Avondale Church Zoning Dispute Opens Old Annexation Wounds
Decatur Metro | May 12, 2010It’s zoning kismet!
The AJC reports that the city of Avondale has shut down Christ Liberty Family Center inside its city limits after it was discovered the church was operating without a permit and didn’t meet local zoning rules “that require houses of worship to have three acres of land and 100 feet of frontage for parking.”
Sounds like a pretty cut-and-dry story, right? Oh sorry, I forgot to mention who owned the land the church was using…
The owner of the building, Joe Gargiulo, said the code violations are just a way for the city to lash out over its failed annexation bid on land that he owns.
As we well know by now, Gargiulo owns 10 of the 23 properties in the “no-man’s land” between Avondale and Decatur, which the two cities attempted to annex by way of the Georgia Legislature during the last session, but failed after losing one of the required signatures to get it out of committee. Gargiulo is/was an outspoken opponent of the action.
So, what might have been a pretty straight forward, “You didn’t apply for a permit or even attempt to abide by zoning laws. Either appeal or move on.” is now a story of bubbling animosity and accused ulterior motives. Now THAT’S a story!
Latest from Decaturish
Point for Mr. Gargiulo.
Minimum parking requirements are a useless vestige of the destructive happy motoring fantasy promulgated on society since the fifties. It’s way past time to get them out of the code books.
Especially those that dictate site placement. 100 feet of frontage for parking?! Great idea, if your goal is to ensure that no one ever walks by.
Maybe Avondale can’t be trusted with that stretch…
The City of Avondale, mean spirited? Hard to imagine
Lets see if we got this right.
First they want to take land for no good reason, oop! excuse me they are going to clean it up and make it safer, just like that paragon of pristine commercial success called Downtown Avondale.
When the aforementioned owners resist their obscene advances and repelled them this year, (BTW, The honorable and forward thinking Mayor of Avondale has already said he is ready to try again next year) Avondale starts to focus on code enforcement as a means to support and grow their foundering commercial sector. A church no less.
This is the city that touts itself as a (and I quote) “smaller and more customer friendly governmental entity” yep, that is until you disagree with them.
Jeepers, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to be part of that fine bug
Great and hilarious Freudian in your last sentence there!
oop! that should read burg, not bug …..
what would freud have to say about that?
You know about Avondale now. Do not listen to what they say. Watch what they do. With the help of Stephanie Stuckey, they have sought to terrorize adjoining property owners by OFFERING their annexation plans. I see that the posters now know what property owners surrounding Avondale have known all along. There is no reason a commercial property owner would want to be in Avondale. They have nothing to offer but their vision of what others should do with their properties.
Avondale leaders, wake up. Look at what you have done to your city. Want something better? Do something different than you have the last 50 years. Is the definition of insanity ” doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”? You have what you want and have wanted too long. Sitting around a council meeting telling anyone there that you are business friendly and want change just does not square with your actions. My advice, stay where you are and be happy with what you have built. Or take actions that are different from the past!
Not to “stand up for the man,” but I don’t think parking regulations like this are “a useless vestige of the destructive happy motoring fantasy.”
What they are is an attempt to respect the effect that any public meeting house has on the traffic flows and parking constraints of a residential area. As much as we’d like to pretend that reduced parking will inspire more patrons to walk, what really happens is that those people still drive; they just end up clogging the residential parking to do so.
Not to mention, these regulations also exist to ensure that elderly or disabled patrons are able to access their place of worship.
So, before we jump to conclusions about allegedly bullyish behavior by Avondale government, at least acknowledge that they’re perfectly justified in this action, and the spirit and letter of the law are legit.
Whatever the outcome of this, property owners outside the City of Avondale, but within their range of desirability do not want to be in the city limits. Their zoning codes were most definitely written for a different time. As far as I am concerned, they can keep the codes they have and the enforcement they have and they will also keep the commercial district they have. Nice trade off, huh? But they do not deserve to expand their enlightened thinking to the adjoining districts. Just stay in your cocoon and leave every one else alone. If you ever emerge from that cocoon, you will see a new world and maybe benefit from it.
Dictating that a property owner subsidize a large portion of their property to an impermeable asphalt cover just to provide some patrons a “free” parking spot for their automobiles has proven quite detrimental in the long run. The codes were developed in an era when there were actual plans for nuclear powered automobiles and other tech fantasies. We are at the tail end of the supply of cheap energy that sustained and encouraged a culture that made such a governmental dictat over personal freedom seem “normal”. It’s worth revisiting some of these codes to prepare for a more sustainable future.