Emotions ran high at an informational meeting organized by Smyrna’s Ward 5 City Council Representative Susan Wilkinson about the .
“We are a residential neighborhood and you have more or less tried to decide that the middle of Church Street is no longer residential," said Sandra McQueen, a Church Street resident. "My property values are going down because of this.”
“This is our lives you’re talking about!” shouted Bonnie Berry, a resident of Flagler Circle and one of the organizers of Concerned Citizens of Cheney Woods. “Quit hiding behind your silly rules! This is our lives!”
Berry and about 20 other residents of Cheney Woods and the surrounding neighborhoods assembled Thursday at the to voice their concerns about proposed plans to renovate a rental house on the corner of Flagler Circle that would be used as Oxford’s third daycare building. Smyrna City Administrator Eric Taylor and Community Development Director Ken Suddreth were there to answer questions. Ward 6 Council Representative Wade Lnenicka also attended the meeting.
Issues were raised over the increased volume of traffic, the daycare’s negative impact on property values and drainage issues. However, residents were principally upset about the circumstances surrounding an amendment made to a city ordinance concerning the R15 zoning classification and day nurseries in 2006.
Jimmy Smith, former Ward 5 City Council Representative, and his wife Cindy own Oxford Academy. Suddreth, who did not work for the city at the time, explained that in 2006 while Smith was still on Council, the body voted to add day nurseries as a permitted use under the R15 zoning designation provided that the property in question met certain criteria.
Exemptions for day nurseries in residential areas are sometimes referred to as “grandmother exemptions.” Berry’s real estate consultant Alan Aycock said at the meeting that other municipalities in the metro area have similar exemptions, though he argued they are more detailed and explicit than Smyrna’s ordinance.
Minutes from the July 2006 meeting show that the amendment passed 5-0. Smith and then Ward 4 Council Representative Mike McNabb were absent.
Cheney Woods resident Hazel Hale asked Suddreth why they were learning about the amendment after the fact.
“Was there a hearing before the city decided to zone it that way?” she said. “Why was there not a meeting like this then? It would seem appropriate don’t you think if we’re having it now.”
Suddreth explained that a public forum was not required because the zoning classification was not changing from residential to commercial; rather a text ordinance was changed to add day nurseries as a permitted use to the R15 zoning classification.
However, the minutes from the July 2006 City Council meeting show that the Council held a public hearing at that meeting concerning the amendment: “Mayor Bacon stated that this was a public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none.”
One resident asked Suddreth what needs to be done to change the ordinance. Suddreth explained that Wilkinson has already brought it up before Council and the Planning and Zoning Board.
“That process has started, but all I can do is encourage you to either send Susan an email to that effect,” he said. “You’re welcome to send me an email or you can come to the meeting and voice your opinion that you think it should be removed. What I hear you saying is you’d like that use removed from the ordinance.”
The approval of a text amendment to Section 703 of the zoning ordinance concerning day nurseries has been added to the agenda for Monday’s Planning and Zoning Board meeting. However, Suddreth said even if the ordinance is changed the Oxford Academy expansion would be grandfathered in because while Smith has not been officially granted a building permit, he’s already submitted a site plan.
“He’s grandfathered in on the very first submittal (…) once the process starts he’s in,” Suddreth said.
However, Aycock said he and the Berrys plan to take legal action to put a stop to the expansion.
“We’re planning to go to full court to get an injunction to stop this,” he said. “This is irreparable damage to the property values of the neighborhood. You can’t change this back.”
The Planning and Zoning Board meets Monday at 6 p.m. at Smyrna City Hall.
Do you have concerns about Oxford Academy's expansion? Share them in the comments.
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.
The expansion of this daycare center will have an impact on Cheney Woods. Their concerns are valid.
Brenda N
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?
I don't believe arguing over the status of your PhD helps your fight. I'm sure if you read the post you would understand Alan Aycock seems to simply be displaying his expertise in the this subject by adding that he does indeed hold a PhD in this field. Which I'm sure also comes with years of experience as most PhD’s do. As it stands there are only TWO daycare facilities. The addition of TWO more would most certainly increase the traffic flow. Would you want to drive your mother to the senior center with the increased traffic this would bring? And while Church Street might be more desirable for commercial building, Flagler Circle IS NOT. This is a residential neighborhood. The argument is not to have the building of these wonderful daycare centers axed but rather moved to a new location that would not harm local residents.
All zoning was designed to protect property values and public safety - that is why we segregate commercial uses from residential uses, and why we limit densities within these various classifications. Per your logic, we should put a McDonald's and a liquor store in a subdivision because they create more jobs. If this was such a good idea, Smyrna would not be the only city that allows this...I have actually read the other ordinances. Neighbors are indeed complaining about the traffic. The big issue is the expansion into 5 more homes or 400+ more kids on 2 residential streets - Mr. Smith is not denying he wants to expand this way, and this badly written ordinance allows him to do that with no further hearings or oversight. The day care language just needs to be stripped out of R15 as it also affects dozens of other neighborhoods. Also, the current center was not built to code.
-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.
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.
************************************************************** 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
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 !
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
********************************************************** We are awaiting our atty. meeting with the City atty. - we will keep you all informed.