Any thoughts or comments about zoning rewrite priorities?
Submitted by KirkBishop on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:58pm
Citizens who attended the April 26th public meeting were asked to identify issues that deserve priority attention as part of the zoning rewrite. The following topics were identified. What do you think? Do you have thoughts about these issues, or do you have additional suggestions? We'd love to hear.
- PCID needs attention as part of rewrite
- Local government land use controls vs. private HOA covenants
- Clarity of definition and regulations governing duplexes
- Infill development in neighborhoods/character of teardowns
- "Grandfathering" of approved development/activity
- Property maintenance standards and compliance
- Permissions for multi-family development
- Impact of development on infrastructure or services
- Relationship between zoning and other city programs/policies
- Clear definitions (i.e. “home business”)
- Regulations related to impacts or nuisances
- Nonconformities and existing development meeting new standards over time
Comments
General comments for Code Rewrite Section 27:
4. Extract from Home Occupation Section: Article 11 Section 27-11.30-F paragraphs 9 and 10.
Paragraph 9 is clear in terms of defining the types and size of vehicles but perhaps could use some definition as to limiting the size of these “passenger” vehicles.
Paragraph 10 is non-congruent with paragraph 9. While it seeks to define the times allowed for these Home Occupation operations as 8 AM to 8 PM , suggest 8AM to 6PM is more suitable for COD Neighborhoods and all impacted Neighbors adjacent or within the site’s noise and site radius.Also it States- “Vehicles used for delivery and pick up are limited passenger vehicles or typical home mail/parcel service delivery vehicles, such as those used by the postal service, FedEx and UPS”. This last sentence is unnecessary and should be deleted as it would permit a Home Occupier to buy a large commercial truck (like a typical UPS or FEDEX Trucks, which are readily available on the market ) and repeatedly use it multiple times a day from suppliers to home or home to customers and vendors to include other homes in these COD neighborhoods etc ,which is unwanted , unnecessary and unneeded traffic in the COD residential neighborhoods . This increased traffic creates unsafe conditions for pedestrians and motorists, unneeded wear and tear on residential roads and is costly to maintain. Normal scheduled pickup and delivery by UPS or Postal or FEDEX is assumed to be allowed, if so make this a statement in paragraph 10. Also be specific about the size ( tonnage wheels etc) of truck .Additionally the Code as drafted does not address the Home being used as a support facility for nearby commercial businesses. In this case the Home Occupier could repeatedly abuse the code and use the home (Basement, Garage , Out Buildings etc) in support of a nearby Commercial Business and thus created unneeded and unwanted residential traffic
2. Generally all efforts within this code re write projects must defer and respect real property owners as they are the revenue generators (approximately 30+% of COD revenues ) and have vested interest and helped create Dunwoody .
a. Consider impact of adjacent and other property owners in view planes and noise /sound radii when considering Bike trails or Greenways - In our calm and quiet neighborhoods we can hear a casual phone discussion up to 100-200 Meters away , let alone the noise of bike riders zooming about.
b. Make more affirmative comments and graphics to let public know that private property is ”King” and this includes property under the GA Power ROW- Much of the public believes these open spaces in back or side yards are for their benefit , to include those whom aspire to make connecting trails or Greenways or bike paths .
c. Clarify and invoke language to show protection of “real property” is an objective and or a tenet of this re write –If not you will seem disingenuous and not be trusted by property owners , this notion of making Greenways or Trails through people’s /owners property or adjacent to it may appeal to the Condo Dwellers or Apartment dwellers, but does not sit well with affected property owners or residents it actually degrades their property values and offends their lifestyle – Ask them ! .
d. Address the safety and security issues associated with these existing and proposed high density apartments and condos; many are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. We may not need nor want “connectivity” trails paths etc as these could create conditions for more crime .
e. Clarify and standardize terminology- Use of the term “Trail”, as used gives the impression of something smaller and quaint, when in fact it may be planned as a 10 -12 Foot wide sidewalk or more appropriately a long concourse all of which when under construction will disturb the topography . All Constructed with Asphalt Concrete or other impervious material. Let the public input to the RFP that then dictates the design and then drives the construction methods, with emphasis on environmental impacts, safety and security and long term preservation of property values.
f. Look at the impact of increased direct and ancillary vehicle and foot Traffic for Home Occupation- More traffic degrades the infrastructure , creates congestion, creates unsafe conditions for resident pedestrians. Residents do not want delivery cars and trucks before 8 and after 6 PM near their homes or up down their streets.
g. COD codes do not address mailboxes – type, size, location et al, Codes as written for Home Occupiers could allow placement of mailboxes in any location and of various design. Location may offend neighbors view planes or noise transmission, or create unneeded traffic – USPS , others ( FEDEX UPS) and other commercial delivery vehicles.
h. COD code does not address Driveways. In many cases Home Occupier with certain topography can construct 100-900 foot driveways/parking areas without a permit and create conditions for noise storm water run off etc . These unpermitted driveways are in many cases longer that city streets.
Wonderful Article! Finally someone that really knows what they are on about and can additionally produce informative blog for us readers. Definitely looking forward to your next blog post. heel lifts
Thank you for the opportunity Thursday (July 26) evening to observe the Sounding Board meeting on the Zoning & Land Development rewrite. The meeting was both enlightening and professional. I want to thank Steve Dush for bringing the matter of clubhouse setbacks to the attention of the Sounding Board.
Our neighborhood has discussed a clubhouse in the past, and I was shocked to learn it only required a 10’ setback from my property, which could place the clubhouse just 20’ from my home. If a clubhouse can be built within 20’of a home in a R100 neighborhood, the homeowner’s property value will be reduced significantly, but more importantly, their family’s quality of life greatly diminished.
A clubhouse has but one purpose, to serve as a venue for parties and other special events. A clubhouse is essentially a “special events facility” that is open 365 days of the year for neighborhood parties, the private parties of residents, and even the parties of non-residents willing to pay a users fee. If anyone doubts the comparison to a special events facility, please consider the initial concept for a clubhouse in our neighborhood included a 1000 sq. ft. main “event” room and outdoor “spill-over” areas to accommodate parties of 100 people or more, along with a commercial grade kitchen.
The adverse impact on neighbors will be tremendous. A long list of nuisances includes loud (and often irritating) music well into the night, until 11:00 PM on school nights and midnight on weekends. There will be noise associated with people congregating outdoors and car alarms activated/deactivated. Outdoor areas will be illuminated until midnight or later. There will be increased traffic congestion and street parking. Food waste and other garbage will be stored outside for days before pick-up creating foul odors and attracting rodents. Grease accumulation from outdoor grilling areas will exacerbate the rodent and odor problem. There will be a loss of privacy, value, and enjoyment of our property.
The rights of homeowners to protect their property’s value and enjoyment, free from the nuisances created by a clubhouse, must take precedent over the desires of those who want a facility for hosting parties and special events (and as you might expect, live nowhere near where they propose a clubhouse be built). I don’t think anyone would want a special events facility 10’ from their property line and just 20’ from their home. This is what Dunwoody’s zoning currently allows. This is why I’m asking Dunwoody to greatly extend the required setback for clubhouses and similar facilities.
In the July 26 Sounding Board meeting, I heard genuine concern for protecting the quality of life for homeowners and their rights to enjoy their property without nuisance conditions created by neighbors. There were concerns expressed over a variety of potential nuisances, including vegetable gardens, compost piles, home occupations, etc. While important to address, these potential nuisances pale in comparison to a clubhouse that could be built 20’ from your home. BTW, In my unofficial survey of clubhouses in R100 communities Dunwoody, I could not find a clubhouse closer than 150’ to the nearest home, with 250’ being closer to the median.
Finally, some neighbors will say I shouldn’t complain about the nuisance created by a clubhouse, that I should expect noise, traffic, lights, street parking, odors and rodents, etc. since I bought a home next to the neighborhood pool. The difference between a pool and a clubhouse could not be greater. Yes, the pool is adjacent to our property, but over 100’ from our home and separated by more than 50’ of natural buffer (trees, hedges, etc.). A clubhouse could be built 20’ from our home with no noise or lighting buffer.
The pool is only open during the summer months when school is out, and then only until 9:00 PM on weekdays and 10:00 PM on weekends. For nine months of the year we enjoy the peace and tranquility of our home. Most importantly, on school nights there is no noise or lights from the pool. In contrast, the clubhouse will be available for parties 365 days of the year, which can last until 11:00 PM on school nights and midnight on weekends (if not later). Instead of hearing the happy sounds of children playing, we will have the irritating sounds of loud music, car alarms, people talking outside our children’s bedroom window, increased traffic, etc. While the food waste and garbage generated by the pool have been a problem in the past, a clubhouse will greatly increase the severity and frequency of the problem.
The zoning and land development rewrite project is the perfect opportunity for the City of Dunwoody to address this problem by greatly increasing the required setback from neighboring homes for a clubhouse or similar facility. There can be no question that a clubhouse is not only a tremendous nuisance, but one that will significantly harm neighbors’ property values and their quality of life. Again, the rights of homeowners to enjoy their property and protect its value from the nuisance conditions of a neighboring “special events” facility should be paramount.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.
the city of Dunwoody is embarking on an ambitious project to change and rewrite the city’s zoning ordinances. I know that sounds like boring stuff and truth be told most of it is, but it will profoundly affect every citizen living and working in Dunwoody. The zoning rewrites matter to you whether you realize it or not and now is the time to become informed and speak out on the subject, if you haven’t already.
A public meeting will take place on Wednesday, Aug. 1 at 7 p.m. in the Fellowship Hall, located in the Activities Building of Dunwoody United Methodist Church, 1548 Mount Vernon Road.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the development of zoning and land development codes for the city. I encourage every Dunwoody citizen to attend this meeting. I would also like to encourage every citizen to visit the Dunwoody web page at dunwoodyga.gov and learn more about what your city government is doing. Get informed, participate, and make your voice heard.
The city of Dunwoody is embarking on an ambitious project to change and rewrite the city’s zoning ordinances. I know that sounds like boring stuff and truth be told most of it is, but it will profoundly affect every citizen living and working in Dunwoody. The zoning rewrites matter to you whether you realize it or not and now is the time to become informed and speak out on the subject, if you haven’t already.
A public meeting will take place on Wednesday, Aug. 1 at 7 p.m. in the Fellowship Hall, located in the Activities Building of Dunwoody United Methodist Church, 1548 Mount Vernon Road.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the development of zoning and land development codes for the city. I encourage every Dunwoody citizen to attend this meeting. I would also like to encourage every citizen to visit the Dunwoody web page at dunwoodyga.gov and learn more about what your city government is doing. Get informed, participate, and make your voice heard.
Add to the discussion: Zoning for a) Farmer's Markets b) Backyard Chickens. No part of Dunwoody officially allows either of these. Backyard Chickens are a property rights issue. Here's the facts:
http://jkheneghan.com/city/meetings/2010/Feb/02092010_Planning_Backyard%20Chicken%20Keeping%20-%20Myths%20and%20Facts.pdf
Agreed. I can keep AR-15's and Glock 19's with extra magazines unlocked in my house, but I can't keep a chicken because it could "harm my neighbors' property values". Just sayin. There out to be some provision for individual neighborhoods or streets to petition to allow chickens or not.
I have a deck that is 27 years old. I tried to rebuild the same deck last summer. My builder, Tom Dwyer could not get a permit because I did not comply with the 40 foot rule. My house is located so my back yard is less than forty feet. I had a meeting with the zoning personal and was told I should "cut off" the roof on my house to comply. If my neighborhood houses do not comply, if any one who has added a porch or deck does not comply the zoning should rule should be established to meet the requirements of the structures in the neighborhood. I now have a structure on the back of my house that is not sound. I believe the zoning regulations should be to protect the us not create problems for the "rule followers". I lived in Dunwoody since 1978 and I am very disappointed in our Dunwoody zoning personal.
If you have not found a solution, I would suggest getting a "repair permit" for the deck, unless the deck has already been torn down. A "repair" permit allows you to keep what you have, but allows you to repair the structure a little bit at a time. Since you already have a deck and since it's been there for at least 27 years, no one can make you tear it down, unless you decide to do it yourself. Once you've done that, then the permit dept holds all the cards and they will not let you know what other options you may have. At least that has been my experience.
Also, Dunwoody needs to "undo" a recent change it made to the universal ordinance code. Up until about 09/2009, the ordinance code allowed a homeowner to build an "accessory use" structure (including a deck like structure) any where in the rear yard, as long as it was not attached to the house and as long as it was at least 10 feet away from the property line. Dunwoody changed the ordinance - Sec 27-1303 - (11) to require that any such structure now be located at least 10 feet from the house. This change in the code is fully the response to a request by the previous mayor of Dunwoody. His back yard neighbor had a deck on his house for 20+ years and the homeowner wanted to replace the deck, & make it about 8 feet longer to incorporate a wheel chair ramp for his wife. Even though the new deck would not encroach into the setback any further than the old deck, the mayor did not want it to be rebuilt at all. After the home owner discovered the allowance for the "accessory use" structure, the homeowner received the permit and had a free-standing deck built adjacent to the house. My contention is that the original code was written like that for a reason, but this discovery by the homeowner infuriated the mayor and the mayor had the city council vote to change the code so that it could no longer be right next to a house. It now has to be 10 feet from the house. So this new code change not only applies to deck like structures, but to all structures, such as tool sheds, green houses, etc. The 10 foot rule just makes no sense. I'm confident that the city council voted for this change without regard to common sense because it was what the mayor wanted. This new code change now effects all home owners, except for that one homeowner who received the permit prior to the change.
Post new comment