Deskripsyon
Hello
I am a bit confused on a reported problem that is archived but I would like to readdress.
In the ticket, the concern of operating a business out of a residence is addressed. In the commentary, the excessive paving / concrete in the front and side yards is also a concern shared.
In another issue reported
https://seeclickfix.com/issues/1076647-code-compliance-issue
"Per the City's Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 27-766(b)(7) -
Parking shall not be permitted within the front yard in any single-family residential lot, except within a driveway, or in a roofed carport or enclosed garage. Within any single-family residential (R) district not more than thirty-five (35) percent of the total area between the street right-of-way line and the front of the principal building shall be paved, On any lot where adequate width exists so as meet the geometric design standards of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, a circular driveway shall be permitted, subject to the total driveway coverage authorized herein. However, no parking spaces or parking bays shall be established within any such front yard.
To answer the question presented by the concerned citizen - Parking within a front yard of a residential (single-family) property is not permitted on grass/lawns. Additionally, PAVING of the front yard is limited to a maximum of 35 percent. A front yard is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as the "area extending across the total width of a lot between side lot lines and being that area between the street right-of-way lines and that line or lines established by the front wall or walls of the principal structure projected to intersect the side lot lines." Simply put, the front yard is the area defined by the front property line, side lot lines, and the front facade/wall of the residential dwelling."
Is concrete not paving? Is this home not in more then 35% as defined above? Are these not parking spaces as noted?
I understand it looks nice besides massive concrete but what processes does the city have in place now to ensure this does not repeat without city approval if the 35% applies?
Thanks
42 Komentos
Dunwoody Public Works (Rehistradong User)
Guest (Panauhin)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
That is odd cause Brookhaven had another post about this specific house already and commented, followed up and closed. Can someone from Brookhaven or Dunwoody please confirm? The archived Brookhaven is included above.
Today there was 4 vans parked in the driveway that were also there overnight. Clearly it's a storage place for commercial vehicles. Just shocked that the city approved (if they did) to have an entire lot with 4 parking spots plus center spots, this isn't a round about.
Dunwoody Public Works Manager (Beripikadong Opisiyal)
Julie (Rehistradong User)
Alan (Rehistradong User)
Yankee (Rehistradong User)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
Indeed, 6 cars in the drive way today, 3 on each side, 2 being vans. It goes back to my initial question to Brookhaven, if this can't be corrected what is being put in place to ensure this does not repeat?
Thanks!
Brookhaven Department of Public Works (Rehistradong User)
Kinilala City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
Eric (Rehistradong User)
FORGET ABOUT BROOKHAVEN (Panauhin)
I am beginning to think this owner must be contributing money to the city since NOTHING is being done about it. Not even removing the Outdoor Makeover construction sign that’s been present for how many MONTHS. Is this owner attached to that company, and contributing funds to the city? This is absolutely ridiculous that they allowed a concrete jungle in Brookhaven. The city worries about business types that have been around forever but can’t solve issues that are coming up that as Mr. Meehan wrote, are in direct violation with the % of land that can be paved.
Why will the city not respond? How is this falling off any reply? Is it one of those that the city feels if nothing is said they can just close it later? This house already had a thread about running a business out of the house which the city closed after noting the city would talk to the owner.
Come on Brookhaven, you are a city, this isn’t Dekalb. Come up with a response, type the response, and reply. Does this need to be shared with our City Council People? More how the concern has gone with no response other then being blown off as a city member?
I think I will start gutting down trees of any size even with the new passing of the tree initiative because if the city can’t enforce this which they noted IS a violation, they sure better not try to force themselves on me!
“Brookhaven, proud to be a city that passes regulation, doesn’t enforce, and cannot resolve” - Our new city slogan!
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
Alan (Rehistradong User)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
Barbara (Panauhin)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
@Barbara - None of your items matter when the code clearly denotes what % a residential lot can have. This home is zoned residential, tax plot available online, percentage exceeds which was denoted in the previously opened item that was archived. My question is what is the city going to do going forward to prevent it.
Unsure how any tax money is wasted when nothing has been done but do think the city needs to answer the above question, how is tax money going to be spent (not wasted) to ensure does not repeat?
Lastly, Barbara a sign about who is doing the work on the home has been in excess of 8+ months which also part of the code. Shall I research the owner of the company denoted in the company doing the work and compare to tax record which may be the same.
You are right... some people do have no idea what they are talking about.
Alan (Rehistradong User)
Bubba (Panauhin)
Regardless of if Barbara is anti-Brookhaven or not, the issue remains:
- Brookhaven has taken on the responsibility of creating statutes intended to reflect the will and desire of the residents and then enforcing those statutes.
- It's questionable if the current statutes are proper and it's questionable if they are being properly enforced.
Although this forum is not about the statutes themselves, it is definitely about enforcement. Brookhaven has not done a very good job when it comes to enforcement. The enforcement is inconsistent and often comes too late - or is too lenient.
Brookhaven does not have sufficient resources to properly enforce compliance. Brookhaven also does not have sufficient training in place to provide consistent and proper compliance.
The city appears to have outsourced much of their services and these problems are likely related to this cost-cutting approach to service. Unfortunately our neighborhoods are impacted by these fiscal decisions and we are unlikely to see an improvement if Brookhaven does not get its act together.
Barbara (Panauhin)
Doug, a couple things:
Since you seem to know so much can you tell me what percentage of the property is covered with impervious surface and the percentage that is covered by driveway? Do you even know what that means and how this is calculated? If you can, can you then tell me the exact zoning that dictates how much of that property can be covered by said impervious surface and how much they are in violation by? This means you need to provide more than the 35% listed above. Also, please let me know, with 100% accuracy, if the city or county has issued any variances. If so, please provide the variance number.
Can you tell me if that residence has pulled a home based business permit and is allowed to park vehicles for that business in the driveway? Please provide the business license number issued by the city.
Can you tell me if and when a building permit was pulled for any of this work and if it was approved by the city? Also provide what this permit was for and if it is still open. Please provide building permit number and the specifics of the permit. Hint: there was one pulled
The home next door (to the left) according to satellite, has about the same amount of driveway, including concrete that runs down the side of the house as well as two entrances to Ashford Dunwoody. Please comment on why this house is not in violation and provide the lot calculations as well.
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
Hi Barbara
Your response inquiries to me are answers exactly why this inquiry was posted. As references, previously with no updates and archived.
Back to my question what is the city going to do going forward to prevent it. Code enforcement is not a waste of anyone's money nor is process validation.
Appreciate your researching with the permit pulled even more why the city needs to answer. Residents shouldn't have to research as you so kindly did, the city process should be transparent and consistent.
These are all fantastic questions that the city needs to answer about going forward. Thanks again for your efforts, all of us appreciate it
Barbara (Panauhin)
Alan and Bubba,
First of all I am not a "NO BROOKHAVEN" person. I do however, now that the city exists, feel it adds no value as do a majority of people in the city. I actually voted for the city. But thanks for the arrogance. We have a police department and very questionable leadership. Thats about it. So congrats to us.
As far as wasting tax dollars, I will explain it to you. The city has very limited resources and funds because of not only the way it was set up in regards to taxation but also in regards to staff that it can afford in correlation with the taxation. The code enforcement that we have does not need to be taking hours of their day to read ridiculous claims on the internet, let alone spend countless hours to follow up and make on site visits to appease uninformed residents. But in the end they will do this to satisfy the dumb masses of people who are ignorant to code and building ordinances. Look on SCF and you will see a ton of things are not worthy of the time it takes to write them. From this post that has gone on for months or several others where true violations dont exists. If people are going to complain they need to be educated in the law and not expect the city to chase down every ignorant claim by tax people who hate new growth in District 1. Which is exactly what this (being the 3 post) and countless others are.
So when the city can't keep up with worthless claims they hire new people to do it. This increases the cost of the city to run day to day operations. We have new salaries, new cars, new office space, etc. Now you may think that you are "paying for this" but what you are actually doing is creating the need for more city income which it will get from the rest of us who aren't complaining about vans in a driveway.
As far as outsourcing: the cities code enforcement is not outsourced and its run by city employees. This is a perfect example of how uninformed people have no business on this site.
There may be a violation here, maybe. But hounding the city on 3 separate posts is a ridiculous waste of everyones time and is going to cost us all more in the future. They are looking into it and if there is a violation it will take time to runs its course and to get the proper paperwork, permits, and variance in order. And I think after the millions spent on the pink pony lawsuit and stardust we could use a little more of the funds to stay around instead of spending it on things with more importance.
Alan (Rehistradong User)
Barbara (Panauhin)
CitizenKane (Rehistradong User)
Everybody, take a minute and read through the last few posts. You should be embarrassed.
Having an opinion is certainly okay, but for goodness sake, we are adults. Please start acting like it.
Barbara (Panauhin)
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
A request has been submitted to Code Compliance to answer the original question(s) Douglas asked.
1. Is concrete not paving?
2. Is this home not in more then 35% as defined above?
3. Are these not parking spaces as noted?
I would also like to point out the SeeClickFix Terms of Use http://legal.seeclickfix.com/terms-of-use/, specifically #6 User Conduct. Let's make sure we are conducting ourselves accordingly.
Additionally, the comments section should be used to communicate additional information to the City of Brookhaven that will assist the City in resolving the issue. Additional information such as photos, changes in status, or any other relevant information that will assist the resolution of the problem.
Conversely, the City uses the comments section to provide status updates to or request additional information from reporters.
That being said, we encourage conversations between be taken offline using another medium.
We thank everyone in advance for their cooperation and continued patience as we wait on an answer from Code Compliance.
Yankee (Rehistradong User)
This sign has been in front of this "residential home?" for about 8 months.
We suspect the sign is tied to the property owner or tenants commercial business.
Greg Dulles (Panauhin)
Yankee - not suspect, Outdoor Makeover ( signage in yard ) is an LLC with this residential address. Yard is being used for advertising, also explains the volume of construction vehicles regularly parked at the home. This address is kudzu/D&b/tax for the LLC. At a minimum the temporary signage present for 10 months has to be removed.
See Dun and Bradstreet - http://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11656&catalogId=70010&productId=0&searchType=DSF&manPartNumber=0&fromView=infoLinkView&hiddenSessionId=-81847523&dunsNumber=011065855
Lot is - 0.4 acres - http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4081-Ashford-Dunwoody-Rd-NE-Atlanta-GA-30319/14577036_zpid/
Eric (Rehistradong User)
Brookhaven City Manager's office I think part of the problem is that a response has never been provided. The original post pointed out that it appeared the home was violating the 35% rule and posted the following:
"Additionally, PAVING of the front yard is limited to a maximum of 35 percent. A front yard is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as the "area extending across the total width of a lot between side lot lines and being that area between the street right-of-way lines and that line or lines established by the front wall or walls of the principal structure projected to intersect the side lot lines."
So why are the same questions being submitted? Wasn't a determination as to the 35% already made? And It seems odd that the sign is not a violation.
Or should someone contact the code enforcement line directly?
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
@ Eric - I'm with you. I believe the determination as to the 35% was already made in the prior service request ID 1076647, but this reporter had follow up questions regarding what specific materials are classified as paving material (which would count towards the 35%).
Although Code Compliance mentioned pea gravel or any gravel/stone/paver material counts towards the 35% in the prior service request -- the reporter wanted to confirm whether actual cement counts towards the 35%. I get the impression that is the major overall concern -- that there is too much cement material covering the front.
The other issue at hand is what appears may be new developments regarding the potential operation of a commercial business in a residential area. I'd like to have Code Compliance take a second look, since the last site visit was in June, to investigate further to see if the situation has changed. I am thinking the sign might not have been up at the time of the original site visit. I believe this would have been an indicator of the potential business activities that may be taking place there.
We'll look out for an update from Code Compliance on these issues. Thanks to everyone!
Eric (Rehistradong User)
Thanks i looked at issue 1076647 which was about the 35% issue on a development elsewhere in Brookhaven as well as issue 1083375 about a commercial business operating but which also raises the 35% front yard coverage issue.
But I don't see an answer. I guess what I'm curious about is that it appears that the cement covers far more than 35% of the space between the front of the building and the edge of the right of way. Has a determination been made about that?
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
Eric (Rehistradong User)
Terry (Panauhin)
City of Brookhaven City Manager's Office (Rehistradong User)
This service request ID is specific to this property. Code Compliance would need to receive a formal request either via this SeeClickFix web applications or by contacting the Brookhaven Code Enforcement Manager to investigate any other locations for potential code compliance violations:
Cassundra Huntley
Daytime Phone: 404-637-0570
After Hours*: 404-637-0555
Email: cassundra.huntley@brookhavenga.gov
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
Good Morning,
Seems the other question that can be addressed is the sign present for a year which seems the city cannot enforce? Please let us know if the sign component of the concern the city cannot address.
Thanks,
Eric (Rehistradong User)
Douglas (Rehistradong User)
BB (Rehistradong User)