Last week, I floated a simple idea for reining in Gwinnett’s willy-nilly, often nonsensical growth– the county should not accept an application for rezoning unless the proposal already complies with the land-use plan.

You must have thought that it was a pretty good idea as well– dozens of you forwarded the article to the County Commission via the address commishes@aboutgwinnett.com. Some of you received the same reply as did I from Chairman Charles Bannister– that the county planning staff was already working on such a policy.

I have been told that Bannister wasn’t being quite honest… the planning staff had never been charged with incorporating this requirement into the county’s rezoning process. Regardless, if the staff is NOW considering this simple idea for controlling bad development, then progress has been made.

Battling Blight

Here is another common sense approach to a growing problem– vacant commercial properties. As Gwinnett County ages, an increasing number of convenience stores, gas stations, fast food restaurants and strip malls are closing and remaining vacant as commercial centers move elsewhere. Some properties appear essentially abandoned, attracting vandalism and dragging down the desirability of surrounding properties.

Our county leaders has not helped matters, either. By saturating areas with these types of development with no consideration for long-term economic viability, past Commissions have in essence doomed some commercial developments to certain failure. It is simple “supply and demand.” Also, by approving so much new development the County Commission has essentially sucked the life out of Gwinnett’s older communities.

Land Use `Do Over`

But what if the county could force redevelopment of abandoned storefronts or, at the very least get government out of the way so that revitalization could occur? Some progressive communities are achieving this, in part, by adopting a policy known as use reversion.

In essence, a developer proposing to build a convenience store, for example, is granted a “Special Use” permit that allows the tract to be used for that purpose so long as it remains viable. Should the “C-store” go out of business and the building remain vacant for a specified time, the owner would lose the Special Use Permit.

The rationale is that, if a C-store remains vacant for an extended period, that use must no longer be suitable; apparently the community can or will no longer support a convenience store on that tract.

When the Special Use Permit is revoked, the property’s use is then governed by the less-specific underlying zoning classification, allowing a wider range of future uses. At the very least, another convenience store cannot be attempted at that same location without review and approval by county planners.

I can’t claim full credit for this one; another veteran of local community activism, Brenda Lee, ran across this in her travels as a commercial real estate appraiser. It’s not a new idea; just one that local leaders have failed to implement.

Battling Speculation

Would you believe me if I said that developers really DON’T care WHAT they build or IF they build at all, as long as they can make money?

In many cases, the rezoning applicant has no intent to actually build anything, but if he can get a higher-density residential zoning or a commercial classification, he can “flip” the property for greater profit. But to get a rezoning, he has to present a plan. I have seen many that were pure “smoke and mirrors”– meaningless drawings on paper for the SOLE purpose of securing a more profitable zoning.

After land is rezoned, current ordinances do not prevent it from being flipped through several owners who never develop it, but only take profit. This practice not only drives the price up before a serious builder finally acquires it, but it can leave land sitting vacant for years. The multiple transactions can also drive up the cost of surrounding land, which contributes to higher new home prices and artificially-inflated tax assessments for existing homes.

A reversion ordinance would require owners to begin building on rezoned land, ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, within a certain period of time. If they fail to do so, the land would revert back to its previous zoning.

It’s not rocket science and, frankly, the leaders of one of the nation’s fastest growing counties during the past two decades should be ashamed. Here is a provision of the rezoning application process of the thriving metropolis of Dahlonega, Georgia:

“1) The applicant is bound by the submitted site plan and letter of intent if this application is approved and development must be initiated within twenty-four months or the approved zoning is subject to reversion to its previous zoning by the Governing Body.”

The reversion should be administrative and automatic, in my opinion; not subject to review and POTENTIAL reversion by the County Commission.

What Do You Think?

Does a reversion policy sound like a good idea to you? If so, forward this email to the County Commission at commishes@aboutgwinnett.com. Let’s impress upon our elected officials that we INSIST on meaningful policies to rein in uncontrolled growth and bad development…. and not just more platitudes and promises. If you receive a reply, I would like to know what you find out.

County Commission: commishes@aboutgwinnett.com

PS: Growth-related initiatives can also orginate with the Planning Commission. You can send the same email to all at Planning Commissioners at once at plancomm@aboutgwinnett.com .

Talk about these issues in the forum at www.talkgwinnett.com