It would be different to me if Smyrna did not have commercial property available, but there is commercial space available in close proximity. Once all of these changes were made it started a snowball effect and we know have another day care on the other side of S. Cobb drive on Church road. The city needs to take a look at this. We need to fill all of our empty, available retail space. This is nothing but a zoning of convenience. It just so happens that the Smith's own a home next to the properties. The Smith's do in fact run a good program and it continues to prosper, but it shouldn't be at the neighbors expense. This was nothing but a self serving change that should have never been allowed. I have no doubt that this amendment was proposed by by Mr. Smith as he would be the one to benefit from it. It was my understanding that this was why he ran for council to start with, as he was upset with Mr. Cramer because he would not support Mr. Smith's agenda. Typical politics with no regard for anyone but themselves.

Development plans for the third center include paving the front yard for a parking lot (19 parking spaces) with the exit onto Flagler Circle. The center will serve 60 children. This will bring the total enrollment of Oxford to approximately 200 children. Besides the resulting impact on residential property values, the impact on Church Street should not be overlooked. This quiet, residential street was not designed to handle the traffic flow resulting from this size of operation. This is only one of the many reasons the folks who live closest to Oxford were opposed to Oxford Babies and are opposed to this third center as well. Zoning codes exist for a reason and Smyrna officals were misguided when they changed the oridnance to allow for commerical, for-profit day care centers in residential neighborhoods. Marietta, for example, does not allow this. Commercial zoning is required. This protects everyone - homeowners, business owners, and most important, the children who attend the center.

I didn't read the artilce. I just looked at the expressions of the people in the photo.

Mike H hit it on the head.

Yes, it seems Jimmy's only motivation to be on council was to feather his own nest. What's REALLY disgusting is that he ran on an "anti-density" platform which, while in office, he applied diligently, strictly and unfairly to the OTHER citizens in Ward 5 - his NEIGHBORS - yet he has completely, repeatedly and consistently not only not held himself to this standard, he has flat beat it to death when it should have applied to him.
Increased density has to do with additional impact on city services, increased traffic, increased nonporus surface area (driveways, structures), etc.
A number of his fellow citizens made requests to split residential lots into two, some of whjich were similarly grandfathered, as they were two lots on the original subdivision plat, and Jimmy not only would not support such, he actually signed petitions against them. His school probably has a relative impact on the lot's density similar to that of at least a 5 unit building - far greater than what his neighbors' projects would have resulted in.

What a greedy, self-serving bum.

Alan Aycock, Ph.D./Broker?appraiser:
This is example of very poor City planning and enforcement based on a poor but-shrewdly worded ordinance, as well as soft political corruption. The Council would never zone Oxford's expansion had Mr. Smith not been on the City Council - the City planning staff did no research on similar ordinances in Roswell/Cobb/Marietta. What is being overlooked by Council is that if this building permit goes through, Oxford can legally expand the full length of Flagler Cir. and over to S. Cobb Dr.; in addition, Mr. Smith has already made offers on 5 adjacent houses. We intend to seek an injunction and file an ethics complaint w/State Atty. General. It is CRITICAL to get the day care part removed from R15 ordinance.

Alan Aycock--part 2--
No traffic study has been required by City Planning. I was mis-quoted by Patch in that the few places that allow day care in residential areas limit the number of kids to 6.
In spite of what Mr. Ken Sudderth said, a "permitted use" is not an absolute property right - filing an amatueurish site plan does not prevail--, and can be overturned if there are public safety issues. The residents need to pressure both the Planning Commission and the Mayor/City Council on stopping the permit and changing the ordinance.

Looks like Smyrna finally woke up. Smith was untouchable when he was on the council. Now they're going after him with both barrels. Don't think he was/is the only council member with his/her own agenda. Everyone of them sitting up there is looking out for someone and it's not you.

Part III - This new proposed ordinance being rushed to the Planning Commission on this Monday night 11th makes very minor changes and misses all the big issues--When Ken Sudderth was at Duluth, Duluth banned day care in residential and required comm. zoning and 35 ft. landscaped buffers - why is he supporting something so much weaker here? Smith also did not comply w/bldg. codes on current ctr. - his bldg/paving cover 75% of land / not the 35% max in law. and he has no rain water detent. pond. This affects all other neighborhoods too - you could buy the corner lot anywhere entering subdiv. and open a daycare.

I'm a bit confused at all the fuss. There's never been a traffic issue related to Oxford Babies or Oxford Academy. I live out Church on the other side of S. Cobb and have driven past the schools for six years. I also have a child in Oxford Babies now. Since they have a flexible drop off and pick up schedule, there's never a back up like there would be at an elementary school. The other side of Church has the senior center, the funeral home, and the church. The church on Wednesday nights and Sunday poses a much larger traffic issue than the day care ever has. Related to property values - I hope no one is blaming the opening of Oxford Babies a couple years ago for their decrease in property value. We've ALL seen our property values drop by 30% or more over the last few years. The only people that might have reason to fuss would be the property owner adjacent to the proposed 3rd building.

Even in that supportive vein, what about the other 5 houses Jimmy purportedly has under contract, relative to the houses they abut, back up to and affect the traffic of, not to mention the adduitional strain on the services and loss of green space/pourous ground to suck up the run-off from th eexpansive concrete driveway/parking areas?

And please don't lose sight of the fact that Jimmy would not let his neighbors do 1/10th of what he has done and is proposing to do. Jimmy has decided only EVERYONE ELSE in the neighborhood, and for THAT matter, the entire city, should have overly restrictive density ordinances applied to THEIR properties, but not his.

On any decent level, Jimmy should be viewed as a Pariah seeking gain for himself at the expense of his neighbors, who he would NEVER let do a fraction fo what he's asking for, with their properties.

There is MUCH more to consider here than whether or not it wouldn't be TOO big an imposition on the neighborhood.

Has anyone asked this greedy so-and-so if he had plans to share the spoils of his arguably ill-gotten gains with his neighbors that will have to bear the brunt of his efforts?

I didn't think so...

As the property owner next door to the preposed expanse on Flagler Circle I can state that I am strongly opposed to the expansion.

As a parent and as a homeowner in Cheney Woods, I welcome Oxford Academy expanding. Their remodeling of the two current schools/houses is beautiful and I believe it brings value to our community, not the latter. With all of the young families moving into the neighborhood, excellent full time daycare is very difficult to find. We were lucky enough to get into Oxford but many friends of ours have not been. I also find that people attacking Jim personally for this is repulsive. He is an honorable man and served this community well for years. To reiterate: their properties are always clean, beautiful, and maintained. Oxford should be permitted to expand onto Flagler.

You're saying it's repulsive to admonish someone for not only getting into office to only financially better himself, not only at the expense of his neighbors, but also by amending and skirting the very ordinances that he so harshly used to hold his neighbors in check when they wanted to "expand" THEIR properties?

It's cool that you're personally happy with the business experience you've had with the Smiths, but to call it "repulsive" when these neighbors have had enough of Jimmy's self gratification at their expense, and these being the same nieghbors that Jimmy has held to a MUCH higher and restrictive standard when it came to utilizing THEIR properties, is well, repulsisve.

To everyone upset at this article: There was an open forum where City Council voted on this nearly 6 years ago. Jimmy did not even vote. If you had a concern at that time, it should have been voiced. The public was invited to join the forum. To personally attack someone who ethically conducted business is terrible. I reiterate that that behavior is repuslive. I stand by my recommendation that an elite and premier school like Oxford should be able to make a beautiful and quaint addition to the corner of Flagler in Cheney Woods.

It's a shame that the Cheney Woods neighborhood had to hire a lawyer but this city does not have a reputation for acting in the best interest of its citizens. Just talk to the neighborhoods adversely affected by Glock.

The expansion of this daycare center will have an impact on Cheney Woods. Their concerns are valid.

Well actually there was no open forum for this change to the ordinance. The change was listed in the consent agenda and the consent agenda is not open to the general public for comment. When items are on the consent agenda they do not even include a description. The item did not require a posting of a sign advertising it or listing the date of the hearing. The sad truth is that this change was brought up by Mr. Smith. And just to make it look on the up and up he was not even in attendance at the meeting. This way he did not have to abstain from voting on his own requested change. This was done as underhanded as possible. Why else would these changes even be brought up. I have nothing against Mr. Smith but this entire situation stinks for his neighbors. I hope the entire neighborhood shows up at the council meeting and lets their voices be heard, whichever way they see it. This was a nice neighborhood that has had these businesses forced on them and they are the true victims .Appartently there is more to come later on down the road. I certainly hope that the council listens to the neighbors especially those that will be personally effected by this vote. For one I think that this ordinance change should be revisited without having someone with a personal agenda to influence a vote on the council. I am a huge city proponent but this entire situation stinks of impropriety. Maybe the neighbors need to contact the State attorney general to look into this.

L. Davis, yes the city's zoning code and especially future land use plan is seriously outdated and needs an overhaul. There are too many loopholes, many outdated future land uses. This is a systemic issue. We only go at individual pieces instead of going at the whole thing. Yes, it's costly to overhaul the entire code, but it needs to be done.

As a senior citizen, on a fixed income, this action of bringing in a commercial establishment will decrease the property values in the neighborhood and impact the financial future of those in my situation. Smyrna, wake up.

Brenda N

Years ago 2 of my three children attended the original Oxford Academy. The facility both inside and out were absolutely beautiful. I find it difficult to believe that another beautiful facility would deteriorate the surrounding home values. Many of them look in need of refurbishing anyway. The appearance of the surrounding houses and ecomony have more to do with home values than addition another well put together daycare facility. In addition, one of the funniest things about the aritcle picture is that I believe Sandra McQueen used to teach at Oxford. Hmmm. Wonder if there are sour grapes? Oxford is an asset both esthectically and financial to Smyrna. Let them build

Under the existing ordinances, Oxford could only cover 35% of the lot with building/paving. using County data, Oxford covers over 79% of the land area and does not have a water detention pond-so-rain water sheets onto the streets and to neighbors property. Their is no traffic turn lane.
The mgr. of the Senior center has complained about traffic and access to the Center due to Oxford. Somehow I do not think these supporters would like a day care with 140 kids at the front of THEIR subdivision. As a Ph.D/planning professor-this violates every rule and is unique in Metro Atlanta zoning. Question is WHY?

Thanks AA for cleaning Calls It's clock and clarifying the issues. Smith pulled a fast one with the help of the city council. And he didn't even build to code. Until you wake up Smyrna you're going to continue to have these problems. It seems like you'd get tired of whack a mole.

"Call it like I see it" is Sean Murphy of the Smyrna Downtown Development Authority. He sits on the board with the mayor. He has an agenda. He lives in Smyrna Heights.

Some technical/planning/traffic points;
-Public schools - are far off street / have lengthy turn lanes/most kids arrive by bus/not one kid per car like day care
-Smith controls 4 properties now/is actively trying to buy 5 more/this equates to 9 properties-550-600+ kids - 1,000+CAR TRIPS PER DAY. - residential area/narrow streets/no turn lanes/entrances right at stop signs/limited access for public safety vehicles-etc./all the front yard paved/increase in rain water runoff - all of this occurs with NO public meetings/NO vote/NO input from public.
-The dissenters should actually read Marietta/Duluth/Roswell/Gwinnett/Forsyth ordinances--all limit to 6 kids--in 2 cases you can go up to 17 with spec. use permit which is like a zoning-requires public notice/hearings/vote--not back door approach like Smyrna.
-No city would zone this-either one or all possible.--Mr. Sudderth would not have proposed this in Duluth his last job for fear of being laughed out of town. Does not meet any zoning/planning standards.
-This ordinance applies to ALL older R15 subdivisions-so applies to Pat Mell/N. Concord/etc.
-Only good solution is to halt bldg. permit process-a full application was not submitted anyway-and strip the entire language out of R15 regs.
--This use will allow Smith to make million$ while City/County lose million$ in lost taxes due to lower assessments. Why is Mayor Bacon allowing?
--Other neighborhoods being informed of this danger /will protest. Article MDNEWS Monday.

CIt Council TONIGHT - CBS will be there to film discussion.
AJC may be there. All of you please come if you can. Our goal is to strip ALL of the day care language from the R15 ordinance.

Mr. Aycock THANK YOU! for all that you're doing. This mayor and council are the worst excuse for public servants. They are the city's enemies when they've been sworn to be its public servants.

An aerial easement involving Glock is also on the agenda. Fennel will not communicate with you about Glock. You will have to attend or watch the meeting to find out any information.

No easement for Glock unless we approve Smith + Wesson, Colt, and Winchester also
**************************************************************
Thanks for everyone who went to City Council. Meeting went OK as a starter to voice our issues.
We need you to identify OTHER NEIGHBORS AFFECTED so we can get them to next meeting--for example, I found several on Pat Mell that met requirements / dozens and dozens more--to identify - corner lots into a subdivision adjacent or across street from a non resid use--a business/church/park etc. - you will be surprised how many people are affected.///we need them fired up

excerpts of our legal letter to City and Council:
As you know, this firm represents Donald and Bonnie Berry of 835 Flagler Circle, Smyrna Georgia with respect to their stated objections to the proposed expansion of the Oxford Academy along Church Street and onto Flagler. This objection is made more poignant by the observation that Oxford Academy is not an authorized use under the R-15 zoning category as Church Street is designated a “minor road” on the Transportation Plan and is not designated a major or minor arterial. As you know, Section 703.2 (1) requires such uses to be located on a major or minor arterial. Accordingly the current use should not have been allowed. It additionally has come to our attention that the current use covers 71% of the property. As you also know, Section 801 imposes a 35% impervious lot coverage requirement (regardless of the “use” of the R-15 property). Accordingly, the site is dramatically overbuilt with no apparent variances and has been illegal since its inception. As I am sure you are aware, a permit granted in violation of the existing ordinance vests no rights in its continuation and the use should be terminated immediately.
Part !

Part II legal letter
t is no defense that a building permit or license already has issued for the existing facility. “A permit issued for a use or structure which is forbidden by the ordinance is beyond the power of the officer to issue; consequently, it has no legal status, is invalid, and is itself entirely without power to clothe its holder with any legal rights thereunder.” 56 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 1 (1964) and cit. “A permit for a use prohibited by a valid zoning ordinance, regulation, or restriction is void, of no effect, and subject to revocation. This is true although the permit has been issued under a mistake of fact.” 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 25.153 (3d ed. 1983). “The expenditure of even substantial sums in reliance upon a permit found to be void is generally held not to raise an estoppel against its revocation or against enforcement of the ordinance found to be violated by the use or structures maintained pursuant to the permit.” Rathkopf, supra, § 56-13. See Corey Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustments of City of Atlanta, 254 Ga. 221 (1985). Georgia courts have held “that a permit issued for either an illegal use or an illegal nonconforming use is void; it cannot be used as an excuse to continue the use in violation of a zoning ordinance, and it does not vest rights. The conversation should be about the termination of the illegal use and not the unlawful expansion.1

Don Berry and I met with Councilman Welch today - we discussed all the issues openly and appreciate his interest and concerns.
**********************************************************
We are awaiting our atty. meeting with the City atty. - we will keep you all informed.

The City attorney, Scott Cochran, is very good friends with Jimmy and Cindy. They have been to each others vacation homes on several occasions through the years. ( know Mayor Bacon has also been entertained by the Smith's at their Florida home also). As far as "public" vote and Jimny not voting, all this is decided away from the viewing public, the televised vote is a mere formality. Also, to address the parents who say "how beautiful" Oxford is, yes, the facilities themselves are beautiful BUT there's much more behind the scenes than people are aware of.

To everyone arguing their property values will decrease...guess what, they already did. and it had NOTHING to do with Oxford! Wake up! Also, the buildings are lovely and there's never been an issue with traffic. Try fixing up your own houses if you want to keep your property values intact.