Sunday, February 2, 2020

Dunwoody's Deceptive Tactics Against Its Own Residents

The Dunwoody City Council is considering major changes to the Dunwoody Village area.  These changes, if approved, will forever change the small-town feel of Dunwoody.

Below is the map our council and staff want you to see.  It is extremely misleading - so much so that all those involved should be questioned about their true intent.  At quick glance, the drive-by media and average resident see DV-3 as potential area for rental multi family.  But the truth is that this NEW Master Plan (yes, this is the consultant's way, via staff input, to change the Master Plan without proper input from actual taxpayers) allows for rental units in the entire Dunwoody Village area.

The large property (Walgreens area) in the Village is owned by Regency.  Regency is a REIT.  It makes its money on rents, not buying and flipping property.  All residential here will be rental, not owner-occupied.

See the proposed plan HERE

Council members will defend this plan and tell you about the requirement to get a SLUP for residential and the 55+ restrictions.  That's all crap and they know it.  The SLUP is not a problem for developers and Dunwoody's legal department will give away the farm at every turn.  The legal team is more concerned about banning the Menorah and a nativity scene than protecting the quality of life in Dunwoody. The 55+ issue is not some magic tool either.  Go see what HUD has to say about this designation. Only one person needs to be 55+ in the unit, and the entire community (tower) needs only 80% to have this 55+ person on the rental lease.

What's misleading about the DV district labels is only DV-3 is named residential, but ALL four districts allow residential rental or otherwise. The mixed use requirement in the slides allow up to 75% residential in DV-1 (despite its name "commercial"), DV-2 allows residential everywhere but ground floor (despite its name "office"), DV-3 has no residential limitations.  DV-4 has no residential limitations. All four districts can have density up to 12 units per acre. All four districts can be at least 3 stories with DV-1 up to 4 stories and DV-4 up to 5 stories.  This is not a suburban homeowners services destination. Traffic will be substantially increased without change in main roads. Lastly are two roundabouts proposed on main roads, including one at Mt Vernon and Chamblee-Dunwoody where 3-5 lanes converge from all congested directions. We see nothing but gridlock when the traffic backs up and doesn't move in any direction. This plan appears to be a red herring to put in massive multi-family housing in the Village.

People moved to Dunwoody for the quiet neighborhoods, proximity (not to be in the middle of) to the urban Perimeter setting, and for schools.  One of these three things is not really a selling point currently, and this radical change to the Village takes away at least one of the remaining two.  People moved here to live and have basic businesses nearby.  We have our dry cleaners, a few car repair places, a cobbler, etc.  And yes, we have banks.  Those who bash the number of banks in Dunwoody fail to recognize the benefits of such institutions.  They maintain their properties, don't litter the area with illegal signs, and reinvest in the community.  The small-thinker simply says, "we want rooftop bars, chef-driven white tablecloth eateries, and no more bank." Then they go eat burgers from the Chevron gas station (yes, the DT2 staff loves NFA burgers like nearly everyone else).  The roof-top bar crowd is not who you want making long-term decisions that affect our entire community. Sure, let's allow a rooftop bar in the Village (me and HW buying the first round!), but there is no need to create a new Master Plan to allow this type of business to open.

Contact your council and ask them to toss away this plan and keep the Village properties not currently zoned for residential as they are today.








No comments:

Post a Comment