BALDWIN, Ga. — The Baldwin City Council tabled first readings of proposed annexation and zoning ordinances tied to a large Cook Construction development along Ga. 365 after a tense meeting marked by repeated audience interruptions, sharp public criticism and council members declining to advance the measures.
Both the annexation ordinance and zoning ordinance were tabled Tuesday night, pausing the project while public input and additional review continue.
Councilwoman Nancy Lehman made a motion to approve the first reading of the annexation ordinance, but the motion failed for lack of a second. Council later agreed to table both ordinances for consideration at a later date.
Mayor Doug Faust repeatedly emphasized that the items before council did not represent approval of the project.
“This is not a done deal,” Faust said. “This introduces an idea so we can have public discourse and public discussion. It does not say this is what we want or what we don’t want.”
Developer presentation
The meeting opened with a presentation from Cook Construction attorney Vince Fitzgerald, who said the Gainesville-based firm is seeking to develop nearly 110 acres near the intersection of Duncan Bridge Road and Ga. 365.
“The presentation we’ve got for you tonight is really written with the fact that we’ve got a public participation meeting coming up next Tuesday, and then the public hearing,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re trying to get the council as much information as we can tonight.”
Fitzgerald said the project includes six parcels, with approximately 21 acres already inside Baldwin’s city limits and 88.4 acres proposed for annexation.
“What we propose to do on that property is to develop a distinctive and attractive commercial development,” he said, citing potential grocery retail, restaurants, medical offices and a Class A assisted living facility.
Fitzgerald stressed repeatedly what the project does not include.
“There will be no data center,” he said. “There will be no residential apartments, single-family homes or townhomes, and there is no affiliation with The Torch or any of their previous pastors.”
Councilman Joe Elam later asked Fitzgerald to confirm those points on the record.
“Just to reiterate what you said, there would be no data center and no residential houses, townhomes or apartments of any kind,” Elam said.
“That’s correct,” Fitzgerald responded. “None of those uses are part of this proposal.”
Fitzgerald also explained that Cook Construction delivered an annexation and zoning letter earlier in the day to preserve its legal rights.
“If we don’t present any constitutional issues before the body makes a decision, then we waive those issues forever,” he said. “The last thing we want to do is sue the city of Baldwin. We’re excited about this project, and we’re excited about working collaboratively with the city.”
Public opposition
Public comment drew strong opposition, including from former Baldwin councilwoman Beverly Holcomb, who urged council members to consider long-term impacts.
“Annexation is a permanent decision,” Holcomb said. “Once it happens, it shapes the town forever. Make sure that any annexation truly serves Baldwin and the people who call it their home.”
Holcomb said she was particularly concerned about traffic, emergency response times and infrastructure.
“Our roads are already heavily traveled, and a lot of them were not designed for commercial use,” she said. “Once land is annexed, the responsibility for maintaining and upgrading infrastructure becomes Baldwin’s responsibility for generations to come.”
Jonathan Mark of Cornelia referenced his city’s recent annexation disputes and questioned assurances made by developers.
“When I hear ‘we’re not here to sue,’ that threw a red flag up for me,” Mark said. “I’ve lived in Cornelia 20 years. I don’t think my taxes have ever gone down when new businesses came in.”
Mark urged Baldwin officials to take their time.
“Just think things through,” he said. “Act with caution.”
Emily Herron, a Cornelia business owner, questioned Cook Construction’s experience with commercial development.
“I looked at their website and their projects, and I see no commercial development at all,” Herron said. “We don’t want to be guinea pigs.”
Herron warned that if proposed uses fail to materialize, the long-term consequences could be significant.
“What happens if all of that falls through and they have 100 acres?” she asked. “What comes next — townhomes, apartments, rental homes? Our county cannot sustain hundreds and hundreds of homes being brought in at once.”
She also raised concerns about water supply and infrastructure costs.
“Even if you run sewer, even if you build treatment facilities, where does the water come from?” Herron said. “That’s something that’s going to cost a lot of money.”
Rising tensions and tabling
As council moved toward consideration of the ordinances, multiple audience members attempted to speak after public comment had closed. Faust reiterated that the item was not a public hearing.
“This is a motion for a first reading,” Faust said. “We do not yet have enough information, partly because we don’t have full public participation.”
City Attorney Bubba Samuels stepped in as objections continued.
“I appreciate and understand where you’re coming from,” Samuels told the audience. “But the rules matter here, and we have to follow a process. This is the beginning of a process.”
Samuels pointed residents to the developer’s upcoming public participation meeting and noted that the venue may need to change if interest remains high.
Faust later rejected claims that the city attempted to conceal or rush the proposal.
“There have been no attempts to keep information from the public,” he said. “The developer has the right to apply for annexation. We’re required by law to review that application and make a determination.”
After further discussion, council chose to table both ordinances.
What happens next
Cook Construction plans to hold a public participation meeting from 5 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 27, at the Baldwin City Hall Community Room, 186 U.S. 441. According to a flyer distributed at the meeting, the session is intended to provide information about the proposed development near Duncan Bridge Road and Ga. 365 and gather public feedback ahead of any formal public hearing.
No date has been set for reconsideration of the annexation or zoning ordinances.
