Dozens of residents told Dunwoody leaders they oppose a city staff-backed rezoning effort that they fear would cost them their privacy.
More than 30 residents attended Monday’s City Council meeting and about 1,700 people signed a petition opposing the plan, which would rezone two parcels within the 160-acre Dunwoody Village to encourage redevelopment as a downtown district. The rezoning would allow commercial property owners to shrink the portion of undisturbed land that separates residents’ homes from retail shops.
The city has been trying to rezone the properties for more than a year, but a lawsuit, potentially missing county documents and resident outcries delayed the process. Residents asked the council to take more time and try to find a different alternative that would ensure homeowners keep their separation from the village.
“We need you to be just as supportive of these neighbors as you have of others when they felt they were threatened by commercial intrusion,” Adrienne Duncan, a past Dunwoody Homeowners Association president, said during the meeting.
Den Webb, an attorney who represents the commercial property owners, said the current rezoning application is a compromise that would end his clients’ pending lawsuit against the city.
“It’s certainly not what anyone really wants. It’s not what my client wants, I can assure you — 150 feet of buffer on his property line equates to about 3.3 acres of undevelopable area,” he said. “But it’s something he can live with, we hope it’s something the city can live with as well.”
Protecting property rights
The 11.4-acre property, which makes up the Shops at Dunwoody strip mall, is owned by a company that lists William Brogdon as its registered agent, according to state records. His company purchased the property in 2015, according to DeKalb County records. The parcel is appraised at nearly $15.5 million and houses several restaurants and retail stores.
In 2020, the city began to rezone all of the shopping centers in the area to fulfill the recently adopted Dunwoody Village Master Plan, which encourages residential development. Brogdon, along with the owner of a neighboring parcel that houses a car wash, disagreed with the rezoning effort and sued.
“I’m not going to sit here and apologize for my client trying to protect his property rights, because that’s all he’s trying to do,” Webb said. “And that’s all everybody in this room is really trying to do.”
He also emphasized that the current rezoning application was not introduced by his clients. The city is preemptively trying to rezone the last Dunwoody Village parcels to encourage redevelopment with hopes of transforming the area into a city center like downtown Alpharetta or Roswell. The Dunwoody Planning Commission voted 4-2 to encourage the City Council to adopt the rezoning plan.
More than a dozen residents spoke during the meeting to argue that the undisturbed buffer reduction would harm their quality of life. Neighbors currently have an undisturbed 150-foot tree buffer, but the rezoning would change that to a 35-foot undisturbed buffer. The other 115 feet would still be protected from buildings, but the property owner could chop down trees for greenspace.
Ellen Holloway, who lives off Trailridge Way, said the council should stick to the resident-backed master plan rather than siding with a few commercial property owners.
“Though not perfect, last year’s plan keeps most of the old hardwood trees that offer us some visual protection, sound barrier and air quality and allows rezoning to accommodate the community’s vision for the heart of Dunwoody,” she said. “That is the plan the community wants.”
A 44-year precedent
Decades before Dunwoody was founded as a city, residents and DeKalb allegedly made an agreement to preserve an 150-foot undisturbed buffer at that location.
However, the county has not been able to find the original document mandating the buffer, which would have been from 1977. Residents speculate that the document was lost by the county, while Webb argues the lack of documentation would lead to no residential buffer if they went to court.
Brian Daughdrill, an attorney representing the Dunwoody Homeowners Association, said there are documents that allude to an agreement and mention various existing buffers. However, he said that’s a moot point, since the City Council could create its own precedent by enforcing a 150-buffer now.
“When y’all act on this, the lawsuit that the developer filed preemptively goes away because whatever happened in 1977 is mooted by whatever you do today,” he said, adding that both the parcels north and south of these properties have an 150-foot undisturbed buffer.
Credit: Jenni Girtman
Credit: Jenni Girtman
Some residents spoke about protecting the trees and wildlife. Others claimed the property owner didn’t due his due diligence when he purchased the property. Webb said none of those comments are relevant to the zoning argument, adding that it seems residents pivoted away from arguing about the 1977 zoning ordinance since their record requests came up dry.
Monday’s meeting was just a first read for the rezoning effort, meaning there was no vote. Most councilmembers didn’t indicate what way they’re leaning, but Councilman John Heneghan bluntly said he’s ready to deny the application. A vote should take place at the next council meeting Sept. 13.
Webb said he was surprised at the overwhelming negative reception the current plan has received.
“I’ve never seen a more generous buffer,” he said. “We’re coming to you hand-in-hand with the city staff and the city attorney proposing to do this. I can honestly say when we left our deliberations on that, I never thought we’d get beat up over it.”
