with a host of others. First, the safety of the large number of people who desire to access downtown by walking or biking for those in the northern portion of the city will be accommodated. The southern portion of the city will be connected to the north for the future commercial development that was required with the rezoning of the property along Stanley Street. Second, it will improve the flow of vehicles on Highway 20 as pedestrians and bicyclists won’t have to cross Highway 20 on foot. The activation of the pedestrian button at intersections causes the light cycle to last 2-3 times longer than it otherwise would.

Other goals of grade separation provide a continuous safe loop for the future extensions of the Sugar Hill Greenway. The mixed-use developments to the north of Highway 20 were required to construct the greenway through their developments which will add some 3/4 of a mile of new greenway to the already existing 5 miles.

It’s unfortunate that the tunnel was removed from the plan, however, the new pedestrian bridge will still accomplish the goal of grade separation and allowing safe, easy access across Highway 20 - improving the continued expressed goals of a walkable community and decreasing vehicular delays on Highway 20.

The curious thing about this LCI update is that it didn’t apparently include any public input - which is unusual. And there was no action taken on it by Mayor and Council or even discussion indicated in a review of minutes from Mayor and Council meetings from 2011 into early 2012. The date on the LCI update is September 2011. Why these weren’t discussed, and the public was not invited to provide feedback on it is curious.

The only public action taken in 2011 related to this occurred in December 2011 when Mayor and Council adopted the zoning overlays for downtown unanimously.

The entire 2011 LCI update can be downloaded below.

Downtown Sugar Hill 2011 LCI Update

1.24MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The 2010-2011 updates and investments show that Sugar Hill was continuing on its journey to become a Strong Community with the investments giving residents even more reasons to Love Where They Live.

The next section of the plan focuses on community objectives. There are two worth highlighting. Section 2.3 - Sense of Place, since that’s been a recuring discussion point throughout and Section 2.12 - Housing Choices, since the variety of housing choices was minimal in 2008.

The Sense of Place continues to put emphasis on a vibrant downtown - creating a community focal point. It describes it as an attractive, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly place with places to shop, dine, socialize and be entertained. This follows on the Town Center District character area described in part 1 of this look at the 2008 plan.

The notable portion of Section 2.12 - Housing Choices is the selected quote. This quote is, of course, in contrast to the expressed desires of the majority regarding housing choices. However, that’s understandable given that the city was expected to grow (and did, as it had for previous 70 years of its existence).

Moving into section 4, policies, right off the bat we move into economic development. Policy is, of course, the bailiwick of Mayor and Council so it should be the primary focus of their duty to implement. As for economic development, most of the 2008 plan centered around the city’s best opportunity for economic development - downtown. And we see specifically mentioned the discouragement of strip retail.

Following on the housing policy side, the comp plan correctly predicts the future of Sugar Hill. It acknowledges that a “variety of housing options will be required”. Provide for adequate housing stock, encouraging home ownership, support pedestrian-friendly residential development, and support of mixed-use development in appropriate areas (i.e. downtown) are all admirable policy decisions that Mayors and Councils have been promoting since 2008.

In section 4.2.6 Transportation, the city took a position that, in particular in 2008 in the suburbs, was roundly anathema in prior suburban planning - consideration for movement outside of the personal vehicle.

The highlighted sentence stood in stark contrast to traditional suburban development - that the driving consideration for any form of getting around is the personal automobile. (And we wonder why we have traffic congestion…)

Does that mean the expectation is everyone walking everywhere? Of course not.

What it does acknowledge is that building your city around the automobile rather than people is a losing strategy over the long term. Automobiles are an important tool in getting around - but it’s only one tool in what should be a complete toolbox. A hammer is good for one thing only and if that’s the only tool you’ve got, you won’t be able to actually build anything.

This concluded the meat of comp plan, however, the appendices included a number of interesting parts as well.

Take, for example, this chart. Showing that the city had grew in population by 250%, which is a staggering rate of growth of 25% population increase every single year between 1990 and 2000, yet the number of people who worked in the city limits grew from just 4% to 5%.

Under “Issues and Opportunities” regarding transportation, the plan acknowledges the problem with being a suburban bedroom community - traffic congestion.

Now, let’s take a look at one last item in the 2008 comp plan - it’s perhaps the most revealing and self-reflective portion of the entire plan. The last few pages feature a publication from January 2008 called “Sugar Hill Today”. This appears to be a magazine type summary of the purpose of the plan that would have been printed and stapled in the middle.

It contains some interesting reading under the “Quality Community Objectives Analysis”, but there’s a portion that deserves to be highlighted for its bluntness - the “Sense of Place” section. It could not be more on the nose if it tried.

In particular, let’s highlight that last sentence, because it succinctly and bluntly states the importance of loving where you live:

“WITHOUT A DOWNTOWN AREA THAT HAS A LIVELY MIX OF RESTAURANTS, SHOPS AND ACTIVITIES, RESIDENTS WILL TRAVEL TO AND IDENTIFY WITH OTHER AREAS THAT DO PROVIDE THAT DESTINATION.”

The 2008 Comprehensive Plan contained a number of revelations and blunt realities that the city was facing. The plan closed its last page with a unanimous adoption of the “Community Agenda” in January 2009.

The 2008 Comprehensive Plan laid out a vision for the future of Sugar Hill as a Strong Community creating a sense of place that would allow residents to Love Where They Live.

The 2008 Comprehensive Plan update actually began in 2007 with the Community Assessment. This document is the data portion of what would become the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The plan is so lengthy and there’s so much interesting information to share and highlight that this look is going to be broken up into two parts.

We won’t spend much time on the Community Assessment as it’s wrapped into the Comprehensive Plan. However, for the sake of completeness, the entire document can be accessed here.

2007 Sugar Hill Community Assessment

11.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The data portion of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update

Download

Two of the more relevant sections from the 2007 Community Assessment are shown below.

The assessment builds on the vision expressed in the 2005 documents here.

Following on the previous article regarding the recently approved Tax Allocation Districts (TADs), the March 2008 edition of the city’s new format newsletter, Sugar Hill Sentinel, discusses both the NuAir factory demolition and extols TADs having passed.

The demolition of the NuAir factory would make way for the construction of the new City Hall campus including what would become the Bowl, Dawn P Gober Community Plaza and parking deck, in addition to city hall.

While the NuAir factory would be demolished in early 2008, construction on City Hall wouldn’t begin until December 2011 and not open until January 2013.

In the meantime, the city completed the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The entirety of the document can be downloaded below for reference.

2008 Comprehensive Plan

11.8MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The entire plan as adopted for the 2008 version of the City of Sugar Hill's Comprehensive Plan

Download

The new expressed vision for the city is included.

The 2008 Comprehensive Plan included a lot of data and community input. Below shows the results from the survey on community needs. Restaurants, retail, greenspace, recreation facilities and after-hours entertainment topped the list. The community was smartly also souring on big box retail (regional shopping centers).

An interesting point in the plan is regarding housing - this is something that surveying current residents often reveals, which is the majority don’t want any new housing to be built. Keep in mind in Sugar Hill in 2008, there was one multi-family residential development - what is now known as Plantation Ridge apartments on Level Creek Road which was built in the late 1990s. There were no mixed-use residential anywhere in Gwinnett County, let alone Sugar Hill, in 2008.

Which is in direct contrast to the clear number one answer in the following chart. For the majority of respondents, the affordability of the area was the most important characteristic to deciding to move to Sugar Hill. Of course, affordability follows supply and demand - meaning the only way for houses to remain affordable is to increase supply. That’s in direct opposition to the answer in the previous question.

In section 1.2, “Future Development Strategy”, it outlines a number of character area descriptions. Some interesting observations from selected character areas are below.

Section 1.2.3 is for Mixed Use Redevelopment, which is NOT in downtown or even the Town Center Overlay areas.

The second is section 1.2.8 - Suburban. Even in the character area that the vast majority of the city is made up of, the 2008 plan acknowledged the need for a mix of housing types, internal street connectivity, narrow streets, facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and good connections through multiple options to nearby commercial, neighborhoods and greenspace.

The final section of note is 1.2.9 - Town Center District. This clearly lays out a strategy for the development of both the Central Business District and Town Center Overlay areas of the city.

A review of the “recommended development patterns” shows the city has been extraordinarily consistent with those recommendations thus far. As you go through those six bullet points, you’ll see that each has been achieved. The Sugar Hill Greenway, which wasn’t yet conceived in 2008, even has its mile 0 in downtown as a result of fifth bullet point. Certainly, there is more to be done, especially as it relates to the last bullet point.

Even the zoning considerations from 2008 are consistent with what has been approved and built within the Town Center Overlay district in the ensuing 16 years since its adoption.

In part 2 of the review of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, we’ll go through community objectives, policy and some incredible insight and introspective look the plan considered for Sugar Hill. It was clear the direction the community desired was a Strong Community and a place that residents could really love where they live.