Just a note to make you aware: tonight the Decatur City Commission will take up the request to subdivide the Oakhurst Dog Park property to create two residential lots on the western, wooded end of the property.
Last month, the Decatur Planning Commission recommended against the request citing that the project adversely affected the “greater public good” and would increase water runoff.
if built, i wouldn’t want to be the homeowner backing out of those driveways at that intersection at 8am, or pulling in at 6pm
Better there than on Clairmont or Scott. I don’t think it would be any worse than any of the other homes on East Lake from Third on up to the AT&T facility.
Anyone else smell a lawsuit? This could end up being a very expensive dog park.
Nah. I’m sure all those who protested and all the commissioners who voted against this have donated generously to the Boys & Girl Club to offset the profit they cost them. It’s a win-win no doubt!
http://www.decaturish.com/2015/05/decatur-city-commission-denies-request-that-would-allow-for-redevelopment-of-portion-of-oakhurst-dog-park/
Any idea how this might affect the operation of the Boys & Girls Club? My assumption is that they’re not awash in cash, and this would appear to scuttle a deal that would have given them a sizable infusion.
Kudos to the City Commission for acting in the community’s best interest. I imagine this will anger some, including those who believe private property rights are absolute. But the fact of that matter is that government (at all levels) retains some discretion over how private property within its jurisdiction is utilized The Oakhurst Dog Park is a perfect example. Another example is the yet-to-be-resolved pipeline fight near Savannah.
We get all of the dog park, and the Boy’s Club gets nothing. Kudos indeed. I think…
Except people who have no need for a dog park, or those who have issues with denying land use applications that appear to satisfy all of the adopted regulations.
The commission is likely protected in what it does due to some notion of protecting the “general welfare” of the city, or at least the city attorney felt that their rears were covered. In my opinion, saving a dog park is a stretch on those grounds.
Agreed. I was being sarcastic. 🙂
Then use the right font! Geez…
It’s not “some notion” of protecting general welfare, is it–there has been a pretty well defined statement from opponents of this subdivision. Additionally, all four of the criteria as I read them have a subjective element to them. It’s not like this whole thing is black and white.
“DIVISION 7. – GENERAL SUITABILITY
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?”
(Code 1967, § 21-41)
1 – Yes, single family development is appropriate among single family development
2 – No, building single family homes among single family homes will not adversely impact the adjacent properties ability to be single family homes.
3 – No, two homes will not excessively burden infrastructure.
4 – (This one has the most wiggle room.) Your answer will vary if you believe losing half a dog park will adversely impact the general welfare.
Those questions “shall be considered”, which doesn’t mean that you have to be perfect on them. I’d say the subdivision passes the test, unless you are trying to fit your wants in as a “public good.” Throw on top of all this that the “civic use” of the existing dog park is a non-conforming (yet legal) use in R-60 and I think this land use decision rests on thin reasoning.
It’s always going to look like thin reasoning because the interpretations of these criteria are subjective and, as you say, are not rules, but guidelines.
Then why weren’t the same guidelines or anguish applied to the subdivision of one lot into 6 or 8 on Clairemont Avenue south of the Y? Lots of trees came down. More traffic impact with a new road and curb cut on a busy street.
Consistency is my issue here. This was done because a vocal group wanted their dog park. I have a problem with that since the guy who went through the process and ticked off all the boxes was denied based on flimsy “general welfare” notions. I wouldn’t want to be in front of a judge defending this in a lawsuit. Maybe the city and this guy works something out, but I don’t like how this went down.
“Maybe the city and this guy works something out, but I don’t like how this went down”
Maybe I am being naïve, but the more of this nonsense I read, I am really starting to think that a deal has already been struck (or maybe I just want to believe a backroom deal has been made). I wouldn’t be surprised by an announcement in the near future that the developer has assigned its contract to the city for a sizeable assignment fee, and the city has entered into a contract with the B&G Club for the remainder. I know the city attorney – he is much smarter than this.
In the case of the Dog Park there was a vocal group of opponents, and to our knowledge there was not the same opposition to the parcel you mention on Clairemont. So assuming all of the other three criteria, in their annoying subjectivity, were met by both development proposals, the fourth criteria would be the breaking point here, would it not?
It just seems like you dismiss the opinion of the Dog Park supporters. In terms of the general welfare element, “flimsy” would be a word you’d apply to a barely stated opposition or an assumed support of the idea of having a park in Oakhurst.
Crambone, yes we are dismissing the voices of dog park supporters. They are demanding that private land continued to be used for public use, which is indefensible. If they want a dog park, they can buy the land and donate it to the city.
The subdivision guidelines apply to private land, right? I believe they do. If they do, then section 4 is relevant and the outcry from Dog Park supporters can’t be dismissed.
Hate to do it but I’ve gotta go work for the man–enjoyed this discussion with you guys.
Virtually no one believes in absolute property rights. The issue is that property rights are very important, and should be free from regulation unless a very good reason for the regulation exists. Here, the only proffered reason to deny the subdivision is some vague conception of the “public good.” That’s not “some” governmental discretion over land use, it’s total discretion — you may use your property as you see fit, so long as we happen to like it.
That’s nonsense, and you know it. I think the opponents made a very coherent and passionate case as to why preserving the dog park is in the “public good.” Surely this – the will of the people who elected these Commissioners to office – informed their decision on the matter. It’s disingenuous to suggest that this was some arbitrary and ill-informed decision.
The standard by nature is entirely discretionary, subjective, and boundless. There’s no way around that, unless you think there is an objective definition of the “public good.” Which there isn’t. So in the end, the Commissioners took whatever information was available to them (I never said they were uninformed) and based their decisions on their own subjective value judgments. IMO that’s a terrible way to regulate land use.
But, you are looking at this all wrong. You are worried about the rights of the public to use private land (and I assume you are also concerned that a developer will make a profit), but the loser here is the B&G Club. Its owns the property and its rights were infringed upon. Personally, I hope the B&G Club refuses to renew its lease with the city and closes the park.
And let’s not forget that the dog park would still be there, just smaller! Entitlement mentality rears its ugly head again. “I demand continued use of your land, private property owner – and don’t you shrink the area I can use!!!”
Holy schnikeys–I’m agreeing with the responses here from DEM, Dawgfan, AND Walrus!! *cue apocalyptic thunder* 😀
The pipeline analogy has no place here. Here we have a willing seller and a willing purchaser, with a proposed land use that is consistent with neighboring uses- not remotely the case of forced sale and potentially incompatible land uses.
Crank up those chainsaws.
If I was the boss of the Boys Club I would be heading up to Ace this morning to look at padlocks.
The greatest trick that Decatur ever pulled was making ME sound like a Republican…
The B&G Club folks are much better people than me if they haven’t already locked everyone out.
You HAVE been sounding sort of conservative lately. Almost. 🙂
I don’t think anyone is looking to screw the Boys and Girls Club. The City has approached them in the past about buying the land, and they are doing so again. The overall will of the community is that we can find a solution that does not involve building yet more houses and also benefits that organization. It doesn’t have to be us versus them.
So, the city is using its power to either (I) depress land values and/or (ii) make sure the property remains undeveloped, so it can buy it a later date when it is ready, and you are OK with this?
And you seem to imply that the city has some right to buy the property simply b/c it “approached” the B&G Club. There was no offer. And even if there was, the B&G Club is free to reject the offer. Of course the city can condemn the property if it chooses, but it hasn’t done so. Therefore, the city has absolutely zero rights to that property.