February 24, 2017

Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "Brookhaven Planning Commission recommends Overlay density reduction amendment be approved"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Tom Reilly

That Special Land Use Permit sounds like such a glaring exception to the density rule. If you have too many or too great exceptions to a policy, you have no policy.

Eddie E.

The secret funders of C4ND had a ‘deal’ and they want to collect!
How dare we get in the way?

Riley OConnor
Last night’s meeting was interesting on several levels. Early on, City Attorney Chris Balch was asked to report on the status of the various zoning-related lawsuits that are wending their way through the courts. The Hastings property and Terwiliger-Pappas come to mind, but there are several others, too. Only in one case are the City’s costs being covered by insurance with the other legal fees being paid for by the City of Brookhaven’s taxpayers. So, if we want tight zoning, we’re going to be paying for it. Which suits me fine. For me, all I want is fairness, transparency and… Read more »
Riley – as one of those who got up and left in total disgust as last night’s hearing, my issue with the density reduction is that the City closed the barn door after the horse already got out, and left the residents holding all the horsesh*t. Connolly basically took advantage of what will be about a 12 month hole in the City zoning ordinance. Until the Jan. 12, 2016 amendment to the zoning code, “very high residential density” was defined as anything over 30 units/acre. When the zoning ordinance amendment passed, Mr. Song eliminated this definition from the code. Within… Read more »
Riley OConnor
Yes, it is an inappropriate loophole, and there is no explanation as to why it was placed there. Further, it always seems that we are way behind the zoning curve, always trying to play catch-up while the lawyers continue to ferret out other weaknesses. The early days of the City have been a giant gimme to developers of all sorts, but that has changed. The true battle now is taking place in the courts over the City’s refusal to go along with every developer’s dreams. If anything “timeless” will be built (or has been built up to this point), it… Read more »
Thomas Porter

Does this soothe the Planning Commission’s conscience? It’s VERY late in the game and and not a valid excuse for their recommended approval of Connolly, which, was betrayal from my singular view.
It’s on you now City Council… two of you face reelection this year, another probably won’t be around. That potentially leaves only one council representative and the Mayor to bear continued public scorn if Connolly is passed, and, the disruption will last a long time as a public reminder.