Snellville reviews 108‑unit Tree Lane development amid traffic, stormwater and easement concerns

Snellville City staff briefed the mayor and council on the first reading for a proposed residential development by Thomas Investments LLC and Tree Lane Development LLC that would place about 108 dwelling units on roughly 15 acres off Tree Lane.

City staff said the project meets the land‑use plan but has generated public concerns mainly about traffic, stormwater and a recorded no‑build easement that prevents a connection to Ennsville Drive. Staff told the council the easement was recorded when adjacent property was developed and that removing it would require an action by the mayor and council.

Staff described the site as constrained by topography and the easement. That combination, they explained, limits opportunities for interparcel connections to the north and likely will push local trips to other connector streets, increasing traffic pressure at nearby intersections. Staff compared traffic intensity to commercial uses, saying, “a commercial building, a shopping center, it's gonna generate up to 5 times more total traffic than a neighborhood,” but added that local geometry and the lack of a connection are the central concerns raised by residents.

On drainage, staff said the development will direct runoff to retention ponds and that, in staff’s view, stormwater controls on the site should reduce existing unmanaged flows that now collect at the low point in the ravine. A resident‑submitted email to Gwinnett County and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division raised claims that upstream private property obstructions (fallen trees, rock buildup) were contributing to flow problems; county staff reportedly responded that some blockages were on private property and should be cleared by property owners.

Staff also described existing tree conservation easements tied to the Maxey parcel that prohibit disturbance in a portion of the site, including an area that might otherwise provide a connection to the adjacent road network. Those easements, staff said, prevent disturbance “as long as this easement exists.”

The applicant has requested multiple variances to accommodate the proposed townhome layout. Staff summarized those requests as: variances to allow hammerhead dead‑end turnarounds where a turnaround would otherwise be required; reduced setbacks from Tree Lane; adjustments to interparcel access requirements; allowances for smaller front yards where townhomes concentrate impervious area; and curve radii changes to slow vehicles without adding four‑way stops. Staff said the proposal would include a continuous sidewalk connection through the site, a tree/landscape buffer on the south corner, and a condition limiting rental units to a percentage of the total (described in the staff memo as a 10% restriction).

Staff said some streets were proposed as private (potentially gated), though they noted the city could accept particular streets for public maintenance if desired. The staff presentation also listed nondevelopment conditions the city is proposing to attach: adherence to the Georgia Blasting Standards Act and related preblast surveys for any blasting; a communication plan that exceeds state minimums; and restrictions on adult entertainment and large signage.

An applicant representative indicated willingness to consider design changes recommended by county or city staff to reduce traffic impacts at tie‑in points. Staff also noted the planning commission considered the variance requests and that the project will return through the city’s normal public hearing and review process.

Next steps: staff said the project will proceed through the planning and permitting process with additional hearings to follow; removal of the recorded no‑build easement would require formal council action.