ad

10 Comments

  1. 1

    Thomas Porter

    This is wrong! The developer receives a LOT of pushback from neighborhoods, so they want to schedule for the next hearing – 2 DAYS AFTER THE 4th OF JULY when many are out of town! Their desired deferral isn’t done until Planning Commission approves it, so, I and many will push for 60 day deferral. Ever notice how many big issues come up for votes around holidays? NOT unintentional.
    Same tactic for the Dresden at Caldwell property,
    Two biggest changes possible in south Brookhaven’s future! Unseemly tactics!

  2. 2

    Eric Robert

    Good. They are trying to squeeze way too much stuff on this lot. As one moves east from Peachtree the density should be stepped down and an adequate buffer of 50 to 100 feet be provided any abutting detached lots.

  3. 3

    Jennifer

    Eric,
    Is that really you? I’m agreeing with you again, how can that be? You are 100% right, after Apple Valley you are IN the neighborhood of single family homes and developments of the scale of Haven and Verde with the exception of the awful parting gifts Dekalb bestowed upon us. Can we give them back?

  4. 4

    BuHi

    “Developer to defer application for mixed-use project on Dresden at Appalachee until July (or until whenever we think we can sneak this past you).”

    Fixed that for ya.

  5. 5

    Riley OConnor

    It is helpful to remember back to the day in the early 1990’s when an applicant tried to get a rezoning for the corner of Dresden & Fernwood (now partially occupied by 1377 Dresden). He wanted to build a senior high rise “home” called the “Magic Palace”. This was before the LCI study. His big point was that because it was senior citizens, they would be driving anyway, so fewer parking spaces would be needed than required. The neighborhood was immediately in opposition, if for no other reason that it sounded like he was just going to warehouse old dying people. Nothing for the community.

    It all came to a head at a County meeting where he was asking for a variance. The meeting started at 7:00PM and his application was the absolute last one. 10:30 PM rolled around and it finally came up to the board for a hearing. If our group of neighbors had not stayed until the bitter end, it would have glided through. Because he saw that there was still substantial opposition present, he withdrew the application “without prejudice”, so he could come back at a later date rather than wait two years for another try. Which he never did.

    That’s just the way that the game is played, and they have a lot more experience at this than we do. It all depends upon how much you want this.

  6. 6

    Eric Robert

    a clock can be right two times a day so this is one of my times. But yea while its arguably walkable to the train station factors working against it are that it shares a border with a detached home neighborhood, has significant trees (granted even detached homes would likely remove those) and it is farther from Peachtree Street so step down zoning and adequate buffers should be happening.

  7. 7

    bldvl89

    Here is an article from the ARC on the new wave of comprehensive land use planning:

    https://landmatters.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/the-second-generation-of-georgia-planning/

    The two most interesting paragraphs:

    . . . .zoning rules will not change automatically to enact the second generation of comprehensive plans. It will take years of ordinance revisions, rezoning changes, overlay codes and other actions to change the primary rules that implement our comprehensive plans.

    Why will it take so long? At least two good reasons exist.

    “First, local government attorneys, elected officials and planners in Georgia undervalue the substantial authority that they possess to guide growth.”

    Almost 100 years of law in the U.S. and Georgia have provided authority for local governments to zone land and change rules to implement well-conceived growth strategies through a comprehensive plan. Local governments can uphold and enact many changes to improve our plan implementation.

    “However, developers and attorneys spend many waking hours trying to undermine the reality of zoning law and the home rule authority of local governments in Georgia.”

    ———-

    One of the most effective weapons a developer has to undermine home rule authority in Brookhaven is to reduce the pool of citizens available to bend the ears of the Planning Commission and the City Council. It’s no coincidence that Connolly and Terwilliger both filed their re-zoning applications on April 6.

    It put them both on track to get at least three shots to have hearings in front of the Planning Commission held during the summer break when neighborhood opposition is guaranteed to be far more scattered (June 1, July 6 and August 3), and two shots with the City Council (June 21 and July 26).

  8. 8

    Saul

    Considering dates chosen around holidays when many are out of town the Planning Commission should have enough sence to defer their vote. That is, if they have the best interest of the citizens they represent. But this is Brookhaven you know.

  9. 9

    bldvl89

    I’m not that cynical about the Planning Commission. If Terwilliger (and Connolly who’s also seeking PC-2 rezoning for their entire parcel on Caldwell) thought they really had the Planning Commission in the bag, they wouldn’t have timed the filing of their applications to give themselves three straight summer break appearances in front of the Commission – when residents who’d bend their ears are most likely to be out of town.

    On the other hand, I am that jaded about some on our City Council, most notably my D-3 rep. I don’t trust that he understands the Comprehensive Plan, the protections it affords neighboring Character Areas, or that he’s willing to put the interests of his constituents ahead of those of the developer. According to T-P’s attorney, Woody Galloway, the D-3 rep has had more communications with him about this project since they filed than he’s had with any resident in his own ‘hood who’ll be directly affected by this thing.

    I look at what the D-1 rep did for her peeps relative to the Embry re-zoning – Embry was seeking RA-8 and RDT rezoning which is a lot
    more mellow than this PC-2 nonsense T-P is seeking – and she took the initiative and brought the application to her constituents’ attention – and I realize those of us in D3 opposed to this thing are better served assuming we’re already down 0-1 on the City Council.

    Might not be fair to assume that, but given our D-3 rep’s track record, it’d be highly imprudent not to.

  10. 10

    JAS

    is the grass behind the pool in the picture supposed to really be the 5 single family residences that the complex will abut? this is as nonsensical a project as they come. they should withdraw the application not defer it.

Comments are closed.