South Fulton residents press back on 78‑unit Valley Green proposal over traffic and neighborhood character
Loading...
Summary
Bridal Hughes, representing Rock Haven Homes, outlined a proposal on Nov. 3 to develop about 78 townhome units on roughly 11 acres at Union Road and Valley Green Drive; area residents told the City of South Fulton planning meeting the project would worsen already severe school‑period congestion, lacks sidewalks and would not match the surrounding one‑acre lot character.
Bridal Hughes, a representative of Rock Haven Homes, presented a proposal for townhomes on the property at Union Road and Valley Green Drive, describing the site as "a little over 11 acres" with about 78 units and estimating the layout at roughly seven units per acre.
The proposal calls for a character‑area amendment from Suburban to Neighborhood and included several elevation options for the townhomes. "If y'all have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them or try to answer them," Hughes told attendees.
Residents at the meeting raised repeated concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety, school impacts and architectural compatibility. Cliff Walker, who said he lives in Canaan Walk, asked whether the main access would be on Union Road and noted that the development would be "just past the cemetery." He told the developer that with Westlake High School traffic "it's already a major bottleneck." Nancy White said, "When we are trying to exit the subdivision in the morning, it will take 15 minutes sometimes," and asked whether 78 units was a fixed number; the applicant replied, "It's pretty close."
Residents also urged sidewalks and safety measures for students. Embreea Berson said she could not find the school zone on the renderings and asked how students' safety would be ensured, noting students currently walk in yards where there are no sidewalks. The applicant replied that engineering review and the city's transportation department would determine road widening and sidewalk needs.
Neighbors pressed for architectural compatibility and limits on rentals. Ronnie Melvin said the elevations shown did not match surrounding one‑acre lots and asked why the developer chose townhomes rather than single‑family or commercial. Bridal Hughes said the company generally offers multiple elevations and that market and cost factors influence product type. On rental caps, Hughes said past projects have used a range of approaches "We've done 20% before rental caps. We've done 10%. We've done no rental caps. So it just depends on what the what the, you know, take is from the community and the council," and said the developer would work with the council and community on that point.
Several residents, including Vincent Amos and Cynthia Veil Spence, urged the developer to return to the drawing board and urged officials to deny a rezoning that they said would be inconsistent with long‑established neighborhood character. Staff reiterated that this meeting is an early public participation step in a multi‑month process and that subsequent public meetings and formal hearings will occur. Planning staff also clarified that Mayor and Council cannot deny a zoning application solely on traffic grounds and that traffic and sidewalk remedies are routed through the city's transportation/public works department or GDOT when the state road is involved.
No formal action occurred at the meeting; applicants were instructed to schedule the required public participation meetings, submit proof of notice and file the public participation report by the published deadlines.
