Planning and Zoning Issues

Developer Guidelines

Our Zoning and Land Use Committee created a document outlining guidelines that NDHRA expects developers to follow in this area. These guidelines supplement, but do not replace, County regulations. A Committee task force, led by Margi Drysdale, plus Debbie Harrison and Karen Siegel, wrote the Guidelines. The result was unanimously adopted by the NDHRA Board. Distribution has been made to developers, lawyers and County officials.

The Guidelines were revised on 7/17/01 and published as Version 1.1. Those revisions were a result of feedback and review by the task force. Kerrie Gilbert was added for the revision. Further comments and suggestions should be submitted to the Chair of the Land Use and Zoning Committee.

Click here to view Developer Guidelines. Hard copies can be obtained at nominal cost.

County Moratoria and Regulations

The County uses moratoria for getting a time-out to study what to do about perceived and selected development problems. A moratorium was adopted recently to halt developer exploitation of the County’s Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning district. A total reevaluation is underway using consultant services.

Serious debate has erupted between citizen groups and the County Administration over citizen input and the role of the County Planning Commission. The County Administration is determined to limit citizen participation. The CEO has made derogatory remarks about citizens groups. The County Board of Commissioners is ineffectual, caving in to the CEO and his staff.

Planning And Zoning Commentary

The highest obligation of our County government is the maintenance of a sustainable living environment. Both natural and man-made environments must be protected. Too much attention is given to the economics of private land development at the expense of protecting the wonderful natural environment we have inherited and are responsible for — which makes our man-made environment livable.

We lack a vision of what we want our County to be, how we want to live. The various regulations and public investment programs are not coordinated or used to foster community goals, but are a result of influence peddling by special interests. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan simply reinforces existing land use and the zoning districts. The Capital Budget is a political football.

The County wants green space, parks and protected natural drainage systems, but is more interested in the politics of buying large tracts of land with bond issue money than it is in requiring dedication of such spaces in private land developments. County policy avoids park and open spaces less than 10 acres. It is afraid of maintenance and liability issues. That leaves park and open “breathing spaces” in neighborhoods to the good intentions of developers and gives residents problems of access, maintenance, and propecting perpetuity of dedication.

The County’s topography, geology, tree cover, natural drainage system, etc. are assets, not problems to be ignored or overcome in the name of short term profit. But to stand up to the ravages of developers and builders, these natural features need identification, protection and avoidance. The County’s Comprehensive Plan and its philosophy of government ignores the creation of a living environment compatible with the natural environment.

Development codes include the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Code (which includes the Subdivision Regulations and the Tree Protection Ordinance), and various building construction codes (residential and commercial building codes, the electrical code, the plumbing code, the mechanical code, the fire safety code, etc,) These codes set minimum standards for property development: from permitted use, to site development, to building construction and occupancy. The County’s Comprehensive Plan should provide a vision for the future of the County and guide Zoning by way of a Land Use element, but what we have is the reverse.

Zoning is becoming more and more difficult to use as intended — to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Land and property values have increased so much that the money involved overwhelms other considerations. DeKalb County has never committed to comprehensive planning, choosing instead to subsidize development. The only source for zoning restraint has become organized neighborhood opposition. Traditionally that has gotten little respect and requires extraordinary citizen effort.

The Land Development Ordinance, including Subdivision Regulations, controls the way land is subdivided and prepared for development. This is extremely important because it permanently sets the pattern and character of new development and compatibility with established neighborhoods. New Subdivision Regulations have been adopted. However, serious public policy disagreements were uncovered during review conferences between staff and citizen advisory groups The Administration believes subdivision plat processing to be a purely administrative act, based on literal application of the Subdivision Regulations. Citizens working on the Regulations insisted on public notice and public hearings. The role of the County Planning Commission was also debated. The power of the CEO was increased. The resulting law as adopted was the Administration’s. It is only marginally better than the previous law.

Our County needs sound and defensible reasons for preventing the land and environmental brutalization that is now going on in the name of "development". The present County government acknowledges the problem of combining progressive regulations with skilled enforcement, but there is disagreement between the Administration, the Commissioners, citizens groups, and homebuilders over details.

A Conservation Subdivision amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has been adopted. On the surface, it sounds good. But it is seriously flawed. It is touted as a way to get more greenways and open space in the County, mainly through dedication or reservation of such land during the subdivision process. This is a cover to avoid strong open space requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. The problem is that it is voluntary by developers and as an inducement they can get reductions in lot sizes, widths, setbacks, etc., beyond minimum zoning standards. They would not get additional lots, but could save on infrastructure costs per lot.

Storm water detention ponds moderate the erosion impact of accelerated surges of runoff after a storm. Issues are size, location, ownership responsibility, maintenance and access. The County does not want these to be public ownership, maintenance and liability. This has become a serious issue in new subdivisions in the face of State and Federal mandates regarding water quality. The County adopted a storm water runoff fee for system wide drainage management to be added to the 2003 tax bills but delayed implementation until 2004.The individual projects reviewed in these Land Use and Zoning pages demonstrate how important it is to improve the County's development codes and enforcement procedures and to communicate with our elected representatives, including the CEO.

The County is now evaluating zoning ordinance revisions to provide special zoning districts around mass transit stations to increase density and have a mixture of uses in order to encourage less travel and reduced use of automobiles. It is also considering a major revision of the Traditional Neighborhood Zoning Districts in order to encourage mixed-use development in other areas for the same reasons. These two district concepts should be simplified and combined into a single district allowing innovative development unique to a specific situation.

Additional studies are underway via consultant contracts or special task forces regarding development impact fees and moderating the impact on mature neighborhoods of tearing down and rebuilding huge incompatible replacement houses.