Friday, August 9, 2013

Dunwoody City Council Meeting Agenda for Monday August 12th

Monday, August 12th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
6:00 p.m. - Work Session
7:00 p.m. - Voting Meeting

Agenda 6 PM

Update on the CAD-to-CAD Interface Project.

Agenda 7 PM

Minutes from Aug 5th - Zoning Special Called

Economic Development Program Implementation and Future Development Overview.

Presentation of the YTD Financial Report for June 30, 2013.

Discussion of Emergency Notification Systems.

FIRST READ: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25, Section 25-32: Possession, Use, or Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages.

Discussion of City of Dunwoody City Code Chapters 27, Zoning, and 16, Land Development, and all Previous Amendments Thereto.

FIRST READ: Annual Amendments to the International Property Maintenance Code.

Discussion of the Contract Amendment for Georgetown Park Construction.

Discussion of Design Contract for Chamblee Dunwoody Road at Spalding Drive

Discussion of the Contract Amendment for Mount Vernon Road at Vermack Road.

Discussion of Appointment of Members to Serve on Dunwoody Board of Ethics.

Discussion of Appointment of Members to Serve on Dunwoody Alcohol License Review Board.

Discussion of Appointment of Member to Serve on Convention & Visitors Bureau of Dunwoody.

Discussion of Appointment of Members to Serve on Dunwoody Construction Board of Appeals.


Joe Hirsch said...

If the construction company that was awarded 1.7 million dollars to develop Georgetown Park didn't recognize issues like "unsuitable soils" when they made their bid, that would seem to be their problem, not the taxpayers. Why should we be asked to pay an additional 115 thousand dollars? Perhaps they bid low on the project without properly estimating the costs? No way should they get more money for items that they seem to have missed. Tell them to take a hike (on the new trail we paid for that is a free amenity to the project that citizens paid for)!

SDOC Publishing Internet Solutions said...


I watched the video from the special called meeting starting at about the 1 1/2 hour mark while working.

I know you have your ideas about what constitutes a "hot button" issue and what is "intrusion" into home life. On the Sounding Board, we were concerned about those things too.

You asked if we really need number limits on the animals a single home can or should have.

Here's some news reports you may remember from March of this year:

Police: 77 rabbits found inside Dunwoody home

Channel 46 report:

AJC Report:

Channel 2 report:

The actual police report posted by

There's nothing in the current code that restricts the number of these animals one can have. This is a real life "worst case scenario", not one that is fabricated to generate a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

I remember waiting to see if you or Doug Thompson or the Dunwoody North Civic Association would have anything to say about this obvious hazard in the neighborhood. This is YOUR district! And yet all of you were silent, as if it never happened.

By the way, a 9-year-old child had to be removed from the home. That point got glossed over in all of the concern for the rabbits' well-being.

So to answer your question: there has to be some kind of limit - either the one in the current draft or something else - that sets a standard of health to prevent these extremes, while allowing otherwise law-abiding and non-hoarders who constitute the majority of pet owners to do as they see fit. That's what we called "threading the needle" on Sounding Board.

If you can balance those extremes of pet ownership without penalizing the majority of pet owners unfairly, then I'm sure you can do the same with other special interests, the majority of whom are not a hazard and should not be subjected to unreasonable regulatory or permitting standards.

John Heneghan said...

Staff proposed changes to "the number of pets" rule for our consideration as shown below and the link at the bottom shows the home occupation regulations in other nearby cities.

Keeping of Companion Animals
The keeping of a cumulative total of up to 3 adult, companion animals is allowed as an accessory use to any residential use. The care or keeping of 4 or more companion animals, in cumulative total, is considered “animal care / boarding” and is allowed only in zoning districts that allow animal care / boarding uses. Litters of animals of not more than 6 months of age are not counted for the purpose of calculating the total number of companion animals.

Add to Definitions (Article 32)

Animal, Companion
Animals that are commonly kept by persons as a pet or for companionship. Companion animals have the following characteristics: have a special and close relationship with humans; are partially or totally dependent on people; commonly live inside a residence in close proximity with humans; form bonds with people; and interact
with their human companions. Dogs and cats are common companion animals.

home occupation regulations

Robert Wittenstein said...

The new wording on companion animals raises some questions.

Fish clearly do not have a special and close relationship with humans. That would exclude them from the definition of a companion animal and mean that they would not be allowed as an accessory use in a residential area. I expect the same would be true for reptiles (snakes and lizards).

Does that mean that we are outlawing them (because they are not common) or that we are allowing an unlimited number?

Daughter of the Poet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Heneghan said...

Video recording was acting up, it was a long meeting but only two 45 min clips were created.

Lots of interesting discussion on various items, BYOB in Brook Run is dead and special called meeting is in future for zoning rewrite.

Ken Thompson said...

I have not seen anyone successfully legislate good judgment, common sense or morality but I have seen many try.

I find myself asking "what problem are we trying to solve?" and I don't see an obvious answer. Is enumeration a primary or secondary control? What exactly is the problem with 77 (or 177) rabbits? Fecal matter as a sanitary issue, is that it? If so, that's the problem and the solution is to address the sanitary issue.

I think the breed limits offer insight. The attempt is to create a list of "dog breeds often trained to attack" because dog attacks are not considered a public good, yet this approach is unworkable. First "dogs don't attack, owners do" as the dogs are conditioned to this behaviour and any dog can be so trained. This becomes readily apparent when we realize that last decade's rottweiler is last year's pit bull which is now replaced by the presa canario. Do you know which is next and next after that? If so, put them on the list. If not put down the pen.

Let's try and stick with laws, rules and regulations that are first enforceable and second directly address what is widely held to be a real public issue.

Bob Turner said...

In August 2012, Rebecca Carey, a 23-year-old woman in Decatur, Georgia, was killed by dogs that she was caring for in her home. Two were pit bulls, one was a boxer mix, and two were presa canario.

In April 2013, a 5-year-old girl in White Plains, Maryland was attacked and critically injured by family-owned dogs at her home. Police thought that at least two of the three dogs at the home, an English bulldog and two Presa Canarios, were involved in the attack.

Daughter of the Poet said...

To a Daughter Leaving Home

When I taught you
at eight to ride
a bicycle, loping along
beside you
as you wobbled away
on two round wheels,
my own mouth rounding
in surprise when you pulled
ahead down the curved
path of the park,
I kept waiting
for the thud
of your crash as I
sprinted to catch up,
while you grew
smaller, more breakable
with distance,
pumping, pumping
for your life, screaming
with laughter,
the hair flapping
behind you like a
handkerchief waving

- Linda Pastan