To the editor:
Regarding the article “City’s zoning regulations getting an
overhaul,” published in the May 4-May 17 Dunwoody Reporter:
The citizens of Dunwoody should consider analyzing the zoning
code rewrite process through the lens of the impact of the code on real property
rights. Within the referenced article are important concepts, but no detail on
what these concepts, if implemented, mean to property owners.
For example, the article implies that the issue of stream
buffers was raised in the citizen meeting, but we are not told what was said
about the buffers.
Yesterday, while walking in Dunwoody, I noticed a sign for a
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Floodplain Map meeting. I wondered what
has changed in our city that requires we re-evaluate floodplains and focus on
streams? I went to www.zoningdunwoody.com and reviewed the Dunwoody
Comprehensive Plan to see if it provided any insight to my question.
This is what the comprehensive plan says on this topic based on
a quick read of the plan:
On Page 49 in the “Natural and Cultural Resources” section, the
“issue” of “severely degraded streams throughout Dunwoody” is listed. The
“opportunities” section includes utilization of stream buffers “for bike and
pedestrian trail connectivity.” Not fully understanding the connection between
“severely degraded streams” and bike/walking trails, I kept reading.
On Page 50 under “Community Facilities and Service” the
opportunities include the following: “The city is crossed east-west by a major
power easement, contains a DeKalb water transmission easement from the
reservoir northeasterly to the city limits, and is crossed by the floodplains
of several streams that flow through and between numerous neighborhoods. All of
these areas are candidates for linear parks with trails or bike paths, subject
to separate agreements with each of the property owners.”
The “issues” section states that use of easements (such as the
power transmission lines) and floodplains as linear parks, trails or bikeways
must be negotiated individually with each property owner over whose land the
park or trail is or will be located, and “the use of streamways as linear parks
is somewhat limited by state restrictions on land disturbance within 25 feet of
the stream banks, and local floodplain regulations.”
What should one reasonably conclude about Dunwoody’s plan as it
relates to stream buffers and floodplains?
Is the proposed stream buffer ordinance about creating the means
to build walking paths on privately owned land or dealing with “degradation” of
streams? What environmental impact studies have been done to support the
statement that “severely degraded streams” exist in Dunwoody? Where are these
streams? How much additional buffer beyond the state-mandated 25 feet is
Dunwoody suggesting be added?
Why is protection of real property rights listed as an “issue”
which must be dealt with to achieve the objective? Shouldn’t such protection be
the primary objective? What impact does taking up buffer zones have on the
property owner’s rights and ability to use her real estate? How will the
property owner be compensated for loss of these rights? Will “no” be an option
for the impacted property owners in these negotiations?
The article quotes Councilman Terry Nall as saying the zoning
code rewrite is one of the most important things the city will do over the next
year.
I couldn’t agree more. I urge the citizens of Dunwoody to read
the plan, connect the dots of how the code will be used to implement the plan,
ask questions and require substantive answers. This process will shape our city
and impact the real property rights of all property owners in Dunwoody.
Becky Smith
Source: Dunwoody Reporter
No comments:
Post a Comment