The Rosebud Coalition

The following is the body of my email to the Snellville Planning Commission regarding the planning staff analysis of the annexation/rezoning at Rosebud Road and Brushy Fork. This is a detailed response to the city planning staff’s report which recommends approval of LUP-07-11 and R2-07-17:

In 2004, the Gwinnett County planning staff strongly recommended against a proposal (RZC-04-051) to build a convenience store and gas station on this tract, citing numerous and conclusive reasons why the property should remain under a residential zoning. Less than three years later, with absolutely no change in the condition nor use of the subject property or adjoining properties, the city planning staff recommends a non-residential classification as the most appropriate. Some of the reasons provided by the city staff are in direct conflict with the county’s analysis.

One of them must be wrong. I contend that the recommendation of the city planning staff is incorrect, being founded on faulty logic and a disregard of actual, “on the ground” conditions in this area. If you follow the recommendation of the city planning staff, you will allow irreparable harm to come to this intersection and surrounding property owners, and open the door to additional and continued harm.

TomCo

The planning staffer who viewed the property noted that “…the TomCo Equipment Company facility can be noisy and obtrusive during daytime hours, and may not be suitable for a residential dwelling.”

It seems, however, that he is the only person who is concerned about Tomco. Since 1970, TomCo has been a good neighbor. The plant is bordered to the south by a golf course. In other directions, extensive natural buffering has, in large part, camouflaged its facility from surrounding residents. There is, in fact, a substantial buffer between TomCo and the subject property consisting of mature hardwoods, pines and thick undergrowth. For the most part, you don’t know that TomCo is there unless you’re standing at the front gate.

The light industrial use preceded most if not all of the homes in the immediate area. In other words, people built their homes adjoining or nearby TomCo despite it being, as the staff alleges, “noisy and obtrusive.”

In fact, the owner bought the subject property for his own residence approximately 14 years ago and lived there for at least 11 years. For the past couple of years, the subject continued to remain economically viable as a residence, generating rental income for the owner.

Nothing has changed about the subject property or its relationship to TomCo in the past 14 years. The subject property was suitable for a residence when it was built next to TomCo, and it is still suitable for a residence today.

Apparently, the house may now be vacant. That fact should not be used by you, however, as evidence of a lack of economic viability. It is known that the owner has marketed this property as “potential commercial” for several years. He reportedly rejected a fair market offer from TomCo to purchase the property for a parking area. More recently, the owner refused to negotiate when the county offered to buy the tract at a fair market residential value for a fire station.

These offers are further proof that the subject property has a reasonable economic use as it is currently zoned. Neither the applicant nor the planning staff has offered any evidence to the contrary. If there is any devaluation it is because of the owner’s own actions– leaving the property vacant– and not because of any changes in the area. The owner and his contract buyer should not be allowed to bolster their case for rezoning by abandoning the property and allowing it to deteriorate.

Transitional Uses / Buffers

Next, the planning staff argued that an Office/Professional development would serve as “a buffer, or transition, to the surrounding residential properties in the area.”

While it is usually good planning practice to provide a “step down” from more intensive (usually commercial) uses to less intensive (usually residential) uses, the practice does not apply in this case. The staff’s argument is based on faulty assumptions and a disregard for the facts.

First, the recommendation is based on the staffer’s conclusion that the subject property is somehow no longer suitable for a residence. As I have explained, the staff is incorrect on that point, considering the history of this area and of the subject property.

Second, for 37 years there has been no buffer– no transitional use– between TomCo and surrounding properties. There has been no need for one. “On paper,” a light industrial use may be incompatible with residential uses but, in reality, there is no conflict in this area.

In my opinion, approval of this rezoning will actually introduce more conflict between uses than currently exists.

Third, the staff report uses a fictitious and highly unlikely scenario to support its recommendation. The report states that a benefit of an O/P zoning would be to “limit the future development of this parcel into something less attractive such as a convenient store or gas station.” The intimation is that the subject must be annexed and rezoned to prevent the county from approving such a development.

However, just three years ago the County Commission denied such a rezoning for good and overwhelming cause. Under the county Land Use Plan, the subject is not contemplated for a non-residential use.

No, it is not the county but the City that proposes to rezone this property to a more intense use. It is the City that proposes to ignore the county Land Use Plan; it is the City that proposes to introduce conflict between uses.

Finally, the justification of “buffer and transition” fails in logic. The purpose of a transitional use is to prevent a high-intensity use from abutting a low-intensity use. But what can provide better protection for adjoining residential uses than an existing low-intensity, residential use? It makes no sense to INCREASE the intensity of the buffer when there is no conflict currently existing between uses.

Staff analysis unsupported and wrong

This, ladies and gentlemen, summarizes the staff report’s case for approval:

1. TomCo, in the unsupported opinion of the staff, makes the subject suddenly unusable as a residence; and

2. The staff concludes that conflicts between uses already exist, and that they can be mitigated or resolved with the approval of a “step-down” use for the subject property.

On both points, the planning staff is completely wrong.

Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan

The staff report argues that approval would be in compliance with the 2012 Comprehensive Plan in that it involves an annexation. You should note that annexation does not, in itself, provide justification for approving any particular zoning. If this application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan at all, it is only because it involves an annexation.

Second, the report notes that the Plan calls for the use of transitional zones and buffers. As I stated above, a rezoning of the subject property to a transitional use is not only unnecessary, but would introduce conflict between uses that does not currently exist.

Non-Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan

The report cites two instances in which the Comp Plan provides grounds for denial. Please do not discount these issues; they should carry much more weight than should the citations of compliance.

First, it is good planning practice to restrict non-residential development to existing commercial corridors like Hwy. 78, which is approximately one mile from the subject. Approval of this application would create a “spot” zoning– an isolated, non-residential use in the middle of single-family homes predominantly on large lots.

One might argue that the existence of TomCo removes this application from the category of “spot” zoning. I would argue that, except for the fact that it was essentially “first,” TomCo represents a “spot” zoning and that one failure on the part of the City should not justify another mistake.

Second, the county Land Use Plan designates not just the subject but the LARGER AREA for low-density, residential uses

Ask yourself this question– if there was no pending rezoning and the City had initiated the annexation, what city zoning category would be assigned to the subject? With no request for a daycare center on the table, how would you recommend that this property be zoned once annexed into the city?

I believe that the City would annex this property at the same zoning classification that it currently has in the county– low-density residential– because that would be the right zoning for this tract.

“The Steinbergs”

The staff’s unjustified conclusions notwithstanding, this proposal fails to satisfy any of the standards commonly known as “the Steinbergs:”

1. A daycare center and office building is not a suitable use. Approval would create a “spot” zoning; a non-residential use in the middle of predominantly large-lot homes;

2. The staff’s response doesn’t correctly address “adverse impact,” which goes to the question of whether or not the proposed use negatively impacts on the existing use or usability of adjoining or nearby properties. In fact, this “spot” zoning would introduce an uncertainty in the area which could affect property values. Approval of a commercial use could begin a destabilization of the area; it could establish a precedence that leads to additional encroachment of non-residential uses into the area;

3. The staff offers no evidence to support its opinion that the property has no reasonable economic use as currently zoned. In fact, the history of the property is irrefutable proof that it does have a reasonable economic use as a residence.

4. The proposed use will have a significant impact on public facilities; specifically, the roads. The county planning staff also found in 2004 that the proposed non-residential development would negatively impact on public facilities. It would place a higher demand on roads and utilities, and would also create a problem with stormwater runoff from the proposed asphalted areas.

In addition, the intersection of Rosebud and Brushy Fork Roads is extremely dangerous, with limited sight lines along Rosebud due to elevation changes and the curvature of the roadway. This proposal would unnecessarily complicate traffic patterns in a residential area and, for motorists exiting the proposed curb cut on Rosebud Road, the sight distance would be reduced even further.

The intersection of Rosebud Road and Brushy Fork Road is a typical rural intersection—it wasn’t designed with commercial development in mind. In my opinion, the intersection is currently defective. Without substantial realignment, greater danger to motorists would result if the rezoning is approved.

5. The proposal does not comply with the county Land Use Plan. The proposal represents a “spot” zoning that the Planning Commission has traditionally resisted.

6. The staff report fails to properly answer the question of whether or not there are other conditions that support either approval or denial. I contend that there are no conditions that justify approval of this application; but there are numerous conditions (to be addressed by other speakers) that support denial.

Conclusion

The planning staff has recommended approval of this application, but provided no substantiation for its recommendation. Many of the staff’s conclusions are provably incorrect.

The staff analysis cannot be relied upon to provide guidance in this case. Instead, the Planning Commission should strive to appreciate the unique circumstances surrounding the subject property and understand that a simple, “by the book” approach is not always correct.

To rezone this property solely to provide a transitional use would be to attempt to solve a problem that does not exist.

Filed under: Growth & Development