PORTERDALE, Ga. – A scheduled arbitration meeting regarding an annexation request is currently at a stand still between the city of Porterdale and Newton County.

During the city of Porterdale’s work session on June 27, members of the Porterdale city council discussed the recent objection that took place regarding the Dinah Pace annexation.

Developers are currently seeking to build a 640-lot residential subdivision with a minimum lot size between 5,000-9,000 square feet between Dinah Pace Road and Brown Bridge Road.

In the annexation request, the developers also asked that the property be rezoned to Porterdale’s R-3 zoning ordinance to allow the minimum square feet allocations to decrease from 35,000 to 9,000 minimum square feet. Additionally, the request included a number of setback reductions which included 15 to five feet for side setbacks, 35 to 10 feet for front setbacks and 35 to 20 feet for rear setbacks.

At the June 4 Newton County Board of Commissioners meeting, the board opted to unanimously deny the annexation request that the city was legally required to send from the Dinah Pace developers. This opened the door for the county to notify the Georgia Department of Public Affairs for the arbitration hearing.

New city manager Vickie Short explained to the council that the city is awaiting communication from the Jarrard and Davis Law Firm that represents the county.

“Tim [Chambers; Porterdale’s city attorney] originally had some conversations with their attorney saying there was a meeting or some hope that there would be some positive discussions with the county,” Short said. “We have not heard any other updates on that.”

When describing what the next steps would be, Short said that the ball is ultimately in the county’s court.

“I know it’s been frustrating, basically I’m saying in a roundabout way that we’re just waiting to hear from the attorney’s from the county at this point,” Short said. “There’s nothing really the city can do.”

Short mentioned that an arbitration panel must be composed within the first 15 days after the Department of Affairs was notified. However, the 15th day was on the June 27 meeting day. The city did not appoint anyone to the panel at the work session, and it is not clear if the county has done so either.

Per the Department of Community Affairs rules, this could play a factor into this process moving forward.

“If, despite its efforts, the Department is unable to fulfill the request for an arbitration panel within the fifteen days provided by statute (e.g., an insufficient number of eligible panelists were available to serve, strikes were not provided to the Department within the requested time frame, etc.), the Department will necessarily decline to appoint a panel,” per the Department of Community Affairs rules. “Statute offers no provision for extension of this timeline or waiver of this requirement. In such a case, the Department shall notify the individuals and entities listed in section 110-12- 8-.03(3), above, of the impasse, that the Department is unable to fulfill the request for a panel, and recommend that the objecting party consider seeking judicial resolution of the conflict.”

If the arbitration process were to move forward, a panel would be composed of a five-person panel including one academic – in which the Department defines as a person with a masters degree or higher in public administration or community planning and who are currently employed by a college or university in Georgia (excluding the Carl Vinson Institute of Government – two city elected officials and two county elected officials.

Both the city and county would appoint four panelists each as well as three from the academic pool. The city and county will both strike two panelists from their corresponding pools, while both parties will each provide one strike to an academic panelist.

Costs for the arbitration hearing would be split between the two parties.

While the arbitration process is in limbo, members of the Porterdale council provided their thoughts on the annexation request.

Porterdale mayor Michael Patterson commended county attorney Patrick Jaugstetter for clarifying the city’s position on this matter while providing his own bit of clarification.

“I think he [Jaugstetter] clarified that pretty well, or to me he did, that it was not something the council was already putting their support behind, it was just something that we were legally required to do,” Patterson said.

Post 1 council member Bekah Sue Sewell found it surprising that the developers would go through with the annexation request based on the council’s general consensus.

“It’s just shocking that they even applied for an annexation because the majority of us already said, ‘No,’” Sewell said.

Post 4 council member Lowell Chambers added his thoughts. 

“We haven’t done our financial impact study, we haven’t done some of the other things [that we need to do],” Chambers said.

Patterson mentioned that he had a conversation with the developers, too.

“And we did give them a very fair and reasonable opportunity to withdraw their application and the thousands of dollars that they paid,” Patterson said. “Because, I had conversations with everyone. And I told them the general consensus, and they said they were going to push it anyway.”

It is not clear how either party will move forward, as no further discussion of the topic is listed on the Board of Commissioners or the city of Porterdale’s meeting agendas as of press time.