Loganville council takes public comment on Chandler Hawk annexations; decision set for Thursday

The Loganville City Council held a consolidated public hearing on Aug. 11 for eight annexation and rezoning cases collectively called the Chandler Hawk Project, with final votes scheduled for the council’s Thursday meeting.

The applicant, represented by Tim of Prader Consulting LLC, presented the properties—about 25 acres across multiple parcels on Chandler Hawk Road—and said the owners now request R22 zoning rather than an earlier RM4 request that had been advertised. Tim told the council the family owners prefer a single-family subdivision consistent with the city’s future land-use map and that they agreed to many staff-recommended conditions but objected to requirements they said would unduly reduce developable land, specifically overflow parking, a 10-by-10 pavilion, and a small playground.

Why it matters: Annexation and rezoning would change the parcels from county A1 or existing city designations to city residential zoning, enabling subdivision and the extension of city services. Neighbors pressed councilmembers on what the change will mean for taxes, parking, buffering and the long-term potential for higher-density zoning once sewer is available.

Speakers and claims: Resident Terry Parsons urged council to approve R22 as a sensible local option; Samantha Clay, a family member and property heir, described a multi-decade family ownership and said annexation would allow the heirs to preserve much of the land in single-family form. Nearby residents raised two recurring concerns: that the packet still showed RM4 in places and that rental limits and tax consequences of annexation were unclear. Planning staff and the city manager clarified that RM4 remained the advertised request (what was legally noticed) but the applicant has asked for R22 and the council’s eventual vote “will trump” the packet language.

Council discussion focused on conditions that could be attached if rezoning is approved: creation of a homeowners association, limits on rentals (staff suggested 15% while some councilmembers preferred 10%), driveway and garage requirements, prohibition on vinyl siding, road width and public/private maintenance language, and the scope of amenities such as pavilions and playgrounds. Several councilmembers signaled discomfort requiring a pavilion or playground for a small (about 30–32 lot) subdivision, citing HOA maintenance burden and reduced buildable area. Staff noted existing constraints including a creek buffer on the north end that restricts development.

Next steps: Council directed staff and the applicant to refine and exchange proposed conditions and supporting materials so each case can be voted individually on Thursday. No final zoning or annexation votes were taken at the work session.