Music Festival Updates

Yes, I actually do "work", despite a bunch of posts that seem contrary.

Some major movement on the Music Festival site.

First, the Chili Cook-Off is "on hiatus", meaning "not happening in 2011".  Don't shoot the messenger I just post what they tell me.

However the Battle of the Bands is back!  I just wrote up an online registration form last night and an update on the main page.  Registration fee is $30.  Perform to win an opening act gig at the Georgia Theater in Athens.  Moms and Dads if the teens have a band that has taken over the garage and is driving you out of your tree with the jam sessions, get them focused on something serious!

Here's the Battle info page

Here's the registration page.  You can upload an MP3 as an audition clip but your life and the lives of the festival staff will be easier if you link to a website with your music on it.

The new Young Adult Zone will be rounded out with a "Break Down" contest.  I'll post the 411 as soon as I get it.

Finally the Food Vendor application has been reopened.  This is your last chance to sell food at the Festival.  Sign up ASAP because once I get the Word From On High, it gets closed again.

Check out the Volunteer app and the Submit your pictures forms.  I'm working on the photo gallery as we speak (type?)  Festivals function with volunteers and it's the only way to get a true inside look.

Best place for questions is Oktober Productions at inquiries@dunwoodymusicfestival.com.

No time off for me.  I'm back to the gold mines all the way through Monday.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

How to Rebuild Dunwoody Zoning

Zoning.  One of the key (if not THE key) rallying point that led to our City's existence.

The first time we threw our codes together, it was a patchwork of ordinances copied and pasted from a number of sources, especially DeKalb county.  Ironic as hell when you think about it but we had to start somewhere.

This is an ideal time to review our ordinances from the top all the way to the bottom.  It's relatively early in our City's life, so we don't have to undo a ton of precedent.  At the same time we have some experience with the kind of life people want to live in their homes. 

There's an inherent flaw in the entire zoning process as it stands:  ordinances are based on a listing of individual activities and their limits, in the quest to protect neighbors from pissing each other off.  This is a flaw for several reasons:

• it is a reactive process, rather than proactive.  Ordinances have to be created bit by bit as a new fashion or trend becomes popular and people want to integrate it into their lives.  We all know how well that went the first time the City tried to process a major ordinance change. 
• it is a process that allows individuals or groups to demand that their interests, hobbies, or lifestyles be codified.  Everyone wants to enjoy what interests them but the scrutiny and criticism dip to a whole new depth when City Hall gets involved.  That isn't necessary.  It's also not a productive use of City Hall's time.
• the process is polarizing.  Otherwise rational adults turn into bickering, backstabbing "dead end kids" when an extended conversation would probably reveal quite a bit of common ground.  Even worse, a "litmus test" arises for future elected officials.  Just this past week, when candidates qualified for this November's elections, the first question asked on the local blogs regarding candidates is, "What do they think about chickens?"  A discussion about a special interest is now being promoted as the deciding factor in who is worthy of holding office.  If that standard becomes dominant we're in for a lot of unhappy residents and ugly elections for a very long time. 
• it creates double standards, multiple loopholes, and conflicting regulations.  The same behaviour or activity may be allowed or not depending up on the alleged intent of the homeowner.  A lawsuit is only a matter of time.

To stop this and similar snowballs from picking up steam and making Dunwoody miserable, it's time to rethink how ordinances are drawn.  Rather than organize ordinances according to a list of specific actions, base ordinances on general boundaries according to their zoning designations.  Set one uniform standard for all activity, regardless of whether it's business, or personal.  Everyone has to meet the standard, for any activity.  Then all homeowners in a specific residential area could do as they please with their property without having to split hairs between residential, commercial, or agricultural purposes.

First, you have to review the ordinances that are currently written and have a serious think about why some behaviours or activities are limited or prohibited.  You have to decide exactly what is a "nuisance", one of the most common words in an ordinance.  What activity is tolerable, what is intolerable and why.  What is an inherent right in the use of one's property, and what will inherently infringe on others' rights.  When you're able to set this definition, application becomes fairer.

For example, some of the concerns about my special interest (home business with customer visits) include increased traffic and the risk that homes may be converted to commercial enterprises, thus, interfering with the enjoyment of a residential community.  In my solution above, the ordinance would not ban businesses per se, but would set limits on the number of cars parked at a residence on a daily basis, or the amount of land that can be paved over, or whether or not the residence could be rezoned in any way.

In another (in)famous example, rather than categorizing domesticated animals as either pets or livestock, set basic parameters on the maximum number and maximum size of animals allowed at a residence, based on the size of the lot.  (Homes zoned R50 will have more stringent limits than those zoned R85, and so on.)  Then everyone in a basic zoning designation can choose whatever animals they keep, so long as they are within the size and number limits.

This process is not going to be easy or simple or without conflict.  However if done well, now, while the City is still in its adolesence, there will be long-term advantages. 

• A more consistent application that Code Enforcement can apply evently
• Resistance to legal challenges that would be possible due to multiple standards
• Consistent application over time as interpretations of what consititutes a "residential neighborhood activity" evolves and fads or styles ebb and flow.  This is the real strength - there will be less of a need to go to the expense of rewriting codes every couple of years as popular activities change. 
• Finally, people can keep their opinions about what is a good idea to use their home for, and what isn't.  As long as the codes are written and enforced so that rights don't start infringing on each other, there will be a lot less to worry about.

How's this for a start?  Given enough time and effort, is it doable?

The Home Occupation Glacier Shifts

Per public notice in the Crier and the City website:

THE CITY OF DUNWOODY, GEORGIA NOTICE OF MEETING FOR THE PUBLIC


A public meeting will be held before the Dunwoody Community Council on Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at Dunwoody City Hall, 41 Perimeter Center East, Dunwoody, Georgia 30346, for the purpose of due process of the following:

Amendments to the text of Chapter 27, Sections 27-183, 27-185, and 27-1321 regarding home occupations in the R-100 (Single-Family Residential) District and “Supplemental Regulations.”

For further information please call the Community Development Department at (678) 382-6800.

Agenda isn't posted by the City yet.  However the sections involved are currently worded as the following:

Sec. 27-183. - Principal uses and structures.

The following principal uses of land and structures shall be authorized in the R-100 (Single-Family Residential) District:
(1) Detached single-family dwelling.
(2) Personal care home, family.
(3) Personal care home, registered.
(4) Stable.

Sec. 27-185. - Special permits.The following uses and structures shall be authorized only by permits of the type indicated:
(1)  Special administrative permit from city manager or his designee: Home occupation involving no customer contact and no employee other than a person residing on the premises.
(2)  Special exception permit from the zoning board of appeals: Utility structure necessary for the transmission or distribution of service.
(3)  Special land use permit from city council:
a.  Adult day care facility.
b.  Amateur radio service antenna exceeding 70 feet.
c.  Cemetery, columbarium, or mausoleum.
d.  Child day care facility.
e.  Convent or monastery.
f.  Home occupation involving any customer contact.
g. Home stay bed and breakfast residence.
h. Neighborhood recreation club.
i.  Place of worship.
j.  Private elementary, middle and high school.
k. Congregate personal care home if located on a campus of no less than 25 acres.
Sec. 27-1321. - Home occupations and private educational uses.

The following provisions shall apply to home occupations. Private educational uses shall only be required to comply with subsections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (8) of this section:
(1)  There shall be no exterior evidence of the home occupation.
(2)  No use shall create noise, dust, vibration, odor, smoke, glare or electrical interference that would be detectable beyond the dwelling unit.

(3)  The use shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit, and only persons living in the dwelling unit shall be employed at the location of the home occupation.
(4)  No more than 25 percent of the dwelling unit and in no case more than 500 square feet, whichever is less, may be used for the conduct of the home occupation.
(5)  No use shall involve public contact on the property and no article, product or service shall be sold on the premises other than by telephone.
(6)  No materials or equipment shall be stored on the premises upon which the home occupation is located, except where such materials and equipment are stored entirely within the residence.
(7)  No vehicle other than a passenger automobile, passenger van, or passenger truck shall be used in the conduct of a home occupation, and no other vehicle shall be parked or stored on such premises.
(8)  No home occupation shall be operated so as to create or cause a nuisance.

(9)  Home occupation shall not include the use of a dwelling unit for the purpose of operating any automobile repair establishment, taxi service, van service, limousine service, wrecker service, car wash, or ammunition or firearms sales establishment.
I can think of a number of changes that could be made to the above ordinances to make business easier and less expensive while still protecting the residential nature of the neighborhood and respecting the rights of residents who do not conduct business from home.

I can also think of verbage that should be clarified.  For example in (8) above - define "nuisance".  I can think of residential activities that create a greater nuisance than a home-based business.  I'd like to see the City (at whatever level - commission, council, manager, etc) set a single standard on what should be a tolerable level of activity, and what is an over-the-line "nuisance" for all activity in a traditionally residential community, regardless of purpose and then write your codes accordingly to encompass home-based employees.

Finally - why just R100?  Why not include R75 and R50 zoned areas?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

I'm going to try to make this meeting.  Anyone else have any input or info on this discussion coming up?