February 24, 2017
LATEST

Leave a Reply

109 Comments on "Brookhaven Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Dresden Village development"

Notify of
avatar
10000
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Thomas Porter
Guest

I am disappointed in the Planning Commission’s decision.
I am truly angry at Community Development.
I hold some hope for City Council.
I am so proud of the citizens who gave a GREAT presentation.

Thomas Porter
Guest

I’d rather the City spend hundreds of thousands defending developer lawsuits than submit to sleazy threats.

Tom Reilly
Guest

No argument there, Tom!! Precedent is a very powerful zoning tool. Once you get a reputation for giving in to threats, word gets out, and suddenly you have a lot more threats. Set a precedent for standing up when it counts, and the threats diminish.

Kerry
Guest

What a travesty – such a betrayal of public trust. The Planning Commission rolled on to its back tonight. They say we are helpless to determine our future and must be governed by mistakes of the past. Wringing their hands over Webster’s definition of ‘contiguous’ they ignored the biggest issue that Dresden Drive is not designed for high density.

bldvl89
Guest
They didn’t wring their hands over Webster’s definition of “contiguous;” the City Attorney just didn’t like it, so he went to the Black’s Law dictionary definition of “contiguous” instead, which defines it as “being in close proximity; neighboring; adjoining, in actual close contact; touching at a point or along a boundary.” The Black’s law definition ends by saying it is NOT synonymous with “vicinal,” followed by case cites. “Vicinal,” ironically, is not defined in Black’s. But Webster’s defines it as “local” or “of or relating to a limited district,” suggesting “vicinal” is synonymous with “proximity.” Of course, “vicinal” is not… Read more »
Susan
Guest

Ahhhh. Welcome to Brookhaven. The new Brookhaven we all didn’t bargain for.

Robert M.
Guest

The planning commission was scared into their decision with a last minute threat of litigation. Litigation that Connolly has said more than once he would not pursue. “We have never sued a city. It is not what we do.” ALSO, at the last public hearing when asked if this doesn’t get approved what will you do? Reply – “We will walk away.”
LIES, LIES, LIES !!!! This project is full of them.

Frank S
Guest

How many devices can one man have? It appears that TP wins the award for having the most! SMH

Abe Froman
Guest

Millennials… SMH

Josh
Guest

They are counting a 4′ wide mulched “path” in between 3 story high town homes that opens onto a fire lane to meet their supposed open space requirement. This is total BS in so many ways.

Emily
Guest

Where did THAT plan come from? It wasn’t in the packet on the city website.

Bite Me
Guest

It appeared tonight at the meeting for the first time. Can you tell who the city is looking out for? It’s not the citizens obviously.

This is just the start
Guest
This is just the start
Follow the money and political favors. This was planned behind the scenes, backroom deals are not exclusive to JMax and Becky. Marie may be gone but that backroom is getting used just as much as before. Connolly will be approved because it is a piece in the puzzle, TP was a smoke and mirror denial. The 30 units per acre cap is a distraction to get Connolly and Marta passed but as the article says, a variance is all it takes to approve 12O units per acre. We are just pawns in a political career in the works and now… Read more »
John
Guest

The fix is in. Bye bye Brookhaven Fields and the less desirable parts of Ashford Park. Might as well sell now. The NEW CITY CENTER IS COMING! Peachtree to Clairmont to Buford Highway. $$$$$$$ Might as well delete those new Character Area results you participated in and voiced your opinions on. They are never going to be heard. On to MARTA.

Saul
Guest

True to form, the D1 Angel recognised a revenue generator at the expense of the affected neighborhood. But the D1 Angel, he would never let something of this magnitude soil our precious, beloved D1. Everyone understand now?

Hunter Burke
Guest

Unfortunately, yes. This is on the backs of the City Council now, and we will vote this year on how you respond for half of you. Another of you will be gone anyway, leaving Linley Jones and Ernst the only safe ones for now.
The public’s collective memory is long and many will remind the few who forget.

Saul
Guest

Hunter, is he moving? Or have the people of that city district finally come to there senses? Who have they selected to run against him?

Ellen
Guest

Blah blah blah

blind faith
Guest

Thank you to the TWO Planning Commissioners who had the guts and determination to say NO. To those who caved….you are a huge disappointment. Proper “Land Use” has to serve the community, not the wallet of the developers.

bldvl89
Guest

I second – Mr. Levy and Mr. Francour are the only two who actually saw past the shenanigans being played with the 27-1383(g)(6) language awarding extra building height for “a contiguous, publicly accessible, open space,” who appear to grasp the design of the Overlay as seen through the Comprehensive Plan and the unadulterated version of the City zoning ordinance, and who have attempted to balance these re-zoning requests (T-P, Connolly and MARTA) with their impact to the surrounding community.

Bob Sorrentino
Guest

Thanks everyone for the support so far. To some degree I feel bad for the Planning Commissioners. They had an 11th hour legal attack that could have easily confused anyone with only a couple of hours to respond. The good news is that argument has severe flaws in its foundation. And the Council will have plenty of time to digest it and not make a decision based in confusion and threat.

blind faith
Guest
Below are the “Goals” of Brookhaven’s elected officials (Mayor and City Council). These are posted on the Brookhavenga.gov website. Interesting read. Perhaps the mayor and council members should read it [themselves] to remind them of their own vision. They WERE all about parks, greenspace and preserving the quality of life in Brookhaven – except Gebbia’s goals – he wasn’t looking past his nose. This would almost be funny if it weren’t so very, very sad. Mayor Ernst’s goals are to get back to the basics by delivering better parks, more greenspace and a transparent government Councilperson Jones’ goals: Provide ethical… Read more »
Dean
Guest

As for Gebbia, you forgot his goal of a monorail line that would interconnect with Chamblee and Dunwoody taking a lot of traffic off of our roads. Having a monorail in Brookhaven would allow us to enjoy our growing skyline!

Bob Sorrentino
Guest

And I hope people can forgive one sarcastic comment on my part after last nights disappointment… According to developer his five story building is actually lower than my 2 story house. As my house tops 1,030 ft above sea level and this development is only at 989 ft. At least that is the argument he used to show that this 5 story structure is shorter than the the 4/3 story kaleidoscope structure. It was disappointing to see that argument actually land.

Easy Rider
Guest

Sorry Bob, as a less than fully informed observer I was somewhat swayed by the argument regarding comparative height. Without sarcasm, can anyone explain the height difference of the Connolly development compared to the corner of Village Place at Kaleidoscope?

Bob Sorrentino
Guest
Easy Rider. As you travel east along Dresden, the Dresden Village starts off a base elevation at the street at 920ft above sea level. The development here is 989 ft above Sea level. So the structure is 69ft above the street at the farthest west point. Then as you travel to the eastern most point of the structure the road rises to about 925 ft. The structure is also 989 ft here, thus a 64ft difference between the street there. Remember this structure is 400ft long. No structure at the MARTA TOD is near as long as that. “Permeability” Now… Read more »
Easy Rider
Guest

Thank you for the explanation.

Barbara
Guest

By allowAing the sea level argument isn’t the city justifiably saying it’s ok to remove 30 ft of dirt and build and extra 3 stories in the future? Sea level and street level should be inconsequential to the ordinances that are previously set.

elevation man
Guest

Dresden Village average site elevation pre construction 930′ plus structure height.

Casa Sorrentino existing lot elevation 920′ (at structure), plus structure height.

Barbara
Guest

Time for ALL new council and City Manager. This is beyond wrong.

Curious
Guest

I just watched last nights video. What was the third degree about with the parking deck being a pay to park? In the ended they took the guys word for it that he would do what ever anyway? Can’t find that in the code I’m guessing.. I was told today that the mayor asked for the parking and is in on the restaurant debacle. Communities expense to solve city screw ups? Anyone want to share what that is all about?

This is just the start
Guest
This is just the start

You are getting close…add in the city’s desire to have Green Meadows connect to Elijay – 0nly one parcel in the way now. Parking, reduce lights on Dresden, …. this was a deal done in the backroom, residents be damned.

Susan
Guest

That Caldwell-Ellijay intersection isn’t the real problem. It’s the volume of traffic on Dresden, limited sight distance at drives in that area due to close to intersection on street parking and speeding through a congested area. Then there is the cluster at Dresden and Peachtree. Typical government, ignore the obvious for the invented feel good.

Russ
Guest

Excluding the townhomes, the code requires 291 parking spaces. The proposed parking garage has 420 spaces. 129 more than required. This should make certain local restaurant owners who happen to be high powered attorneys who have been leaning on the city very hard for additional parking happy. The cost of this additional parking would be around $2,000,000 to construct. That requires a lot of apartments to be added to cover the additional cost.

Frustrating and unfair
Guest
Frustrating and unfair
The city needs to stop the abuse of the neighbors who have been trying to work on this for the benefit of all of us. These neighbors seem to know the code better than anyone but, every time they point something out as a reason to deny, the information gets shared with the builder and a quick change/correction/manipulation is designed to try and cure it at even more detriment to the area. That’s what feels like happened again just before the meeting. Letters to deny were sent to the city to support a denial but instead were used against us… Read more »
Susan
Guest

Welcome to Brookhaven.

Jennifer
Guest
I’ve been too disappointed to respond or even read a thing until today. It sucks, it really does. It makes it that much harder for us to help the city Council understand the true and very negative implications this will have in Southern Brookhaven’s future. If the Mayor and Council follow suit they are setting us up to have the developments in litigation come back to haunt us with a vengeance. We worked hard, we gave up our personal time and money for over a year, we followed the process and we got screwed by those put in position by… Read more »
Susan
Guest

“My take away from this is that it doesn’t matter what the residents say or want – take for example the character area studies and polls and petitions, not to mention the presentations at meetings and heartfelt comments of so many of us vs the handful of developers and speculating landowners – who did they listen to?”

Evidently not the affected citizens.

Welcome to the Brookhaven way of doing business. They spin your wheels until you just give up in frustration.

On the Record
Guest

Thanks to citizen involvement and the city, townhomes on Caldwell next to Alden Place were denied, increased density for new homes was denied on Clearview near Gail drive, townhomes on Ashford Dunwoody near Blackburn were denied, Hastings property on Peachtree was denied, apartments on Dresden at Appalachee was denied.

Everything many not be perfect, but it’s over reaching to suggest that the citizens don’t have a positive impact.

Sandy
Guest

@OtR – Not even comparable to the MARTA project and the Dresden Corridor as a whole. If that was the case then I would ask, “Why is the citizen voice and impact so selective when it comes to the powers that be?

On the Record
Guest

Sometimes elected officials, appointed officials, and city staff draw different conclusions than the citizen voice. But they mostly seem to listen. Although the MARTA project and this project didn’t conclude as you would like, they were both significantly modified because of the citizen’s voice. I can understand raw feelings at this time, but the citizens input was both heard and had a very positive impact.

Barry Miller, Sr.
Guest
Totally agree. The project was made much better with citizen involvement. Most of the nay sayers say they are ok with development publicly then lobby to kill it behind the scenes. Dishonesty has been at an all time high on this project. Say what you will, the developer gave up much they did not have to. Great project. I hope it passes! Connolly did not have to put in the ownership townhomes, they did not have to have 60 meetings with the community and they did not have to reduce the density to where they have. The community is being… Read more »
Jennifer
Guest

From the start ownership, height and density were the issues the community have had. 3O units per acre max, height alignment with the existing and ownership units. The design presented was even more dense and higher than we started with. They have voted for approval of PC2 on Dresden – for those that don’t get it… that means we have a precedent for up to 120 units per acre, 8 – 10 stories for any new applicants to use as justification – just as JR used Alta/Rosewood.

FUD
Guest
All just FUD. Please don’t run from the truth. You yourself said 50 units per acre was acceptable during the April meeting with the developer. At that time they were asking for 60, community was saying they were OK with 45. You said to meet in the middle with 50, they did even better than that, then when they actually came back with a new plan the naysayers changed their mind and lowered their acceptable number. That is devious and you all have not been honest with the people you are asking to support you. Then you all did that… Read more »
Sandy
Guest

@FUD – You are just making up crap now. You know it and we know it. Obvious plant for the developer.

Jennifer
Guest
In that specific conversation we had come to an impass as you well know since you were there and pushing for the 60 and then some. I suggested there should be some out of the box thinking and try to come to a compromise, that was an example. I also told all of you that I DO NOT speak for the community, I would take the information and push it out in my channels but the community (I did by posting the developers information verbatim). I also said the community would need to speak for themselves – they did and… Read more »
FUD
Guest
What difference does it make what my name is? Maybe I’m Donald Trump? Maybe I’m OJ Simpson? Who cares. The issue here is you gave the developer a number as the We are Brookhaven leader. You set the number and spoke on our community’s behalf. The developer met and exceeded what the community said they wanted and even gave in to the townhouses. The fact is that you guys don’t really want ANYTHING done there or anywhere else. It is not your world. Other people live in it and they are just as entitled to do what they want within… Read more »
Julie M.
Guest
@FUD – The first thing we did was impose a moratorium of the Overlay District in 2013, in the Comp. Plan we asked for a change to the Overlay’s ambiguous language, we asked for the zoning re-write, we asked that the omitted Overlay be included in the Character Area Study, we asked for another moratorium, we asked for a re-write of the Overlay. To all of these asks NOTHING has been completed. Yet, staff has made changes to the code and god only knows how many policies have been created in favor of the developers. As a citizen it is… Read more »
FUD
Guest

You all kept moving the target and still keep moving it. And every time you get what you ask for you want more and more and more. Unsatisfied, entitled and anointed hypocrites.

Teddy Bear
Guest

FUD – It’s hard to hear the truth when it is laid out right in front of you. Easier to resort to lies and name calling. What a gem we have among st us.

FUD
Guest

I know! I agree with you! PLEASE tell that to these crazy people! Thanks Teddy! The Dresden Village is a gem. I agree!

Teddy Bear
Guest

LOL! And the spin continues. You are definitely on the Connolly payroll. LOL!

Barb
Guest
That’s right you are so much more important than your neighbors, how dare we disagree with you. Show us where Jen spoke on behalf of the community and said we wanted 50 units per acre. I’d love to hear what the other people in that meeting heard. I’ve been to the neighborhood meetings, I’ve read the updates and information put out by Jen, I never saw where she even implied that she repressed us with an approval for 50 units per acre. You seem to have a personal issue with Jen who has just tried to give the community an… Read more »
Jennifer
Guest
Your right it doesn’t make a difference what your name is. I know who the attendees at the meeting were. Jim Eyer and the developers wanted the 60 unit per acre plan, one HOA President of some townhomes was on the fence, the affected neighbors invited and myself. The developers kept trying to get me to speak for the community and I continued to repeat that was not my role, I was there to give them a seat at the table and transparency in to the process. On a few occasions I said that parts of the plan were better… Read more »
Jennifer
Guest

That should read.. “I wear your attacks as a sign of success”. Dang auto correct! 🙂

FUD
Guest
You: “You can hide behind FUD and the other names you choose to use, we know the truth.” Reality: The truth is you got what you asked for and your community doesn’t like it so now you are backtracking. You: “Over 800 signatures, hundreds attending meetings over the past year, many small group meetings in neighbors homes, coffee shops, parks, developers offices, university hall, city hall, incubator rooms, meeting rooms in grocery stores, on the street, online meetings and more the COMMUNITY has spoken.” Reality: Prove the signatures are all from Brookhaven people. Prove there are no duplicate votes. Prove… Read more »
Jennifer
Guest

Planning Commission , Mayor and Council have the information to see that the signatures are not duplicate and verifiable residents who had the entire document to read before signing.

blind faith
Guest

I find it hysterical you chose two pretty sleazy people to ‘be.’ You sound like a bad combination of BOTH!

Bob Sorrentino
Guest
Barry, most of the people I have been working about have been very consistent about what they would like to see here. And they have always said that if the developer could do X, then we would do back flips over the project. The 30 unit/acre number is very reasonable. I believe the PC past an ordinance enforcing that number the very same night they approved this. So if the PC agrees that sub area II of the overlay should be capped at 30, then how are we unreasonable for pushing for this same number. The only additional complaint that… Read more »
Just Curious
Guest

@BobSorrentino – You have another ‘at bat’ at the end of the month. Why not lobby your council person to modify the ordinance to clarify the definition of contiguous so this doesn’t happen on the next zoning case. Changing the ordinance for PC2 density seemed easy enough why not this change for clarity. Do the mayor and your councilman support this?

Bob Sorrentino
Guest
Fair question. The answer is simply, the contiguous requirement for the bonus story currently in the code is not broken. I’ve been working with municipalities and regulatory agencies for almost 20 years now. Navigating a code is something I get paid to do. The city is correct in that no code is black and white. But some are a very midnight shade of gray. The recent density limit that is working its way toward voting on is a good example of darkening a light shade of gray. But trying to play “let this one pass and will fix it next… Read more »
Just Curious
Guest
The professional city staff, both planners and legal staff issued an opinion that the application met the criteria. You and the other involved citizens made the case on the other side of the issue. It’s the role of the elected and appointed officials to hear both sides and arbitrate the dispute. Although frustrating, your argument must not have been as convincing. If the developer takes off the fifth floor, does the remaining structure result in the 30 units per acre? Do you then support the project, or go on to other issues? Does this get you to the desired result?
Jennifer
Guest
Personally – remove the 5th floor and I am fine with it as I told Brian with the development team but that is MY personal opinion. The community can speak for themselves and I strongly suggest that they do planningcommission@brookhavenga.gov and mayorandcouncil@brookhavenga.gov. I have also said that my PERSONAL feelings are if the Marta development does not put PC2 on the Fernwood property, keeps the office parking on the Peachtree side, limit to a 4 story plan (I prefer 3 stories for all but the building along Dresden) for the Apple Valley side and stick to the 100ft building on… Read more »
FUD
Guest

Now we are getting somewhere. I’ll bet it feels good to get that off of your chest. I share the same vision. But I am ok with the 5th story. Especially since you wold really be able to see it. Good work on getting the project to a win/win. And like it or not, you led the charge to get this done below the density the developer and the community wanted with an ownership component. I’d call that a victory. It’ll be fine.

Sharon
Guest

REPEAT FOR THE 100th TIME – NO MORE APARTMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rosemary
Guest

Stop fixating on a single issue. The project as a whole doesn’t work. No village feel, too tall, too dense, PC2 doesn’t belong on Dresden, a one story building is not allowed in the Overlay, they want to pipe a stream, the open space sucks, and we don’t want or need more apartments. Stop it now. Any “fix” needs to happen before any approvals not after.

Barry Miller, Sr.
Guest
Since you are apparently a self appointed expert, please entertain all of us how the developer does not comply? Do you really think the city is “cooking the books”? The bottom line is like Remy says it meets the requirements of the code, it conforms to the comprehensive plan, and it is an allowed use. Like it or not its the rules and the processes you voted for when you voted to have a city. Congratulations! The city HAS to approve this project or will be sued in court and lose. No judge will ever find in favor of the… Read more »
Rosemary
Guest

Ha! Ha! Baaawhaaa! The city does NOT have to approve. Bring on the threatened lawsuit. If you had actually participated in this you would know the answers you ask. Catch up, Barry.

Facts vs. Lie
Guest

@Barry – There’s that builders math again. Connolly is at 48 units per acre. They actual are ABOVE the staffs previous recommendation at 45 and the 2006 plan at 46.

FUD
Guest
Huuuuuuuuh? Are you really telling me that with all of your infinite wisdom you haven’t even read the staff reports? That is irresponsible. The previous 45 unit mark was for 3.43 acres. The new staff report is based on 3.73 acres. The extra acreage gives the developer the extra 2.78 units per acre. Please do your homework. You’re looking kind of stupid. Good lord. And you even got the 2006 numbers wrong! The 2006 plan for approved on 3.19 acres at a density of 48.6 units per acre. The 2006 plan called for 155 units. The new plan calls for… Read more »
Dave H.
Guest

FUD, What’s irresponsible is you only reading a part of what is available to you and relying on one source of information. Also, the previous marker was 45 or 155 units on 3.43 but the developer refused that number and continued to pursue 57 per acre. Now he wants 48 or 179 units and to him it is 45 per his math. The 2006 plan was and still is 46.
Your so hostile trying to be right when your not.

Barry Miller, Sr.
Guest

Wow. Your ignorance is unbelievable. They should give away reading glasses and calculators at city hall. Stop relying on what people tell you and find the truth for yourself by examining the record. You are wrong here. But Congratulations.

Facts vs. Lie
Guest

@FUD and Barry – Catch up boys. Your numbers are wrong. You did finally get the current density right even though the builder keeps quoting 45.
My numbers are correct as stated. Keep digging, maybe you’ll find your errors. Back at cha, Barry.

Barry Miller, Sr.
Guest
Goodness. Just read the staff reports. You are wrong. Here is the proof. August 3 Planning Commission Agenda Applicant: SSP Dresden, LLC Property Location: 1336, 1342, 1350, 1358, 1364, and 1370 Dresden Drive 2544, 2552, and 2562 Caldwell Road District/Land Lot: 18th District, Land Lot 238 Acreage: 3.44 acres Existing Zoning District: O-I (Office – Institution District) Conditional and PC-2 (Pedestrian Community District) Conditional Proposed Zoning District: PC-2 (Pedestrian Community District) Character Area Map Designation: Peachtree Corridor Overlay District Owners: 886 WP, LLC; Dresden Operating, LLC; DeKalb County; James M. McKenna; Woodley Daniel Christopher IRA and Equity Trust Company for… Read more »
Facts vs. Lie
Guest

Thanks again, that’s what I said.
Previous staff recommendation of 45.
Currently at 48 though builder quotes 45.
Read the builder letter to mayor and council and see the legal documents for the 2006 plan. It’s 3.35 acres not 3.19
Get a grip Mr. Know-It-All

FUD
Guest

Facts vs Lie is living in a fantasy of their own version of the truth. I know its cold outside. Open a window. Your kerosene heater is doing a number on your brain.

Just Curious
Guest

An observation; Couldn’t the developer just configure more 2 bedroom units in lieu of 1 bedroom units and bring down the number of total units and half the density calculation? The number of cars would stay the same, the school system would get more children, but you can get closer to your density number (30 units/acre) without the developer giving anything up.

bldvl89
Guest

They should do it! I lived in 30 story Buckhead condo before moving to B’haven – the Grandview – 8 units/floor, 4 one bed and 4 two beds/floor. Eight peeps lived on my floor, nine when I moved out (one owner got married).

30 one bedrooms guarantee 30 peeps. 15 two bedrooms guarantee 15 peeps, maybe 20-25 (but not 30) and prorated over 179 units, impose that much less per capita strain on exisiting infrastructure.

bldvl89
Guest

Seriously – take 100 one bedroom apts and turn it into 50 two beds and you will reduce both density and bldg size required.

bldvl89
Guest

50 two bed apts require 50 kitchens, 50 living rooms, 50 utility closets/hot waters, 50 balconies. 100 one bed apts require 100 kitchens, 100 living rooms, 100 utility closets, 100 balconies. Dont need nearly as big and tall a building to do 50 two bedrooms. Not even close.

Of course, that kind of basic common sense goes out the window when the City really wants something.

Citizen
Guest
Just Curious; That goes back to earlier conversations and asks that I have made to the developer concerning the small size of the apartments and the transient nature that comes with that. There is no market for a 650 sf apartment as a condo conversion in this area. I asked them to consider larger size apartments that would be far more compatible for marketability and increase the possibility in the future of conversion, provide more square footage for workforce housing and empty nesters, support stability within the neighborhoods, and fill a pricing gap that we need for ownership affordability. I… Read more »
Bob Sorrentino
Guest
Just Curious – Yes he could but the structure would be twice the size and probably not fit on the lot, and certainly not with the townhomes, or be at a reasonable height. You kind of hit at a key issue that some in the city are not grasping. That density is a derivative of many variables. How big the box is, how much open space is required that restricts the size of the box. How high do we want that box get. And how big are the units going inside the box. It is not some made up meaningless… Read more »
Just Curious
Guest

This is a long chain. So the arguments presented to the city staff and to the planning commission didn’t convince them to support your position. Are you going to use the same arguments in front of the city council? Or are there other positions that might be more persuasive. I’m assuming there is no longer a dialogue with the developer. Is that accurate?

Last stand
Guest

You know what Just Curious – Go to hell – I’m tired of this BS – stop the damn games – you are just fishing to again one up all the hard work and time that citizens have put into this. You had your opportunity to support us and do the right thing but have chosen to strategize and manipulate against us. You could give a crap what we want or have already presented. Stop the political nonsense.. Rebellion is now the future.

FUD
Guest
Ooooooo! Looks like you hit a nerve Just Curious. Ol Custer here is having a temper tantrum. And is looking for support? The support is only as far as the successful completion of the requirements of the application just like everyone else. Suppose ole angry one if you wanted to cut down a tree. You file for a permit, you complete the requirements and the process is solved. Same thing here. Connolly applied, they went way beyond and worked with the cornmunity and now they are getting their approvals. Good for them. They followed the rules. Have a nice glass… Read more »
Papa
Guest

Simple minded FUD. Go crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under. No one cares what you say or think.

FUD
Guest

Ha Haaaaaaaaaaack. You seem to care! LYLAS!

Saul
Guest
Bob, D1 will be insulated from any extreme developments as we are mostly built out as residential. For any developments that do not agree with us, we are well organized and can rebuff what we dont agree with and our city will agree with us. Plus we have a secret weapon. The D1 Angel. He will protect us. D4 is completely different. We in D1 look to that fiasco of a city district as our economic generator. We look at Joe Gebbia as D1’s second city councilman and we have put him in charge of redeveloping our “economic generator”. Go… Read more »
Get Smart
Guest

Don’t you hate it when Saul is right. The D1 Angel actually said , “You’ve got to get organized. The AP/JF intersection is a Maginot Line. No development gets north of there.” Not sure how Ashton Woods got approved, but they probably aren’t going to get a sewer capacity letter after all the rumbling CB has done on NextDoor.

Facts vs. Lie
Guest

Initial request was for 206 units @ 60 units per acre.
Amended to 194 units @ 57 units per acre.
Now 179 units @ 48 units per acre.
206 – 179 = 27 total unit reduction over 3.73 acres. (use 3.43 if you want)
How can you state that the density is down 15 units PER ACRE when the total reduction in units on the entire tract is only 27 units?

Chad
Guest
Bob Sorremtino has done as much or more than any of the many volunteers opposed to ‘very high density projects’ along Dresden. His arguments are so powerful as to have the planning commission debate over the meaning ‘contiguous’. Now I am delivering sewer test failures on NextDoor and personal emails illuminating the ghastly results of the minimalist and late sewer mapping and testing required in a 2010 consent decree. Everyone sees it. All, ALL, of the refined sewer will drain right into what is currently a bag of crap posing as a sewer system. Let’s hope a debate is not… Read more »
John
Guest

Just Curious – The definition of contiguous is clear and Mr. Sorrentino is correct. Jack Honderd agrees and has confirmed this. No modification is needed, UNLESS one is trying harder to make the case for the developer and not the citizens. Enforcement is what is needed. The mayor has supported this development since day one. He doesn’t listen and just wants this done. Clarifying the definition after the fact is a confirmation that the code is clear now, just not as he wants us to read it.

Remy
Guest

Does the plan the developer has put in front of the city conform to all of the requirements of their application? The answer is yes. So that means by your logic the mayor and council should NOT follow the process and deny it just because you say so?

John
Guest

It doesn’t matter if it conforms to the requirements of their application, it needs to conform to the requirements of the existing code. It does NOT. Mayor and council should vote no.

Just Curious
Guest

@John, you say it’s clear, but it can’t be clear if the professional and legal staff interpret it differently. It may be clear to you and Mr Sorrentino but if others see it differently than the clarity is questionable. I’m not arguing for or against the conclusions that are being reached just the lack of clarity in the code.

Remy Martin
Guest

So you don’t know the meaning of contiguous either? I hope you don’t hold elected office. We really would be in trouble if you do.

D24U
Guest

It isn’t that hard boys:

Definition 1: Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Contiguous: adj. connected or “next to”, usually meaning adjoining pieces of real estate.

Definition 2: Black’s Law Dictionary

What is CONTIGUOUS?
In close proximity; in actual close contact Touching; bounded or traversed by

Definition 3: con·tig·u·ous kənˈtiɡyo͞oəs/ adjective
sharing a common border; touching. “the 48 contiguous states”

synonyms: adjacent, neighboring, adjoining, bordering, next-door; More
next or together in sequence.
“five hundred contiguous dictionary entries”

Sandy
Guest

You got the dishonesty part right but it wasn’t from the citizens. Your embarrassment is misplaced. Nice try at picking and choosing what you have been told or heard instead of being involved and participating.

On the Record #2
Guest

There is no Barry Miller, Sr. listed anywhere that lives within Brookhaven. Connolly didn’t have to have 60? meetings but choose to trying to get a different outcome from what he was repeatedly told over and over.

Barry Miller, Sr.
Guest

Obfuscating the facts. Can’t any of you people tell the truth! Stop trying to be smart. You’re not good at it! You guys should celebrate your victory! You got the density down almost 15 units per acre! What a great victory. Take a chill pill Einstein!

Einstein
Guest

Barry,Barry, Barry, that’s what scares you the most. We ARE smart and we see right through the nonsense.

Remy Martin
Guest

The moniker Barry Diller, Sr is using is the delusions of grandeur of the poster. Barry Diller, sr is a widely respected national developer, not a local blogger deadest on obfuscation, foolish and transparent shill pieces and hidebound defiance of our politically created code. The word contiguous isn’t up for debate in normal circles.

fyi
Guest

“The word contiguous isn’t up for debate in normal circles.”

But it is with the city of Brookhaven government and their commissions.

Thank the folks who brought you this additional layer of government. Was DeKalb actually that much worse? You did save some driving time going to the meetings where your concerns were ignored. Local control.

Susan
Guest

Welcome to J. Max’s Brookhaven.

Ellen
Guest

You people are insufferable. Move on!

bldvl89
Guest
The promise of “self determination” is such the crock of sh*t that I thought it was at the time cityhood was foisted on me. City hasnt listened or worked with residents directly affected by all this; theyve worked at cross-purposes to those residents, and just given lip service to their very valid concerns, going out of their way to distort the sh*t out of the plain meaning of words and phrases in their own damn rules to suit the interests of a few who do not stand to suffer from any of the consequences of this rezoning. Many of us… Read more »
He speaks the truth!
Guest

Well said

Eddie E.
Guest

Au contraire, the city has ‘worked’.
Those who bought and paid for it have used the leftover errors from the County to back the City Government into a costly corner.
Who cares about those of us who want nothing more than to occupy and improve our own property?

wpDiscuz