Zoning: More Truth, More Consequences

Back to the zoning vote analysis.

In the previous post, we saw that the council members who shot down the original version of Chapter 27 that they were voting on actually benefit from home based businesses themselves.

The irony continues.

During the same September 17 meeting, Heneghan and Deutsch were getting agitated that the new code proposed a limit on pets in a residence.  In an ideal world, such a limit would not be necessary.  But remember:  the theory behind this rewrite is, what limit defines the boundary between activity that does not affect a neighboring residence, and one that does?  Hence, limits were created that, in general life-experience in Dunwoody represented that limit.  This was applied to every situation and in some there was a lot of give-and-take and compromise on where the line was drawn so that as many sides as possible got some advantage out of it.

In principle, I had hoped that the zoning code would simply define what a nuisance is, then adapt it to any activity that may come up in the future.  The consultants weren't going in that direction, though, and there wasn't anything I could do about it.  So I went with what we had.

Heneghan and Deutsch were the  mouthpieces from this point on in the above meeting.  Bonser didn't jump in much.  Shortal called for greater restrictions in the form of smaller numbers.  Heneghan and Deutsch were upset that there was ANY limit on ANY animals whatsoever.  This in spite of the fact that earlier this year, there was a well-publicized incident of animal hoarding in John's district where a child had to be removed from the home for their safety.  So clearly, there was precedent for this element of the code - no hyperbole or other fictitious or hypothetical scenarios required.

These two demanded that all limits on all animals be removed.  Deutsch is quoted in the Dunwoody Reporter as saying:

“I think we need to take this number out of here,” she said. “I don’t think we need to tell people they can have 10 dogs. I think we need to regulate the nuisances.”

Boner, Heneghan and Deutsch were also very supportive of using back yards as barnyards, so their sympathy for animal owners is even broader.  

What does this have to do with home businesses and their approval (or lack thereof)?

It shows that Heneghan and Deutsch applied a different standard to their evaluation of home occupations than they did to other residential activities that have the potential to be a neighborhood nuisance.  

In their minds, activities inside a home (or even inside a yard) should not be "over regulated" with rules or limits or numbers, because it's unenforceable and intrusive and only reported nuisances should be addressed individually.  The standard is the opposite for home business owners:  in spite of the low number of complaints against home businesses, these homeowners are considered "guilty until proven innocent".  They have to prove a negative by proving they are *not* a nuisance in order to be permitted by the city.  (Again, excepting home tutors and teachers, as it shook out in the final review.)  They upheld this stance even after their own research showed that most municipalities in Metro Atlanta do not require or need SLUPs for their home business owners to see customers.  A cursory glance at the city's research and the proposed zoning code shows that Dunwoody's proposed permitting ordinance was modeled after Marietta.

Let's review:

The same people who want up to 46,000 people to have an opinion on what matter of conversation occurs in a single house on a single street, even if they are not affected, also want homeowners to be permitted by right to turn their backyards into kennels or barnyards without submitting a single piece of paper or notifying a single adjacent neighbor.

This means that the standards were based not on factual research, but personal taste and politics.

Here's some food for thought as the new zoning codes are implemented:

If the zoning codes were edited based on individual convenience and preference, how many other decisions by these council members were made the same way?

Were any of their decisions since getting into office based on a balanced, objective review of factual data?

Suppose someone decides they want to try to pursue the SLUP process.  What guarantee do they have that their applications will be reviewed on their merits and not the personal taste of the council members?

Time will tell.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because I want to end on a positive note:  there has been progress on this front.

Teachers and students rejoice! You are no longer shackled by an unfair approval process and you are free to welcome your students and your families as you see fit. Please be good stewards to your neighborhood and a good example to the community of how home businesses can be an asset to the community when managed by good neighbors.

Zoning: Truth and Consequences

What did we learn from the Zoning rewrite?

First, some basics:

1)  The zoning code consultants, who actually did the writing, plus the sounding board and the Community Development staff approached all of the questions and edits with the same standard.  What is occurring in the community?  What does it take to engage in diverse activities without neighbors stepping on each other toes?  In short, we realized that good fences make good neighbors and we built a lot of fences.

2)  Leading up to the final vote, there was a lot of sabre-rattling about home occupations, backyard farming, bicycles, etc as "hot button" issues.  None of these are really "hot buttons" in the big picture.  They only become "hot buttons" when someone is trying to drum up opposition to them.  These topics did not come up even once during any candidate forum, or letters to any newspaper.  The only time these niche issues become important is when taken in the larger context of deciding what is "Dunwoody's residential nature".  Residential living means different things to different people, even within a single neighborhood.  So during this election, promises by anyone to "preserve Dunwoody's character" ring hollow and insincere.  There is no one "residential character".  All of the alleged "hot button" issues listed above are already alive and well in our city and are already accepted to one degree or another by the populace.

3)  The glimmer of good news is that home teachers and tutors will no longer have to endure an excessive process that invites 46,000 people to weigh in on the subject of conversation in a home between the homeowner and their visitors.  Despite the painstaking detailed research performed by the consultants and sounding board, the modernized process for licensing and tracking home business activity was gutted by City Council, even after unanimous approval by the homeowner-staffed Community Council and Planning Commission.  So while there is still some discrimination against some home businesses based on their type of enterprise, home tutors will be exempt and our city's government can avoid another embarrassing debacle that brought this debate to the forefront.

Teachers and students rejoice!  You are no longer shackled by an unfair approval process and you are free to welcome your students and your families as you see fit.  Please be good stewards to your neighborhood and a good example to the community of how home businesses can be an asset to the community when managed by good neighbors.

Unfortunately, this resolution and how it came about brings out more questions than answers about some of our council members, their decision making, their priorities, and even their integrity.

The section of Chapter 27 regulating home businesses that some council members objected to had been passed unanimously by both Community Council and Planning Commission without a single edit.  From the original writing process all the way through the first two levels of voting, there had been no objections.  By the time City Council had its turn to vote:  there were four naysayers out to gut this section:  Denny Shortal, Adrian Bonser, John Heneghan, and Lynn Deutsch.  A look at the makeup of these four council members' districts and past activities make their objections counter-intuitive.

1)  Denny Shortal:  while he is on record as opposing any activity that he does not endorse for his front yard, Denny has several dozen licensed home based businesses in District 1, many of whom see employees, customers, or both on a regular basis.  He did not cite any of these as reasons for eliminating this chapter.  Either Denny is oblivious to this activity in his district (making it by definition, a non-nuisance), he believes these citizens should be merely ignored, or he is very aware of them and doesn't care.

2)  Adrian Bonser has spoken out against any changes in the process to legally permit customers in a home.  However she has been a customer in *my* home on several occasions, and at no time did she ever voice a concern that I had not submitted to a SLUP process.  She is not seeking re-election, so that's enough said.

3)  John Heneghan opposes any changes to home business regulations only when sitting in a city council chair.  His blog is a different story.  In March of this year, he openly promoted a garage sale hosted by the owner of Emily G's that included discontinued stock.  (The products were converted to "personal property" via some legal slicing and dicing.)

Not one word about SLUPs, "commercial activity", or "preserving neighborhood character" anywhere in this blog post.   Other home business owners in District 3 think John considers them a friend, and thus have not sought a SLUP for their customer contact either.

4)  Lynn Deutsch only recently started openly opposing any changes to home business regulations.  Which is ironic since she actually attended the garage sale that John promoted.  Again, Lynn was not concerned about whether the neighbors were notified that a business with a lot of administration going on in the home had its application straight, nor was she concerned whether the neighbors approved of the business or the special-occasion garage sale.  She was  concerned that no one take her picture.

In addition, during the special called meeting of September 17 where council discussed and debated  this and other aspects of the proposed Zoning code, Lynn requested that farmers' markets be approved in the zoning code for churches, etc.  (Listen for it at the 1:55:14 mark) Most houses of worship in Dunwoody are in residentially-zoned areas.  That means Councilwoman Deutsch, right after condemning commercial activity in a residential neighborhood for home based occupations based on the "inherent nuisance" theory, turned right around and endorsed commercial activity in a residential neighborhood in the same meeting.  At least John let a few weeks go by before contradicting himself.

This means that of the four council members looking to eliminate this chapter as written, three of them personally endorse and patronize home based businesses that make use of employees and customer contact without any additional regulations - when it meets their needs or is otherwise convenient for them.

But wait - there's more.....

(Part two in progress.)

Pleasantville*

Have a pleasant weekend, everyone.