Hearing on HB 76 draws neighborhood testimony after privately funded Dewberry roundabout caught residents by surprise

Representative Stacy Evans urged the House Transportation Committee to back House Bill 76, which would require the Georgia Department of Transportation to provide the same public notice and hearing protections for significant road projects even when a private developer funds the work.

"All House Bill 76 does is seek to close that loophole," Representative Stacy Evans told the committee during a hearing. She described a multi-year dispute in Atlanta where a privately funded roundabout was built between two parcels owned by a developer and where nearby residents and businesses said they received no advance notice. "Imagine waking up to bulldozers and dirt moving and all of the stuff happening around you," she said.

Multiple community representatives testified in favor of the bill, saying local residents and institutions were not informed before construction began on what they called the Dewberry Roundabout. Tom Bowler, speaking for a nearby temple that he said was impacted, said the congregation and property managers "were totally unaware" of the project and that pre-construction notice and coordination could have resolved access and parking problems sooner. Paul Dimock, identifying himself as a past president of the Ansley Park Civic Association, said the neighborhood "woke up to find bulldozers starting to construct what was to become the Dewberry Roundabout" and that the project had been approved via a special encroachment permit because the developer owned adjacent land.

Nabil Hammam, former president of the Sherwood Forest Civic Association, told the committee the project redirected highway access into his neighborhood and said trees were "being cut with no permit" and that residents had to discover the work through other means. He said the neighborhood wants the code change to "patch this crack" in public engagement.

Evans told the committee she appreciates that GDOT has changed some internal rules to hold hearings in similar circumstances, but said those internal rules should be reflected in statute so that future changes in staff or policy do not remove the requirement. Committee members asked whether the notice requirement would be a chance to "change something or just to give information;" Evans responded that the hearings are intended "to hear" and to get information from people who know local traffic patterns.

The hearing produced no committee vote; Representative Evans asked for the committee's "favorable consideration" and said she would accept follow-up questions, but the measure remained at the hearing stage in the transcript.