Decatur Releases Details of Proposed Temporary Moratorium
Decatur Metro | October 17, 2013During all the talk surrounding the proposed temporary moratorium on structural demolition or tree removal in residential areas last week, commenters here expressed a desire for details or they claimed that they somehow already knew all the details. Well, now you can all claim the latter…as long as you have 10 minutes available to you AND can translate ordinance speak.
The city has just posted the drafted ordinance of the proposed moratorium on it’s website.
Of note – based on the discussions here last week – here are a few clarifications found in the document. First, what classifies as demolition…
For purposes of this Ordinance, “structural demolition” shall mean one or more of the following: (a) the removal of 50% or more of the original exterior walls; (b) the removal of 50% or more of the original, first floor sub floor and joist systems; (c) the enclosure of the original exterior walls by another wall system.
Also, perhaps this was already stated, but the tree removal moratorium only applies to residential R-60 and R-85 lots. Also, trees with a “moderate or higher risk rating”, as determined by the city arborist, which “cannot be mitigated by industry best management practices, a determined pursuant to ANSI A300 Part 9 Tree, Shrub and other Woody Plant Management Standard Practices Tree Risk Assessment” will not apply to the moratorium.
Also, property owners will be able to file an appeal to the Planning Commission if they are denied permit by the Planning Department, if they believe that the city erred in
concluding that the application does not qualify for one of the exceptions listed in” Section 2 or 3 above or if they can prove extraordinary economic circumstances.”
The City Commission will consider the moratorium next Monday, Oct 21st at their regular 7:30p meeting. Any approved moratorium would remain in effect until January 24, 2014.
This clears it up a bit. I’m not sure I agree with the moratorium, but hopefully this puts those at ease who worried that “renovation” was the same thing as “demolition.”
Yes, but it still applies to homeowners who want to demo their own house and rebuild. There may not be many of those, but this doesn’t just affect “outside, money grubber” developers.
And what does (c) mean exactly?
Sounds like covering brick with siding or vice versa?
To me, adding a veneer or new facade is not the same as “the enclosure of the original exterior walls by another wall system.” Bricks and vinyl siding are not wall systems just as paint is not a “wall system.”
I guess it’s a way to stop someone from getting around the moratorium by building a new structure around an existing home instead of demolishing the original structure. Sounds crazy to do, but I suppose it’s a possibility.
Would love to see some #’s on “homeowners who just want to rebuild” vs “outside, money grubber” developers. I’ll guess that ratio is 1:20.
“Outside, money grubber developers” sounds so much worse than “my poor neighbors who may not want to, but have to sell their house”. So kudos to you for framing the debate that way. I may not like those big, bad developer dudes but I sure as hell ain’t going to let my distaste for them lead me to the conclusion that my neighbors should not be able to sell to them.
As for your ratio, show me 20 of the bad guys because my household is on the “1″ side of your equation. And I don’t particularly like my neighbors telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to rebuild an outdated, <1200 sq ft, 1 bathroom house just because it doesn't suit their own aesthetic from the front porch of their probably much larger and nicer house.
For the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate there are 20 money-grubbing outsiders for every owner-occupied rebuild. Does that mean that single hapless homeowner should get steamrolled?
Honestly, this is an issue where everybody needs to try really, really hard to hold more than one thought in their head at the same time. It’s possible to believe that (1) Decatur’s tree ordinance is still weak and ineffective and needs work, AND/OR that (2) there needs to be some way of preventing infill development from destroying the tone and character of in-town neighborhoods, AND ALSO believe passionately that the proposed moratorium is unwise and/or irresponsible for any of a variety of reasons.
I can tell you I am one of those homeowners wanting to demo and build. I am sure that I am not alone. Needless to say I am a little nervous about how all this will play out!
I think you are wrong. I know of 15+ current Decatur homeowners in the process of renovating, myself being one of them. People are taking advantage of the low interest rates. Many of these people have been planning for their renovations for a long time. It’s is wrong for the city to take away their right to renovate
I agree, this hurts a lot of individuals. We have neighbors on both sides and one across the street in the planning phase of projects. One has even moved out in anticipation of a large renovation. I do not see a permit yet and am afraid they may be delayed considerably by this moratorium.
And as for those “money grubbing” developers, I know of many individual builders and planners that are our friends and neighbors as well as being decatur taxpayers. They will all be negatively impacted by delays here as well. This makes no sense to me.
Bingo. From my observation, some of the most prolific builders currently working in Decatur are Decatur residents. So how does that fit the “outside money grubber” narrative? And would we be just as comfortable messing with the livelihood of, say, a software developer neighbor or daycare worker neighbor?
I’m not a fan of indiscriminate teardowns and hope we can get more creative about how the market is able to respond to demand, but I am a fan of building community and sticking it to your neighbor by shutting down their previously acceptable options is, IMO, a lousy way to go about it.
“(c) the enclosure of the original exterior walls by another wall system” seems to me to be an addition of any type other than purely up, unless by plural walls this means that the original structure is surrounded on all four sides by new enclosed space. As written, it seems to me that if you add on say a family room addition to the back of the house, you are enclosing at least a portion of your former exterior wall. City needs to clarify here what exactly this means.
“(b) the removal of 50% or more of the original, first floor sub floor and joist systems” also seems to mean a homeowner trying to correct faulty foundation and floor support will have to go the extra step of trying to get a variance to fix something that needs to be fixed and is in no way one of the urgent problems some people say demand this moratorium.
“Also, property owners will be able to file an appeal to the Planning Commission if they are denied permit by the Planning Department, if they believe that the city erred in
concluding that the application does not qualify for one of the exceptions listed in” Section 2 or 3 above or if they can prove extraordinary economic circumstances.”
That seems to fall under the 4th exception:
“Any structural demolition requested in order to remove or demolish structural systems that are damaged beyond repair, as determined by the building official, by termite damage, rot or similar damage, or by fire, act of God, or act of nature.”
Go for it. I’m selling my house in Oakhurst next year and this will possibly make our 2009 5br all the more desireable since it’s going to likely be a turn-off to developers coming into build similar stuff. This sort of meddling in the market never works as well as planned. Hope they know what they’re doing.
I read the document. This is the only place where I saw a rationale for a moratorium:
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to impose a temporary moratorium
on structural demolition of certain structures and the removal of certain size trees
within single-family residential zoning districts in order to preserve the status quo
during this period of study, research and deliberation, and to prevent the
circumvention of the intent of new regulations while such regulations are under
consideration.
Isn’t that conclusion supposed to be reached after public input?
“… in order to preserve the status quo during this period of study…”
The status quo will be preserved without a moratorium. The status quo consists of the existing laws and codes that property owners have been living with for years.
so, if I am having a company take down a dead tree (over 12″ diameter) in my yard and I didn’t need a permit to do that before the moratorium (not in historic district), am I now suppose to pay an aborist to certify that it is dead? I am not doing any building work, just have a dead tree.
I read this several times and it seems clear as mud to me.
I don’t think so. It only says that no permits will be issued, it does not say that you will now need to get a permit.
Most of my postings over the years have been pro development in the past, this one will not waver far from that philosophy. However the discussion of a Moratorium makes me more frustrated with the continued limitation on private property rights than the limitation on development with in the city. This does affect development teams and contractors but it weighs just a heavy on all of us that own a home or property in the City of Decatur.
The city and the officials that are in favor of this are using this Moratorium as a platform to stall and manage issues that should be reviewed as individual items. Trees are one and new in-fill construction is yet another. This overly wordy document that now has an appeals process seems like typical government BS and is an continuation of the limited guidance we have had in power after the loss of Bill Floyd. I hope that those chosen to aid the city in making this decision understand that there is a large percentage of people (Both liberal and conservative) that do not support this action. I am only speaking for myself when I say that mistake will not end when it is approved on Monday and that there are groups already mobilizing to battle this in the open. The commission better dot their I’s and cross their T’s on this one because a mess is coming behind this vote!
I agree that the commissioners are unwisely combining several important issues that deserve separate consideration. Surely we are smart enough to address the tree removal problem without stopping demos entirely.
Also, I agree that there are both left and right-leaning Decaturites who oppose the moratorium. Decaturish is running a poll for those who are interested.
Sorry for the double up, i tried to pull the first one becuase of type-o’s my bad (not the best edditing without my normal spell check and word perfect!!!
Section 3: Temporary Moratorium on Permits allowing Removal of Certain Trees in Certain Residential District: No building permit, development permit, demolition permit, Land Disturbance Permit or other permit allowing removal of a tree with a 12 inch or greater DBH…..
This moratorium affects much more than partial and full house demolitions. As I read the ordinance it includes homeowners who wish to make improvements to their homes and or property involving any kind of land disturbance which removes trees of 12 inches or greater. I’m a landscape architect. As written this means that in many cases homeowners will not be allowed to proceed with many kinds of site improvements such as driveways, walkways, swimming pools, new accessory structures, terraces,etc. since many of these processes often involve tree removal.
The most recent changes to the city’s tree ordinance were substantially inconsequential, a real missed opportunity. The city needs to revisit their codes, but I find the wording and intent of this moratorium to be too broad sweeping.
Based upon their wording I do not support this moratorium. If the city does proceed I hope they will include less punitive language. For instance, the city could put a moratorium on the removal of 12 inch trees in the required yards instead of the entire property. This would maintain property owner rights by allowing construction/ improvements within the buildable area of their properties as stipulated by the zoning ordinance, but still protect boundary trees and others found in side yard setbacks. These trees are currently not protected at all. There could also be provisions which address the fact that some 12 inch trees are still trash trees, regardless of their size. Why shouldn’t a trash tree be removed so that construction can continue during this time period? The devil is in the details and this moratorium lacks many.
Good point. I hadn’t considered that a landscaping project needing a permit would also fall under this moratorium.
I can promise this: I will actively work to vote out any commissioner who votes for this ridiculous, knee-jerk, ham-fisted and completely misguided idea.
You want to research the situation and propose long-term solutions that might include reasonable restrictions on teardowns and McMansion building? Great! I’m totally behind that. Some of the monstrosities popping up around town do indeed seem to destroy the character and sensibility of established neighborhoods. Unfettered private property rights scare me almost as much as overly intrusive governmental control.
BUUUUUUUUUUT, an immediate and complete moratorium is absurd. I don’t care that it’s only for two months. If you don’t have a long-term regulatory scheme already proposed, you’re not going to have one in 60 days, unless your long-term solution is “No More Teardowns!”. So in January, we will simply be revisiting this “temporary moratorium” and we can fight over it again just as Congress will again be declaring war over the debt limit.
What really galls me is that a vocal minority of the supporters of issues like this moratorium claim to be speaking for segments of the population whose voice is typically muted or ignored, like the poor and elderly. I get that it’s sad that a grandmother of twelve who has lived in Decatur her whole life must now sell her home because she can’t afford the taxes on it. But you know what? Restricting her right to sell her largest asset at a reasonable profit is not the answer!
I also understand that our neighbors who already “got theirs” by renovating and expanding may not fully empathize with those of us who haven’t. But when I’m looking at a potential 40-50% decrease in my property value, if even just for two months, I am livid (and no, I’m not going to get into another argument over those numbers; I’ve talked to a few local real estate experts who assure me that those potential losses may be on the high end but would not be unexpected in our particular situation).
Whoa, and I haven’t even gotten to the tree removal moratorium, which is included here and being voted on together with the demolition moratorium WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Damn, I guess I was so mad I couldn’t do math. It’s 90 days, not 60. Now I’m 1/3 more pissed!
Guess I still hadn’t settled down enough to do the maths. I’m actually FIFTY PERCENT more incensed!
In my view, moratoriums are a lazy and selfish way to govern. In this instance, a moratorium would be my government telling me that their 90 days are more important than the citizen’s 90 days. This is especially so when I hear a commissioner say “just 90 days,” which is what I heard one of them say at the Oakhurst Neighborhood Association meeting on Monday. If it’s JUST 90 days, the JUST 90 days shouldn’t be an inconvenience to my government anymore than they’re trying to imply it shouldn’t be an inconvenience to the citizens. Lastly, anyone who bets 90 days doesn’t turn into more had better be demanding long odds.
90 days is an increase of a point with interest rates.
Teardowns are a reality in Decatur and one wrought with controversy. Decatur attracts families because of the quality of life and great school system. Families tend to need 3 bedroom or larger houses and can justify high taxes as it offsets private school costs. The market for people wanting to move into a 2 bedroom 1bath older home but with high taxes is limited at best. If you want to save the smaller houses, or think there is value in doing so, encouraging less restriction (for existing homeowners wanting to stay/renovate/expand) would be more reasonable than restricting folks even more. I’d love to see the community come together to work with developers on a happy medium versus pitting folks against each other by restricting their livelihoods. Currently there seems to be a lot of “us vs. them” mentality that is not healthy. The good news is that there is interest in such property versus it becoming a haven for squatters or crime. These issues need to be addressed, but not in such a heavy-handed and reactionary way.
I’m going to argue the tree issue is worse.
Tree ordinances were designed 20 years ago to stop subdivision builders from clear cutting large tracts of land, reformatting the property, then building at max density.
Applying that idea to individual lots is seriously misguided. Atlanta’s tree ordinance has been a nightmare and harmed the city by discouraging solid development and actually harming sustainability since density is more important than individual trees on lots never used.
Humm, glad I moved my 7 blocks away in June. It is not just the elderly and poor who are sadly choosing to move. I’m a single professional with a masters degree in my 50s. My home is my largest asset in retirement planning. Love Oakhurst since urban pioneer days 15 years ago, and my home was a tiny 2 br, 1 bath no dining room bungalow that needed lots of work. I wanted to retire there, but couldn’t justify $4000 taxes, now only $1000 in east lake. If I had waited 6 more months, I would have been stuck there by this moratorium. Not everyone wants to “age” in place by buying a condo, even if those were more affordable. Miss the excellent police and fire, and love my trees, but I should have control over property I spent years building equity in.
I really hope the commissioners are reading the comments on DM about this. Not to go all Chris Billingsley here, but if a tiny cabal of tree huggers and aesthetists can influence our local government to harm the property rights of our resident taxpayers, then we’ve got big problems. It would be a breakdown of our system, frankly.
Meanwhile the democratically elected school board sanctioned an 18 month study of enrollment projections, enlisted residents and experts to develop recommendations, held public input sessions, and ultimately finalized a proposal to deal with school capacity issues. Our city commissioners punted on the very simple step of _allowing_it_to_be_voted_on_by_we_the_people_. Not to go all J_T here, but if they green light this moratorium, after red lighting a far more seriously developed community request, then we’ll be looking at a new slate of commissioners in a couple years.
“Not to go all J_T here”
Ha! Nobody wants to see the Full J_T!
I can’t believe the commissioners are even considering this ridiculous idea of a moratorium. The real and scarier question is where is this leading? The city either substantially or entirely tears down the high school gym, beacon and the rec center because they are all functionally obsolete (of which I agree needed to happen) but we individual residents have to keep some of decaturs non historically significant functionally obsolete housing stock? Hey – let’s all drive in 1930’s cars in Decatur too while we’re at it and just freeze time. The most comical thing about the historic preservationists is that they don’t want to allow us to create our own history. In 50 years, the thrive homes will be considered historic. That may be hard to believe but it is true. I am not seeing houses being torn down that shouldn’t be. The fact of the matter is families live differently now than they used to – for better or for worse. We have these machines that wash our laundry, we like walk in closets, are no longer ok with an entire family sharing one bath room, and like to park our expensive cars in garages. This proposed moratorium is the city of Decatur’s version of a misguided government shutdown except that instead of the govt shutting down, it is shutting down the housing industry and residents individual choice. It implies some sort of crisis which does not exist. These are the same issues that have existed for years. I am open to the idea of further studying tree loss and housing loss but not under a moratorium.
I know that this is going to come across as snarky and mean, but I would seriously like to require any commissioner that votes to impose this moratorium to publicly disclose their home’s value, how long they’ve owned it, and how much they paid for it.
I think that many of those responding have missed the point — this isn’t about renovation — it’s about the loss of our tree cover in our city as developers have indiscriminately cleared land for their projects. They have taken lush green forest canopy and created barren, soulless landscapes that are no different in appearance than suburban sprawl. It is also about the escalating loss of smaller, affordable homes in Decatur that have allowed single people, empty nesters and others with more modest incomes to live in our city. We are fast becoming a homogeneous community of four and five bedroom expensive homes and that will change the essential character of our city. And not for the better.
Soulless, barren landscapes, seriously?
I missed the part of Decatur that lacks any trees. The idea that trees should take precedent over people is just plain crazy.
+1
Well put!!!