- Decatur Planning Commission recommends against Oakhurst Dog Park subdivision [AJC]
- Here’s what will replace the Atlanta Airport’s ’96 Olympics mural [CL]
- Cool transit maps! Tracing the history of Atlanta’s public transit [GSU]
- Reynoldstown A to Z [Atlanta Magazine]
- Non-touristy places to take tourists in Atlanta [AJC]
- Blind-Tasting and Ranking 35 of the Best American Saisons [Paste]
Rendering courtesy of the Atlanta Airport
I’ll preface this by saying I think the city buying the property is probably a preferable outcome to being developed with two more McCraftsmans featuring driveways in the middle of an intersection, but . . .what’s the legality with the city denying a subdivision application because they’d like to buy the property in question instead? If the proposed subdivision complied with all pertinent zoning and code, it seems like shaky legal footing for the city to deny it while openly stating their own interest in the property.
I had the same thought. Also, while it is commendable that private citizens spent hours volunteering to improve the dog park, I don’t think that is a reason to limit property owners’ right to do what they want. Again: nothing is stopping these concerned citizens from pooling their resources and buying this property from the Boys & Girls Club.
The planning commission is a recommending body and the city commission makes the call. Maybe this was to buy time to come to an agreement for the city to purchase the property, but now it’s more expensive because there is a middleman involved.
If the new lots meet code requirements for single family homes, then there isn’t much legal grounds to deny the subdivision.
“it seems like shaky legal footing for the city to deny it while openly stating their own interest in the property”
The city hasn’t denied anything yet. The planning commission only recommended denial. The planning commission is covering its own a$$ and putting the burden on the commissioners. But, you are correct. Lawsuit waiting to happen if denied. If for no other reason, the city can’t deny the request b/c it fails to meet the “greater public good” if the proposal otherwise complies with the zoning ordinance.
I wondered the same. Unless there was a provision in an agreement with B&G Club for a first right of refusal by the city, blocking a private party transaction seems a little beyond shaky. Would love to hear what standing the city has to do so.
Denial of the subdivision application is proper because there are specific legal criteria that must be met in order to subdivide the lot. The planning commission found that two of the four criteria were not satisfied, therefore the application could not be approved.
What I find odd is why is this developer appying to subdivide the lot when he doesn’t even own it? The article says he “wants to purchase” the lot. Even more bizzare, why is he offering to sell the lot to the city, *at a profit*, when he doesn’t own the lot in question? Why would the city agree to that rather than just buying the lot directly from the Boys & Girls club?
According to the article, this developer is trying to extract a profit from the COD taxpayers for a lot he doesn’t own. There must be more to the story than is explained in the article.
“there are specific legal criteria that must be met ”
Yes, but one of those criteria isn’t “greater public good”. If that was the standard, nothing would ever get built in CoD.
“What I find odd ”
You don’t have a lot of experience in this area do you? 9 times out of 10 the developer applies for the re-zoning, and the owner/seller signs the application.
“Why would the city agree to that rather than just buying the lot directly from the Boys & Girls club?”
B/c the city will get sued, have legal expenses, and will likely owe the developer damages if they deny the zoning request. Like it or not, he got it under contract first. The city can’t decide to deny zoning to keep the value lower so it can buy the property itself. If it is worth more b/c of his efforts, he should be paid market value for the land. If they can settle for a lesser value, that is a win for the taxpayers.
“this developer is trying to extract a profit from the COD taxpayers ”
See above. No, he isn’t. He would still prefer to build. CoD is arguably acting it its self-interest if it denies the request.
+1
“Denial of the subdivision application is proper because there are specific legal criteria that must be met in order to subdivide the lot. The planning commission found that two of the four criteria were not satisfied, therefore the application could not be approved.”
Which two?
Weaver is under contract for the property. This recommendation was to block the sub-division of the lot, I think. Decaturish article has more details:
http://www.decaturish.com/2015/05/decatur-planning-commission-blocks-proposal-to-develop-oakhurst-dog-park/
Does anyone have a recommendation for a black pepper saison?
Wait, they’re replacing the Olympics escalator mural? But how will I know I’m back in Atlanta if I don’t see a kid in a soggy diaper squatting in a fountain?
I’ll miss it. It always makes me smile. I get a kick out of the happy squatting child and reflect that she’s a grown-up now and wonder how often she uses the airport. I also like the girl with the Diana Vreeland hair. The mural reminds me of what a great time the olympics were.
I’m not pleased with the lack of care the airport has for its art. My favorite installation is the one with the neon over the down escalators. But many of the tubes have been burned out for a long while and the fourth panel, which was originally blank, has long been used for advertising space.
Isn’t anyone else concerned that a small naked girl welcomes visitors to Atlanta? The escalator takes you right up beneath her spread legs. There was no diaper that I could see. Think about the problems Atlanta has with child sex trafficking and then look at the mural. It is a good idea to cover it up to protect our children from those with unsavory thoughts. And think how the young girl, now grown, must be embarrassed by being depicted in this way.
As much as I have a love/hate relationship with this mural, I kind of feel like your particular issue with it is a bit of an overreach to say the least…
Seems like I touched a nerve. There is not an an automatic legal right to subdivide lots. The greater public good absolutely is a valid consideration in considering requests to subdivide existing lots. If it were not, there would be no need for a planning commission. And according to the AJC, the public good was not the sole ground for the denial. The denial was also based on the environmental and storm water impact.
The fact that the city is interested in buying the full B&G club parcel does not somehow entitle the developer to have the subdivision request approved. There is an approval process for a reason; if a developer is not happy with the way a lot is zoned or divided, she doesn’t have to buy it, but there is no absolute right to have things rezoned/subdivided. The developer appears to recongize this, and hasn’t yet purchased the lot. Hopefully the city will do the right thing, reject the subdivision request, and ignore the attempt to profit off the COD taxpayers.
“The greater public good absolutely is a valid consideration in considering requests to subdivide existing lots.”
Not in Georgia, really. Private property rights are given the most weight. This action would be covered under the state’s zoning procedures law, which has 5 or so questions that deal with any proposed zoning action’s impact on adjacent properties or the general public.
But because this is splitting a residential lot that conforms with the district’s guidelines in the UDO, it should pass. “I might lose a part of my dog park” is not generally regarded as a huge impact to the public.
“If it were not, there would be no need for a planning commission.”
Plenty of cities do not have planning commissions. They aren’t required.
The storm water impact is the reason most grounded in reality, but it’s a proposal for single family homes among existing single family homes. Condition that the driveway be built out of pervious concrete then.
“Hopefully the city will do the right thing, reject the subdivision request, and ignore the shady attempt to profit off the COD taxpayers.”
It’s not a shady attempt to profit from taxpayers. He wants to build two houses! Only when the city stepped in and said “Waitaminute” is his capital now jeopardized. He is well within his rights to offer the property to the city if they want to appease the neighborhood.
But where does that end? Hey CoD: come buy the crap lot next to my home and build and maintain a nice nature preserve! It’s for the greater good!!
I think you are confused. The developer doesn’t actually own the land in question. He is, however, apparently offering to buy it from the B&G club and then sell it at a profit to COD. No thanks.
Um, there’s a big difference between “offering to buy” and “being under contract to buy.” When it’s the latter, and the city interferes illegally, lawsuit! No thanks.
Rival isn’t the one confused. Has no one ever explained the concept of flipping to you? Contract purchasers can enter into contracts to sell the property prior to owning it. I know more than one person who has made a small fortune re-zoning property under contract, assigning the contract after successful rezoning and never owning the subject property.
But, again, I think that is moot (and this is the part where you are confused) as he doesn’t want to sell it to CoD. The city is leaving him with little options. It sounds like me may want to avoid a costly and timely lawsuit, but he isn’t (nor should he be) willing to lose money. The city is making an offer he can’t refuse.
Weaver said in the meeting that his preference is selling it to the city.
Probably saying whatever he needs to say to protect his interests. If he claims that his preference is to sell to COD for a “below market” price, then the case for regulating his project out of existence is that much weaker if COD decides not to buy. I’d think that subdividing and developing the lots is the profit-maximizing move, but he has to play some politics to get there.
Well after getting denied unanimously on species grounds will change your perspective on who your buyer is.
Nobody would have gone to the trouble and expense of getting plats, surveys, and other development costs if the sole intention was to sell to the city. If I were him, I’d be trying to find the easiest out too.
There is unlikely to be any lawsuit if the subdivision is denied (at least, not a successful lawsuit). The City of Decatur’s subdivision ordinanace, sec. 90-201, sets out the critieria for approving or denying a subdivision:
Sec. 90-201. – Approval of subdivisions—Standards.
The following standards shall be considered by the planning commission in preparing a recommendation and by the city commission in determining whether a subdivision shall be approved:
(1)
Is the proposed subdivision suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property?
(2)
Does the proposed subdivision adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent and nearby property?
(3)
Does the proposed subdivision result in a development which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools?
(4)
Are there other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which, because of their impact on the public health, safety, morality and general welfare of the community, give supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposed subdivision?
***
As you can see, the “general welfare of the community” is a statutory ground for declining to subdivide an existing lot, as are a number of other grounds upon which the commission could rely in denying the application (lack of suitability, impact on other properties (such as stormwater), etc.). If you read the ordinance, you will see that there is no automatic right to subdivide a lot. As far as I am aware, no one has said that this developer can’t use the lot as it is currenty configured.
But those “existing or changing conditions” that would damage the public must be specified. You just can’t say it’s bad because it’s bad for the general welfare.
And, sure, nobody is owed a lot split. But nobody has given a solid reason why residential lots that meet code cannot be created adjacent to existing residential lots on a residential street. And denials based on where Spot can poop is not a solid reason.
Also, I’d be interested to know if the Planning Commission had similar qualms about approving or denial the new subdivision on Clairemont south of the Y. Did the PC recommend denial on storm water ground? That subdivision is at least 5-6 large homes and included a new road.
Were there similar calls from concerned citizens to keep that space undeveloped or for the city to step in and purchase it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you one of those who support the dog park at the expense of all else? In other words, the fact that you want to keep “your” dog park trumps all competing claims and interests, including the rights of the property owners? It seems to be that you are attempting to garner support for your “arguments” by crafting rational arguments. The problem is that your opposition to the subdivision is based in emotion rather than reason.
And you are 100% wrong about a lawsuit if the request is denied. The fact that the city publicly stated that it was interested in purchasing the property is sufficient grounds to bring the suit. (As an aside, the developer would have a damn strong argument about violation of equal protection if he was denied the right to subdivide lots which are for all practical purposes identical to the ones next door. The fact the current property owner allows the property to be used as a dog park is moot.)
I don’t use the dog park. I’m just pointing out that the planning commission was well within the law in recommending denial of the subdivision. There is no affirmative right to have an existing lot subdivided, and the planning commission appears to have applied the statutory criteria in recommending denial of the requested subdivision. I also agree with the planning commission that two additional large new homes in that location would not be in the best interest of the community. I am not aware of anyone suggesting that the developer can’t use the lot as it currently exists.
In order to successfully sue, a plaintiff must have a cause of action. There is no automatic legal right to have an existing lot subdivided under the city’s ordinance. Since the developer hasn’t been denied any right, it’s unclear what the basis of any lawsuit would be. I haven’t read any reports that the developer has threatened to sue, likely because he has attorneys who understand this.
“it’s unclear what the basis of any lawsuit would be”
No, it isn’t. But I am done trying to explain it to you. J_T, you wanna give it another shot?
Maybe your anti-developer bias is clouding your judgment. Or maybe it is your belief that the wants and desires of a group of people who think a particular piece of property should be a dog park, despite the fact they don’t own it, should outweigh the wants and desires of the property owner, in this case, the B&G club. But, you should spend a little time researching constitutional protections, specifically application of the equal protection clauses, relating to re-zoning. “Greater public good”, especially when such verbiage is a mere attempt to mask “we want our dog park”, will lose every time when compared to the property rights of the B&G club. It will help your research if you don’t view this as the rights of the evil developer, but rather from the POV of the property owners who wants to sell 2 subdivided lots which lie adjacent to numerous similarly sized subdivided lots. It appears these lots comply with the UDO, so neither a dog park or the city’s desire to buy the property are grounds for denial.
And on a more important note, who at the city publicly stated the city wanted to buy the land? Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that there are legit reasons to deny the subdivision request, CoD just handed the applicant Ex. A to his lawsuit if the request is denied.
“And on a more important note, who at the city publicly stated the city wanted to buy the land? Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that there are legit reasons to deny the subdivision request, CoD just handed the applicant Ex. A to his lawsuit if the request is denied.”
BOOM! [Mic Drop]
Per AJC:
“Assistant City Manager Lyn Menne reiterated Monday the city is interested in purchasing the entire five acres owned by the Jones Club, and is therefore not interested in Weaver’s offer at this time”
It’s almost as if “greater public good” is a pretext for “whatever we happen not to like.” Almost . . .
Still fascinated that the Dog Park group made so much noise that they are forcing the city to spend tax payer dollars to expand the current dog park. Meanwhile they raised $0 in funding when they could have attempted to buy the property.
Meanwhile they are still trying to stop the developer from building on a lot he purchased. He should just put up a fence. Hope the city doesn’t face a lawsuit.
“Still fascinated that the Dog Park group made so much noise that they are forcing the city to spend tax payer dollars to expand the current dog park. Meanwhile they raised $0 in funding when they could have attempted to buy the property.”
it is always easier to spend other people’s money…
I grew up in what is now Sandy Springs and a group of neighbors banded together to buy a vacant lot and convert it into a park rather than beg the city to help them.
It was disturbing to see very well to do lawyers, professors and doctors asking for a handout. I would bet if given the choice between the Boys & Girls Club & the Dog Park they would all want the dog park. So worried about where our city is headed.
You lost me at “where our city is headed…”
It’s there, brother. It’s already there.
I want a ferris wheel in Oakhurst because I like ferris wheels and I like looking down at people dining at U Joint.
The answer is simple: CoD must buy land near UJ and construct a ferris wheel so I may enjoy my incredibly popular hobby.
Ok, aside from the logistical nightmare, cost, and danger and/or spit on UJ patrons’ heads, nobody else is on board with my Ferris wheel idea?
…
Ok, what about a merry-go-round?
Ferris Wheel. Or bumper cars.
How about one of those slingshot rides?
I support your Wheel if you support my Fountain, water, lots of steps something like “monument.” A Dupont Circle of sorts where people can congregate, chillax. A big concrete slab with limited seating is nice and everything, but something a little cooler would be fun too.
While I also agree that the UDO basically approves this subdivision/this is a legal mess waiting to happen, what is the city’s actual interest in the property’s potential purchase- lease to school district, more rec opportunities, dog park, open space or combo of 2 or more of the above?
+1
Anyone have a handle on what portion of the regular dog park users, the volunteers, the vocal advocates do not live in the City of Decatur?
Y’all should see the dog park in New Orleans’ City Park. It puts all the people parks in Decatur to shame.
It’s unimaginable that anyone else would care.
Yeah, I can’t imagine why any CoD resident would care if a lot of the opposition and noise was actually coming from non-CoD residents. Seriously?
That’s not what I said. The dog park is the definition of a hyper-local issue. That any organized effort with regard to its fate would be coming from outside the city is what I cannot imagine.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. There have been prior posts on DM about the number of users who don’t live in CoD, and there is some belief that some of them may be part of the opposition. Apparently the enforcement of the residency requirement is non-existent.
The dog park’s location in close proximity to Kirkwood, Druid Hills and East Lake surely draws people and dogs from those communities. Yes, the greater good crosses over city boundary lines but don’t you think non-city residents favoring decisions that ultimately could impact the tax paying residents within the city is worth noting?
Why does it matter what folks from across the moat favor? It sounds like the city has (and has had, for years) an interest in buying the property. It sounds like the planning commissions biggest concerns were about stormwater and traffic. If you believe they are earnest in those concerns, than people from surrounding areas chirping on Facebook or local news blogs or even in person wouldn’t have swayed those decisions. If those are valid reasons for denial, local outcry (regardless of origin point) shouldn’t matter . . . right?
“…worth noting” means acknowledging who is stirring the pot, so to speak, rather than meaning it’s an important consideration. Guessing I wasn’t clear.
I believe you need to have a decatur pass to use the dog park. I believe the City is interested in the whole area for a school. I hope this all works out and that tax payers do not get totally taken in the process. If the City wants to buy the B&G club I would prefer they pay off the developer and avoid a law suit. For me it is not about the dog park, but about having that land for a school. Getting a little tired of Oakhurst homes getting scraped off and replaced with the McCraftman’s. Some of them are like having a ferris wheel next to your home. Look up and someone can see what you are grilling in your back yard.
So the city plans to deny the developer the right to subdivide citing concerns about stormwater and traffic, but wants to do far more substantial development with even greater impacts to both of those things. Makes perfect sense.
Perhaps I can clear up a few things:
That the proposed lots are currently used as a dog park was not named as a factor in the Planning Commissions decision. The fact that it is wildly unpopular, and that many people showed up and spoke out against (and none for) was surely a factor in how the “welfare of the community” rule was applied.
One of the reasons that no private parties have offered to purchase the proposed lots is because they are under contract. The BAGC did not offer the property publicly and it is not accepting bids. Quite a few people have expressed interest in putting up money if it would save the park. Perhaps if the current deal falls through they will get their chance. Even if private funds are raised, I think the natural owner for a city park should in fact be the city, which has been a good steward of the property and will continue be long after any community group has vanished.
I believe that the developer would make more money by building the houses as planned, but would prefer to not be known as “the guy who bulldozed a city park”. His proposal to “flip” the lots back to the city would allow him to make a little cash and save his reputation.
The city has been interested in buying the entire lot for many years now and they have said that they don’t want just a portion of it.