CorinthHills.org

The county line:
The Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners adopted a new solid waste ordinance for unincorporated Gwinnett County during the board’s business session on March 2, 2010. The ordinance as adopted will be posted as soon as possible.

Service will begin on July 1, 2010, giving residents and haulers time to transition to the new system. The new ordinance, which does not affect city residents, will provide a reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally-conscious solid waste management system and also will allow Gwinnett County to fulfill its requirements under state law. All homeowners will have access to services for the collection and disposal of household garbage, expanded recycling, white goods (household appliances), bulky wastes (mattresses, furniture, etc.), and yard trimmings.

The new ordinance sets five service districts and authorizes the County to enter into one or more service agreements with a private company or companies to provide residential garbage service with no more than one service provider within each district. Fees for residential waste services will be made payable to Gwinnett County and will be billed as a residential solid waste fee on the same bill as county taxes.

Approval of a new ordinance is the first required step in the process of implementing a new solid waste management plan. Details of the service areas, costs, and collection logistics will be made available as soon as they are finalized.

###

Mike Beaudreau was quoted in part as stating, “I don’t think it’s perfect…”

Don Collins, government contract manager for Waste Industries, told commissioners his company took it on faith that the county would follow the court’s order and draw up a new plan in a public, above-board manner, but that the plan showed officials worked behind closed doors to satisfy members of the first lawsuit.

…Isn’t that why a Gwinnett County special grand jury is investigating the board’s land deals?…

“Even as our federal lawsuit continues,” Collins said, “your vote today confirms our position before the court that the county’s illegal trash plan is marching forward.”

Local news outlets report that despite not being allowed to address the board before the vote, citizens were vocal in their opposition after the vote. It was also disclosed that a new recall effort was being launched targeting Chairman Bannister.

More:
• GwinnettCounty.com
• GDP
• AJC
• GwntRecall.com

3 Responses To “Garbage Adopted”

1. Admin Says:
   March 3rd, 2010 at 9:26 AM

   It’s my understanding that one of the overriding concerns that the board wanted to address for the citizens of Gwinnett was the traffic issues as it is effected by garbage haulers. For the life of me I don’t understand this. I find myself being delayed far more by postal trucks, UPS, FedEx and the worst offenders, school buses.

   There’s a project for Gwinnett County. Adopt a policy whereby school buses aren’t required to stop every 50 feet to pickup and offload kids. School systems all over this country, including GCPS, gripe about obese children… allow them to walk a few feet to and from the bus stop…

   That’s our opinion, we welcome yours…

2. j.q.public Says:
   March 5th, 2010 at 8:40 AM

   RINOs, republicans in name only. Republican mantra dictates smaller government and allowing the public to manage their own affairs in a free market society. Obama’s healthcare reform is an excellent example, republicans aren’t for it because it puts healthcare in the hands of government. BUT Gwinnett “republicans” believe that they should decide my waste disposal, how it’s paid for, how much it is and when I should pay it.

   Yeah, “republicans” they are.

3. fwy545 Says:
   March 9th, 2010 at 10:52 AM

   I do see garbage trucks from various services in our neighborhood on several days during the week, but they don’t take long to complete their business. I certainly don’t think that it’s worth relinquishing my right to chose my own waste disposal service in order to reduce this little bit of traffic. If you think about it, there will still be traffic to pickup all homes, and even more now that the county is mandating all residential homes be serviced. The only difference will be the number of days the truck will be in the neighborhood. The time spent in each neighborhood for each truck will actually increase.

Leave A Reply To “Garbage Adopted”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners will again consider county mandated garbage collection. Even with lawsuits totaling in excess of $80 million still pending over the last board sanctioned solid waste plan, local media reports suggests that not much has changed in the new proposed plan. The biggest change is that Gwinnett Clean & Beautiful will not be the county appointed enforcer.

Points from the original plan still being considered:
• Service fee(s) to be included in county tax bill
• Expanded recycling
• Mandatory participation by all residents
• 5 zones to be established and serviced by one hauler

If approved, the plan is expected to take effect this July. The board will not allow public comment prior to the vote. Voting will take place at 10 AM tomorrow at the Gwinnett County Justice and Administration Center in Lawrenceville.

One Response To “County Mandated Garbage - AGAIN…”

1. Admin Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 2:38 PM

   Gwinnett County’s Solid Waste Information Center is open for callers Monday through Friday between 7:00am and 7:00pm, 770.822.7141.

Leave A Reply To “County Mandated Garbage - AGAIN…”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

The Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners are set to discuss two lawsuits pending over county mandated trash service. Tuesday’s (November 17, 2009) special meeting is to be held with the garbage vendors who are suing the county along with mediators who will attempt to resolve the two pending 40 million dollar plus lawsuits. Yes, $80,000,000.00+.

Guess who pays the settlement? Guess how. These are the same commissioners who suggest that Gwinnettians give up one movie a month so that we can pay higher taxes.

2 Responses To “Gwinnett BoC Trash Talk”

1. bwilson Says:
   November 16th, 2009 at 7:05 PM

   Wasn’t the county mandated garbage service supposed to save us money? It appears to me that not only will I not save on my garbage service, but now my taxes will be raised to pay for the lawsuits. Am I missing something?

2. Admin Says:
   November 17th, 2009 at 9:28 AM

   Nope, I think you’ve got it…

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett BoC Trash Talk”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

The Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office will begin enforcing federal immigration law under the 287(g) program starting Monday, November 16th. Gwinnett County was accepted into the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) program this July.

• Click here to view a video of Sheriff Butch Conway and Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter discussing the 287(g) program and how it is used to combat criminal illegal aliens.

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett Begins Illegal Immigration Enforcement”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Qualified firearm owners are now allowed to bring their weapons into Stone Mountain Park. Anyone, except felons and those who have been involuntarily committed for mental illness, can have guns inside the park. However, those without a carry permit must leave their weapons in their car.

In May 2008 attorneys for GeorgiaCarry.org filed a lawsuit challenging a Stone Mountain Park ordinance that prohibited firearms inside the park.

On July 1, 2008, a new Georgia state law allowed guns in state parks and other places they had not been allowed before. About six months later, at the end of last year, the Stone Mountain ordinance was tweaked letting those with carry permits bring their guns into the park as long as they first told the park police they were armed.

The settlement of GeorgiaCarry.org’s May 2008 lawsuit allows for guns inside the park without notification.

Leave A Reply To “Guns Now Allowed In Stone Mountain Park”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

U.S. Representatives John Linder and Tom Price will host a town hall meeting to discuss the Democratic health care reform proposal along with Republican alternatives.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM at North Gwinnett High School - 20 Level Creek Road, Suwanee.

Leave A Reply To “Health Care Reform Town Hall”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Gwinnett’s $37 million land deals questioned
County commissioners paid top dollar for park properties

By TIM EBERLY

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
11:51 p.m. Friday, July 31, 2009

Gwinnett County has paid politically connected developers inflated prices for parkland on at least four occasions in the last two years using questionable appraisals, including two supplied by developers, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution review of land purchases shows.

As a result, Gwinnett County taxpayers potentially paid millions more for land that has yet to be developed into parks they can use.

In arriving at its generous offers, the county often diverged from established procedures in buying parkland, saying it did not need to follow them because three of the purchases were made to settle lawsuits.

The county could not offer evidence that officials who run the parks system initiated any of the four purchases, nor is there any evidence to show that officials made serious attempts to negotiate for lower prices.

The most recent purchase was made in June, as the county struggled to fill a huge budget deficit.

The commissioners who championed three of the land deals - Kevin Kenerly advocated for two and Chairman Charles Bannister for the third - acknowledge friendships with developers who owned the property.

Former commissioner Lorraine Green, who advocated for the fourth, described the developer in that purchase as a political supporter.

Kenerly, Bannister and Green have all accepted campaign donations from the developers in their respective purchases.

The unorthodox purchases, which cost a total of $37 million, have gotten the attention of Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter, who said in an interview that he will ask the grand jury to investigate these and other purchases in September.

“I think the grand jury, as a group of citizens, needs to look at these expenditures of county money and try to determine if there’s anything criminal,” he said after hearing of the AJC’s findings. “If there is, it needs to be prosecuted.”

In interviews with the AJC, the county commissioners who pushed for the land buys either said they couldn’t remember how the county settled on the purchase prices or said they were not involved in the negotiations.

However, the Board of Commissioners not only approves purchases, but it authorizes how high staffers can negotiate.

The commissioners defended their purchases, saying all were good buys for the county. Some said it doesn’t matter who owned the property.

“If it’s a piece of property that the county needs to buy, I don’t care if Donald Duck owns it,” said Kenerly, who voted for all four purchases.

Land deals

The four land purchases unfolded in a similar manner.

Developers first tried to get their land rezoned in order to build mixed-use developments, apartment complexes or subdivisions.

The county commissioners -and in one case the Sugar Hill City Council- either rejected the rezoning requests or gave developers less valuable zonings than they asked for. The developers responded by filing lawsuits - three against the county and the fourth against the Sugar Hill.

Soon after, the county bought the land from prominent developers David Jenkins, David Bowen, Wayne Mason and Marvin Hewatt. Three of the purchases settled lawsuits.

Buying land to settle lawsuits with developers is not common practice in other metro Atlanta counties, including Cobb, DeKalb and Cherokee.

“Our attitude is not to turn around and buy their property, because we refuse to let them do whatever they want to do,” Clayton County Commission Chairman Eldrin Bell said.

Gwinnett County Commissioner Mike Beaudreau said he believes the pattern of lawsuits raises questions about some of his colleagues’ involvement with developers.

“It’s just too many coincidences,” said Beaudreau, who voted for three of the four deals, but now says he deferred to the commissioners who lobbied for the purchases. “That’s how [developers] get what they want. If they file a lawsuit, it gives some people an excuse to push the acquisition forward.”

Appraisals

In each case, the county paid top dollar based on questionable appraisals.

In two, the county paid a price close to the developers’ appraisals and significantly higher than the county’s own estimates of the land’s worth.

In the others, the purchase price was based on county appraisals that used a zoning designation that would have allowed a more lucrative development than was permitted by existing zoning.

Three of the appraisals - two paid for by the county and another paid for by a developer- were done by Lawrenceville appraiser Ron Foster.

The appraisals show that in the two done for the county, Foster used zoning designations that the developers had sought but the county had rejected.

In both reports, Foster acknowledged using a different zoning than was permitted, saying his “appraisal is based on the appraiser’s opinion of highest and best use of the subject property.”

The third property included 67 acres - two-thirds of which carried a zoning that is far less valuable than the other third. In his appraisal for the developer, Foster swapped the zonings, applying the more valuable zoning to the larger piece of land, records show.

Had Foster used the correct zonings, his appraisal would have been about $2 million less, according to the land values in his appraisal.

In his report, Foster notes that he uses a “hypothetical condition,” that the land could be rezoned by the city of Sugar Hill. By that time, however, a judge had already ruled that the existing zoning was appropriate.

Appraisers not associated with the park deals said it would be inappropriate to use a hypothetical zoning in a market value appraisal unless the appraiser was asked by his or her client to do so. In that case, the client’s request should be noted. None of Foster’s appraisals indicate any such instructions.

Two appraisers, including Scott Murphy of Suwanee, reviewed appraisals on all four properties for the AJC.

“It seems very suspicious to go in that direction,” said Murphy, who sits on the Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board, which investigates accusations against appraisers. “I don’t see that as a reasonable approach.”

When reached by phone, Foster would not comment, but said he would agree to an interview if he got permission from those who hired him to do the work. He did not return subsequent phone messages.

The most recent deal, completed in June, did not involve Foster. In that one, the developer’s appraiser arrived at a value that was double that of the county appraiser’s by using land sales from 2006 - the peak of the housing market.

“That’s absolutely outrageous,” Murphy said of the higher appraisal. “There’s no basis for that.”

Most of the current and former commissioners involved in the purchases said they were not aware of the appraisers’ unusual methods.

Several commissioners also said they do not closely scrutinize appraisals, and are typically given basic information about them when considering purchases in executive session.

“The quick and dirty,” Commissioner Bert Nasuti said.

Standout deal

The purchase of 33.2 acres south of Dacula from developer Hewatt this year stands out in a number of ways.

County officials say they bought the land to settle a lawsuit with Hewatt.

Hewatt, whose primary business is developing gas stations and convenience stores, originally wanted to build a 91-home subdivision.

But the county, led by Commissioner Beaudreau, who represents that district, voted on Nov. 18 to allow him to build only 33 homes.

Records show the county’s efforts to buy the property began the next day when it sent out a request for bids to appraise the land.

The lawsuit was filed Dec. 2, almost two weeks later.

The appraiser hired by the county estimated the land to be worth a little over $1 million. At the time, the recession was in full swing, pushing property values throughout the metro area downward.

The county appraisal didn’t sit well with Chairman Bannister.

According to Beaudreau, Bannister brought a copy of the developer’s appraisal to a closed-door commission meeting for his colleagues to consider. That one, based on 2006 land sales, was for $2.42 million.

Bannister, in an interview with the AJC, didn’t deny bringing the higher appraisal to the meeting. He said he believes it was the more accurate of the two.

The county agreed to buy the land soon after for $2.29 million - more than twice the county’s appraisal price and just under the price suggested by the developer’s appraisal.

The property will expand an adjacent 294-acre property that the county bought in 2001 but has yet to develop into a park. It is not open to the public.

Beaudreau opposed the purchase, saying the county didn’t need more undeveloped parkland there. He also questioned the use of the developer’s appraisal.

Beaudreau said he confronted Bannister about why he pushed so hard for the purchase when Beaudreau - the commissioner who represented the district - adamantly opposed it. The board usually defers to the wishes of the district commissioner in such matters.

Bannister made no apologies for championing the purchase.

“I simply replied that the entire county was my district,” said Bannister, who is elected county-wide.

Bannister says the county got a good deal.

“I believe we obtained the land at the best price negotiable,” he wrote in an e-mail to the AJC last week. “As a matter of fact other properties within the area have been purchased for more.”

“The value of a piece of property is based on what a willing seller is willing to accept and an able buyer is willing to pay. ”

Little negotiation

Records detailing the county’s actions on the purchases show little or no effort to negotiate for the lowest possible prices in the four deals.

In one of the purchases, the files show no evidence of any negotiation. In the others, the county provided e-mails between both sides that show the county asked for slight price reductions.

One developer wanted $70,000 an acre; the county paid $69,000.

Another asked for $16.9 million; the county agreed to pay $16.4 million, though it was later lowered to $16.26 after some rock was found on the land.

When asked about negotiations, the commissioners all said that county staffers did the negotiating.

Commissioner Kenerly, who pushed for the two most expensive deals, said he relies on county staff to tell him whether the purchases are good ones.

“I make them look at me and tell me whether this is a good deal or not,” Kenerly said.

The officials who oversee the departments that negotiated and bought the land, County Attorney Karen Gilpin Thomas and Support Services Director Steve North, refused interview requests.

The department that buys parkland, Support Services, has a manual that spells out how to do so.

Records of the four recent purchases show many of the department’s guidelines weren’t followed.

For example, Support Services, which typically buys the county’s parkland, is supposed to seek multiple bids for appraisals.

But in two of the purchases, the county did not solicit bids and chose Foster instead.

For three of the deals, county officials contend they did not have to follow the procedures because the purchases were lawsuit settlements handled by the Law Department. The Law Department is only required to follow the instructions of the Board of Commissioners in such cases, county spokesman Joe Sorenson said.

However, all four purchases are listed on county records as acquisitions made by Support Services, not the Law Department.

It’s not clear why the county determined that it was better to buy the land than fight the lawsuits.

When asked by e-mail, Thomas, the county attorney, referred the AJC to her department’s files for the purchases. The files, however, did not address the justification for the settlements.

The parks department has a master plan that identifies areas where the county has the greatest need for more parks. Only one of the four properties, located at Beaver Ruin Road and Interstate 85, is in one of those areas.

Two of the others are slated to be community parks with athletic fields for nearby schools.

County records show the fourth property is plagued with access problems. Motorists won’t be able to drive into the park, due to the land’s floodplain and topography issues. In order for people to park nearby, the county must get permission from an adjacent property owner, which it has not yet done.

Close associations

All four developers are politically connected men who sit atop Gwinnett’s development community.

Kenerly, who took the lead on the deals involving Jenkins and Bowen, said in an interview that he considers them both friends. He said he considers Hewatt a friend, too.

Kenerly’s relationship with Jenkins goes deeper. A real-estate investor, Kenerly acknowledged that he has been involved in three business deals with Jenkins and has gone on several group vacations to Las Vegas with him.

Bannister, who advocated the land deal involving Hewatt, said the two are friends.

Former Commissioner Green led the effort to buy the land on Beaver Ruin Road from developer and former Commission Chairman Wayne Mason. Green, who left the board at the end of 2008, described Mason as nothing more than a political supporter and said the purchase was good for her district.

All four developers have contributed to the campaigns of the commissioners who lobbied for the purchases.

Kenerly, Bannister and Green all said the personal relationships or campaign contributions did not drive their support.

The developers could not be reached for comment. Their attorney, R. Lee Tucker Jr., said in an e-mail that none wanted to be interviewed for the story.

It will be at least six years before taxpayers can enjoy any of the four parks. None will open before 2016, a parks official said.

In the meantime, Porter, the district attorney, has raised questions about another proposed land purchase.

In June, he stalled the proposed $5.27 million land purchase by threatening the commissioners with a grand jury investigation if the deal went through. Porter hinted that he had suspicions about other deals as well.

The board postponed the vote until Tuesday.

Beaudreau is not convinced his colleagues took Porter’s threat seriously.

“I’m afraid this is not the end of it,” Beaudreau said. “You would think people could be shamed into doing the right thing.”

HOW WE GOT THE STORY

Working off a tip, the AJC investigated six land purchases for parkland by Gwinnett County, eventually focusing on four of them.

The newspaper researched the history of the properties, the failed attempts of developers to build, the developers’ lawsuits and the county’s steps to buy the land.

In doing so, the AJC reviewed dozens of files in five county departments, including those that buy parkland and run the county’s parks system.

It also interviewed six current or former commissioners, reviewed all their campaign contributions over the past six years, reviewed two master plans for the parks system and watched numerous archived Board of Commissioners’ meetings dating back to 2004.

The AJC also solicited the help of two local appraisers to examine the appraisals involved in the four deals.

Leave A Reply To “Grand Jury To Investigate Gwinnett BoC Next Month”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Governor Perdue announced today that due to significant rainfall and improved water supplies the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has issued a non-drought schedule for outdoor water use for the first time since June 2006.

The State of Georgia has returned to a non-drought schedule for outdoor water use. Under a non-drought schedule, outdoor water use is allowed three days a week on assigned days using odd and even-numbered addresses.

Odd-numbered addresses can water on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Even-numbered and unnumbered addresses are allowed to water on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. Outdoor watering is prohibited on Fridays.

Water use may occur at any time of the day on the assigned days, but to be water efficient, landscape watering should not occur between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. The non-drought schedule is included in the Rules for Outdoor Water Use (PDF document) adopted by the Board of Natural Resources in 2004.

• Conserve Water Georgia
• Governor Purdue’s Announcement
• Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)

• Click here to email this article to a friend…

One Response To “Georgia Outdoor Water Use Update - June 2009”

1. bwilson Says:
   June 11th, 2009 at 2:59 PM

   This is cute. Perdue is either naive, stupid, on the take or all of the above if he believes that the people will conserve on their own. Lanier will be in trouble again before the end of spring.

Leave A Reply To “Georgia Outdoor Water Use Update - June 2009”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

The Gwinnett County Solicitor’s Office has opened an investigation related to two rezoning applications approved by the Gwinnett County BoC. Both cases involve recent rezoning votes by the BoC associated with solid waste transfer stations and campaign contributions made by the developers who benefited from these BoC votes.

The Gwinnett County planning department, planning commission and Gwinnett Village Community Improvement District had recommended denial for the rezoning requests. A group opposed to one of these projects along with nearby business owners, are currently challenging the board’s decision in Superior Court.

The Gwinnett County Solicitor’s Office is responsible for the prosecution of all State misdemeanor crimes in the State Court of Gwinnett County and all County ordinance violations (including traffic citations) in the Recorder’s Court of Gwinnett County.

To read more…
Solicitor’s office looks into rezonings
By Jamie Ward
The Gwinnett Daily Post
Sunday, June 7, 2009

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett Solicitor Investigating BoC”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

The public hearings held Tuesday, May 26th at the GJAC were standing room only and very raucous. This has some commissioners rethinking their position. An informal poll regarding the formal vote next Tuesday, June 2nd has produced the following results:

Commission Chairman Charles E. Bannister
(R); 2012
770.822.7010
Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
…in favor of the tax increase

District 1 Commissioner: Shirley Lasseter
(R); 2012
770.822.7001
Shirley.Lasseter@gwinnettcounty.com
…was in favor of the tax increase, now undecided

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti
(R); 2010
770.822.7002
Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com
…was in favor of the tax increase, now undecided

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau
(R); 2012
770.822.7003
Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com
…opposed to the tax increase

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly
(R); 2010
770.822.7004
Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
…was in favor of the tax increase, now undecided

One Response To “Gwinnett BoC Polling On Tax Increase Vote”

1. Admin Says:
   May 28th, 2009 at 8:27 AM

   In December, 2008 the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners spent 3 days and $15,000 in Young Harris, GA discussing the budget crisis.

   Click here to view the original post: http://corinthhills.org/gwinnett/gwinnett-boc-discuss-budget-cuts-at-retreat/

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett BoC Polling On Tax Increase Vote”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

• Click here for updates as of June 10, 2009…

Gwinnett County continues to be designated as a Level Four state drought response county.

Watering schedule as of May, 2009

For Drip Irrigation or Soaker Hose
Each household, business or other institution/property owner may use drip irrigation or soaker hoses to water existing landscaping. Watering is allowed for 1 hour per day for 3 days within the hours of 12:00 midnight to 10:00am on an odd-even address system (even addresses end in 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 or no house number and odd addresses end in 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9). The following schedule applies to existing landscape areas to include trees, flowers, vines and shrubs (this does not include turf grass):

Gwinnett County Outdoor Watering Schedule (Drip Irrigation/Soaker Hose):
Monday - Even - 12am - 10am - 1 hour
Tuesday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 1 hour
Wednesday - Even - 12am - 10am - 1 hour
Thursday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 1 hour
Friday - No watering allowed at all
Saturday - Even - 12am - 10am - 1 hour
Sunday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 1 hour

For Hand Held Garden Hoses
Each household, business or other institution/property owner will be allowed to use one hand held garden hose (equipped with standard spray nozzle and automatic release shut-off). Watering is allowed for 25 minutes a day during the designated hours indicated below on an odd-even address system (even addresses end in 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 or no house number and odd addresses end in 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9). The following schedule applies to existing landscapes as well as small, newly installed landscape areas (i.e., flowerbeds, containers,etc.).

Gwinnett County Outdoor Watering Schedule (Hand Held Hose):
Monday - Even - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes
Tuesday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes
Wednesday - Even - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes
Thursday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes
Friday - No watering allowed at all
Saturday - Even - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes
Sunday - Odd - 12am - 10am - 25 minutes

Exemptions From Outdoor Watering Restrictions
According to the state Outdoor Water Use Rules (Chapter 391-3-30.05 Exemptions). The following are exempt from current Level 4 Drought Restrictions:
a. Capture and reuse of cooling system condensate or storm water in compliance with
applicable local ordinances.
b. Reuse of gray water in compliance with applicable local ordinances.
c. Use of reclaimed wastewater by a designated user from a system permitted by EPD to
provide reclaimed wastewater.
d. Irrigation of personal food gardens.
e. Water use, circulation and aeration for ponds or fountains, which maintain aquatic life.
f. Water may be used to wash hard surfaces, such as streets, gutters, sidewalks
driveways, school buses, fire trucks, emergency vehicles and police cars ONLY when
necessary for public health and safety.
g. Water may be used to water-in pesticides and herbicides.
h. Landscape professionals who hold a valid business license may use water to hydro-seed a lawn.
i. Landscape and irrigation contractors who hold a valid business license may use water
during installation of irrigation equipment and as needed for proper maintenance and adjustments only.
j. Sod producers, food and fiber producers, ornamental growers, fruit and vegetable growers,
nurseries and retail garden centers may water their stock.
k. Powerwashing contractors who hold a valid business license may use water to run
their powerwashing equipment for customers.
l. Water may be used on construction sites.
m. Water may be used for commercial car wash operations.
n. Water may be used for other activities essential to daily business (This exemption refers to activities that are part of a primary operation of a business. For example, a window washing business or a mobile car wash business is included in this category.

Authorized Uses
Drip Irrigation (trees, flowers, vines and shrubs; this does not include turf grass). The use of an irrigation system manufactured and sold specifically for delivering water through small flexible pipes and emitters slowly and directly to the soil around the base of individual plants in a manner that minimizes evaporative losses, pooling, runoff and wetting of plant foliage. This type of system may be a part of a larger automated irrigation system or may operate as a standalone system connected to a typical outdoor faucet. See watering schedule above for drip irrigation.

Soaker Hose (trees, flowers, vines and shrubs; this does not include turf grass). A hose that is connected to a typical outdoor faucet and that is manufactured and sold specifically for delivering water slowly and directly to the soil around the base of individual plants by allowing water to seep from it in a manner that minimizes evaporative losses, pooling, runoff and wetting of plant foliage. See watering schedule above for soaker hose.

Filling Swimming Pools. Each household, business or other institution/property owner may fill swimming pools without day or time restrictions.

Hand-watering (plants, seed and turf). Hand-watering is defined as one person with one hose. See Watering Schedule above.

Irrigating Newly Installed Landscapes. In order to qualify for a new landscape exemption, customers must complete the State of Georgia’s Outdoor Water Use Registration Program (the program consists of a presentation and test). A representative from the property must complete the program and pass the quiz for businesses and homeowner associations. A property owner must complete the program and pass the test for an individual home. The program is available online at www.outdoorwateruse.com and at the Gwinnett County Extension Services office. There is a convenience fee of $4.95 to complete the online program. However, the program is available at no charge at the Gwinnett County Extension Office located at the following:

757 South Perry Street
Annex Building 4th Floor
Lawrenceville, GA 30045

For additional information or to report a violation call Gwinnett County at 678-376-7100, or send an e-mail to: dwrwaterbanquestions@gwinnettcounty.com.

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett County 2009 Outdoor Watering Schedule”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Sheriff Butch Conway and Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter discuss the 287(g) program and how it is used to combat criminal illegal aliens.

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway Discusses 287 (g)”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Gwinnett County is under a total outdoor burn ban from May 1 to September 30. All types of outdoor/open burning are prohibited during this time period.

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) imposes a ban on outdoor burning to comply with Federal Clean Air Regulations. During the summer months in Georgia, the ozone in the air we breathe can reach unhealthy levels. The Georgia EPD has identified outdoor/open burning as a significant contributor of the pollutants that form ozone. Consequently, open burning in metro Atlanta is restricted during the warm weather season. The safe use of barbeque grills for outdoor cooking is still allowed.

The following types of outdoor/open burning are banned:
• Burning of trees, limbs, or any other yard waste
• Burning over of forest or land by the owners of the land
• Burning of vegetative waste from land clearing (includes a ban on the use of air curtain destructors)

The following types of outdoor/open burning are still allowed, provided the proper permits are obtained:
• Fires for agricultural practices (must be zoned RA-200/residential agricultural) or a forestry prescribed burn.
• Fires for recreational purposes or for cooking food to include barbeques and campfires (in a designated campground area).
• Fires for the purpose of training firefighting personnel

For additional information about open burning, visit the Fire Marshal?s website at www.gwinnettfiremarshal.com or call the Office of the Fire Marshal at 678.518.6100.

Leave A Reply To “Gwinnett County Burn Ban Begins”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

By PATRICK FOX
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, January 30, 2009

Gwinnett dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.

The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark. It also expands the description for tethering of animals.

The biggest change is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent, but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.

The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal. The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.

The proposal has generated some chatter on local blogs, but county officials dismiss some of the criticism as preposterous.

Karen Thomas, director of the county attorney’s office, which is helping draft the ordinance, said the advisory council is addressing the issue because of concerns raised in the community.

“It’s the whole balancing thing of if you have an animal, then you should care for the animal,” she said. “It’s to help make sure there is no mistreatment of animals.”

Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission any time soon.

Advisory council chairperson Gail LaBerge would not comment on the specifics of the ordinance, saying only that its under review.

Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.

“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd. You don’t put people in jail because their dogs bark.”

DeCarlo added that the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more animals being put down.

“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.

The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors - not one - to swear out a barking complaint.

“People don’t say ˜I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”

Leave A Reply To “New Gwinnett Dog Barking Resolution Considered”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.

Changes to the temporary signs section of the Gwinnett County Sign Ordinance were approved by the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners on March 25, 2008. These changes include adding a section to allow for graduation banners.

Graduation banners may be placed on residentially zoned property. Such banners may be no more than 24 square feet in size and must be maintained in good condition and individually attached to a pole, mast, arm, or other structure. A graduation banner may not be displayed on any lot for more than 60 consecutive days.

• Sign Ordinance Amendment 2008-001 (PDF Document)

2 Responses To “Graduation Banners”

1. FinanceBuzz Says:
   May 7th, 2008 at 4:18 PM

   You must be kidding. With Gwinnett’s problems with traffic, illegal immigration, budget, and other issues, they took the time to worry about including graduation banners in a law. Personally, I think graduation banners are tacky and even cheesy (referring to the ones that go on the entrance of subdivisions), but I realize that at that point in your life, kids think that graduating from high school is the most significant thing in life. However, even if they are tacky, do we need a law addressing them? So we need Gwinnett cops and code enforcers wasting time trying to figure out if a banner has been up for 59 days or 61? Just another example of the out of control influence of government in the most menial things in our lives. When are we as citizens going to say enough and tell government to back off?

2. Admin Says:
   May 12th, 2008 at 2:16 PM

   By MICHAEL PEARSON
   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
   Published on: 03/24/08

   Turns out those celebratory graduation banners that pop up every spring in front of Gwinnett County subdivisions have one teensy, weensy little problem.

   Technically, they’re illegal.

   Just in time for graduation season, the County Commission is set to address that problem Tuesday with an ordinance that would put proud parents back on the right side of the law. The ordinance would also spare code enforcement officers the awkward task of having to pull down signs blaring such happy news.

   “It was a big issue because you had parents who wanted to show pride in their kids and they’re weren’t able to,” said County Commissioner Mike Beaudreau.

   The issue caused a ruckus last spring, with rumors of a ban on the signs leading to complaints to the county and eventually an informal suspension of the rules on graduation banners.

   Kathy Holland, director of the county planning department’s development division, said parents have always been allowed to post a sign of up to 16 square feet in their own yards celebrating a graduation.

   But nothing in the county’s sign ordinance authorizes the display of graduation banners typically found at the entrance to subdivisions, she said.

   “What was happening is they were being removed through the typical sign sweeps,” she said.

   If approved, the new rules will allow banners of up to 16 square feet for up to 60 days, so long as they’re kept in good repair and don’t encroach on the right of way.

   At that size, some neighborhoods could still get into hot water.

   While individual signs are by far the most popular, most neighborhood groups go for signs of 15 to 32 square feet, said Nicole Mewhiney, account manager at FastSigns in Norcross.

   Jill Stoneberg, a resident of Flowers Crossing at the Mill in Lawrenceville, said her neighborhood association would likely ask that the county increase the size of the banners to make sure her 600-home subdivision can get all of its kids properly listed.

   “The smaller the banner, the smaller the fonts,” she said. “It’s hard to read.”

   Holland said she realized some groups may not be happy with the size restriction, but said her office tried to remain consistent with what was already contained in the law regarding such signs.

   “It’s something we didn’t want to discourage but felt we needed to have some control,” she said.

Leave A Reply To “Graduation Banners”

You must be a registered user and logged in to post a comment.