Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Video of September 27th Dunwoody City Council Meeting

Meeting recap, we amended the 2010 budget to remove two buildings at Brook Run, put $100,000 towards sidewalks, outlawed littering (including blowing leaves and grass into the street), cleaned up the tax code with minor edits, rejected the proposed noise ordinance changes, deferred the accessory structures change, approved the sign plan for the Dunwoody Music Festival, hired an Economic Development Manager to promote new businesses within the City, and deferred a decision on repaving Dunwoody Club Drive until discussions with Sandy Springs can be had regarding standardized lane widths.

I forgot to add that we also passed the Outdoor Lighting Efficiency Ordinance which would require efficient operation of outdoor lighting by limiting misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary outdoor lighting. There was a last minute change to this proposal which allowed upward sign lighting, which I was against because it is contrary to what was intended, but since this ordinance was not specifically targeting signs and even had a statement in there that it was not applicable to signs (page 4, last sentence on applicability); I voiced my concerns and approved the measure along with the other council members present.


Chip said...

John: Why does the Council hire an Economic Development advisor without so much as a hiccup, yet can't agree on a Noise ordinance? And, if I read the sign ordinance you're proposing for next month's approval, it clearly puts existing businesses at a competitive advantage over new businesses, as do most of the Council's "grandfathered" ordinances.

Why hire an Economic Development person (and, at what $$$) to work counterproductively against the wishes and behavior of the Council and the Mayor.

Joe Hirsch said...

Hi John, I'm very confused. With all the input from residents, the prolonged debates, and the overwhelming votes from the Community Council and the Planning Commission in support for allowing some "noise" on Sundays, City Council chose not to even vote on this? No discussion from City Council and the item failed?

John Heneghan said...

Chip, I believe the new Economic Development Director will add value to the city where I believe the noise ordinance provisions would have been divisive. I heard arguments on both side of the issue and decided that now is not the time for me to push for changes that would have a negative impact on the residents quality of life.

Joe, one of the Council members at the table started the modification of the noise hours and another may have initiated the Sunday change; either one of them could have deferred the matter if they were so inclined. In retrospect, because it was a divisive matter it should have been deferred until a full council was available to address the issue. If that were to happen I may have openly stated that after review of our ordinance and those of other jurisdictions that it is my opinion that our laws fall short and leave too much discretion in the enforcement of the law. Therefore I would be more likely to ask for a complete overhaul of the ordinance vs minor tweaks. I hope that explains my position.

Check out other community noise ordinances at http://www.nonoise.org