After hearing nearly 50 minutes of comment from the petitioners and the community, the Decatur City Commission unanimously denied the subdivision of the Oakhurst Dog Park last night. (You can view the video HERE)
Before voting, Mayor Jim Baskett made the following statement…
“We have always been very protective of personal property rights on this commission. I personally have been very protective of personal property rights as long as I’ve been on this commission. So we have to have very good and very strong reasons to deny petitioner’s use of their property in any kind of way. In this particular instance we’re being asked – or some people have thought – that we had the power to keep the Boys & Girls Club from selling the property. We don’t. Or that we had the power that we could do this or that or the other. But we don’t.”
“The question it comes down to is ‘Do we subdivide this property based on four simple standards?’ And I look at the standards as a suitable use of the property in comparison to the adjacent properties. Is it adversely affecting the use of adjacent properties or even their future uses? Does it cause a problem with the streets or transportation facilities, utilities or schools? In general, does it have an impact on the public health, safety, morality or the general welfare of the community?”
“And when I think about those beautiful trees and when I think about the use of this property for the last – at least -100 years. [Indiscernible] This is a public service really that the Boys and Girls Club offers and that’s why it was sold at the time it was sold and the way it was sold. Because it would continue to be a public service use. And when I look at the way it’s been used and I look at what could be lost here, the potential loss here, with just so little to gain, I can’t personally come to any other conclusion that this not in the general best welfare of our community at large.”
“Public safety may be a factor here with traffic. Public Health. But the main thing is the general welfare of our community. I just don’t believe that a subdivision of that property is good for the general welfare of our community. That just where I come down.”
Following the Mayor’s remarks, Commissioner Garrett moved for denial, which was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Cunningham. As stated above, the final vote was unanimous.
Why weren’t the same standards applied to the subdivision created on Clairemont Avenue just north of Scott Boulevard? 6-8 new very large homes, with a dead-end cul-de-sac street that will certainly impact traffic. All those trees torn down, as well.
I am guessing it is because there wasn’t nearly the public outcry of ‘you can’t take my dog-park, that would be an inconvenience for me’
“No dogs were inconvenienced in the construction of this development.”
I need to digest this a bit more, but the first read sounds like a whole lot of double-talk. It started out coherent enough, laying out the reasons one might deny, but then the reason actually given only left me confused.
What ^^^ said. I felt the same way.
There are well defined standards for compliance in denying a zoning request, which like you, I thought he was leading up to. But the final “public welfare” reason is a fuzzy one that I doubt will stand up in court. Is the city council saying “I dare you?” about a lawsuit? Or just being reactionary idealists?
A long history of zoning decisions sets precedents which are looked at for future zoning decisions. Once you pull the genie out of the bottle, it isn’t ever going back in.
Yes I like greenspace. I also like well-defined process.
And his comments imply that there were conditions on how the B&G Club acquired the property — but again, why beat around the bush? It is a public forum, and his words matter — the council should have done their homework (or asked city staff) to do so about this historical/deed issue. It would have provided a more solid backing to their statements.
So yes, I am perplexed too — at both his statements and the lack of back-up supporting material to what I think was implied.
+1
So will the Dog lovers pick up the tab on the pending lawsuit?
http://www.decaturish.com/2015/05/developer-may-sue-the-city-over-its-role-in-oakhurst-dog-park-controversy/
It’d be cheaper than buying the property themselves.
“Baskett said given the city’s longstanding interest in buying the property, city leaders were confused that the Boys and Girls Club instead tried to sell it to a private developer.
“Why they didn’t come to us is beyond us,” he said”
We really need a new mayor!
Hell, based on those quotes, it almost sounds like the decision was personal. “You sell to us or no one”.
Or, maybe he just isn’t smart enough to understand that (I) the developer offered more money and/or (ii) the B&G Club doesn’t want to sell all of the property.
Was the closing conditioned on approval of the subdivision? Just curious as to whether the developer is now SOL unless he wins a lawsuit, or can back out of the purchase.
Typically, the contracts are contingent on approval so the developer can probably terminate and get his earnest money back.
The decision the commission made is in the best interest of the community, though their motives are questionable.
In your opinion, of course.
I learned a lot at the meeting last night. There really are 4 standards to consider before approving/denying a petition for subdivision, not just happy feelings about dogs and trees. This parcel of land is unique in its history, use and location; it’s not just an empty lot next to other residential lots.
Here is the relevant info copied/pasted from municode.com
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)
Thank you for posting these details. I am glad there is some concern for public good on the front end of development and that we are not talking about eminent domain.
Yes, but the developer has very good answers that satisfy the first three of those standards. The fourth is very subjective, as we see from the mayor’s statement.
By the way, those are the substantially the same standards that are applied for most zoning/land use decisions. Rezonings, variances, waivers, etc. all have some form of these questions. They are used to draw out all the reasons for approving or disproving an action.
Another side that must be considered are the physical requirements of land use decisions: setbacks, lot size, building size, impervious surface, etc. These physical requirements are laid out in the UDO. This developer’s plan met all of the physical requirements of the code. The only thing it could subjectively be denied upon was harm to the “general welfare” for losing half a dog park. In my opinion, that is not enough to deny. It looks even worse now that the mayor has said the city was in discussions with B&G while it was under consideration for another buyer.
I am not surprised the developer is now weighing legal options.
I read Mr. Baskett’s statement to all but concede that standards 1-3 are satisfied. If they weren’t, the denial would probably not be controversial. The only basis for denial is #4, the “public good.” And I think you can reasonably read the code section to mean that #4 alone is not a sufficient basis for denial — it refers to “supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposed subdivision.” But here, the “public good” isn’t cited as a merely supporting reasons — it is given as the sole and decisive reason.
What’s with all the hate against the dog park people? The city’s dog parks are not a “convenience,” they are an important part of the community. Our two and a half dog parks are a consideration for people when looking for homes, social dogs are happier and safer dogs, people meet and socialize at the parks–usually without the need for alcohol, and the work ethic of Decatur dog park users sets a good example for everyone.
That comment just might be the biggest pile of dog sh*t ever posted on DM. In no way, shape or form are dog parks a necessity. They are a luxury. Period.
And again, one would still exist! Just smaller!
you would know.
And there are two other dog parks in the city of Decatur besides Oakhurst.
You know what else is a luxury? Expecting a school system to never have to use trailers. If the mayor had objected to this same sale so that a school could be put on that property, would the public good be good enough? Any buyer of property here in Decatur knows that there will be hoops to jump through, whether one is adding a garage, building close to a border line or wanting to subdivide. This deal is and was all predicated on a decision going their way. That does not constitute a guarantee.
I’m also for school expansion (with trailers and buildings alike), and my discomfort with this subdivision denial doesn’t change if this was for “greater good” of school or dog park. City needs to negotiate and buy properties like anyone else except in extreme circumstances, and neither dog park or school need is extreme at this point as there are other locations for both (granted, not as good of locations).
This discussion of the “greater good” is getting a little out of hand, even for the PRD.
We’re talking a mud pit for dogs to run around in.
I’m surprised no one planted a few civil war relics in the dirt and claimed it as a heretofore undiscovered battlefield.
An endangered newt lives there. I’ve seen ’em. They require dog poop to survive.
LOL!
That newt needs to draft a “Contract with Decatur”.
First, i don’t think you understand the context of the public good argument. The city can’t openly admit it is interfering with the development of property it covets.
Second, schools = dog parks? Is that really your argument?
Al never said they were a necessity, so don’t put words in his mouth.
I think dog parks are a great asset to a community, and one worthy of community investment. However, this decision sets a dangerous precedent for the “greater good” being used to deny a very large range of subdivisions and other otherwise permitted zoning and variance requests for private property. If someone has property they’ve been waiting to develop, or have suddenly come to financially need to develop (as is the case with B&G Club), the subdivisions should be granted as long as the requested development plans are permitted uses within the location’s zoning. This particular request is for residential in a residential area, with lots that fit within the allowable lot size. If the City wants the land for dog park or school, the City or CSD needs to purchase the property, not create dangerous precedents to get to the property themselves.
Agree with you that they are an important part of our community. It is not only the dog park that I want to keep but also the 60-100 years old canopy of trees.
This park, and the trees people love – will be gone in under 5 years. The lure of money is too great.
Buy it, or put a consortium of like minded folks together and buy it, then donate it to the city. It is private property that B&G C is generously letting the community use…
“And when I think about those beautiful trees and when I think about the use of this property for the last – at least -100 years. [Indiscernible] This is a public service really that the Boys and Girls Club offers and that’s why it was sold at the time it was sold and the way it was sold. Because it would continue to be a public service use.”
I’m heading to the DeKalb record room in the morning and will check on use restriction language in the deed to B&G….
The not-so secret head of the tree mafia strikes again!
I’m thoroughly perplexed by that comment. My default sympathies lie with the landowner. It bothers me greatly that this has gone down this way, especially if not being able to sell the land puts B&G at real operating risk. But if there was a stipulation that the land be used for public service, and B&G signed off on it, then that’s different.
Our esteemed Mayor is the not-so secret head of the tree mafia. I was referring to his comment about the “beautiful trees”.
Ah, got it.
Let me know what you find out re the parcel and the deed. Anyone want to place a bet on the inclusion of the ‘restricted use’ language? Mayor Baskett lost some significant political credibility trying to force the tree ordinance through after he got mad at his neighbor.
If you are the developer and have any intention doing more deals in Decatur, do you sue the City or just let this one slide and save your powder for the next deal?
Kind of ironic that the heavy use of the park by dogs and owners causes erosion, and the dog pee actually kills the trees. Dog parks and sloped treed lots don’t mix well. Look how many trees fall in the Adair dog park.
Curious that there was no mention in the article of the commission’s comments regarding possible use of the 4.8 acre site for a new elementary school. As far as I know, it is still – actively – being considered even though it falls below the 5-acre minimum standard as set-forth by the school board.
Other than Mayor Baskett’s remarks, the commissioners didn’t comment at all ahead of voting. Baskett made a point of saying they’d discussed it plenty already, but didn’t say when or where that had happened. I don’t remember them discussing it at previous commission meetings. (I do vividly recall Baskett assuring the dog park folks that the City would do whatever it could to help them as anything had to be better than what was being proposed.)
So if/when the city decides it wants to build a school there, we are all going to raise a similar stink about loss of trees, traffic, runoff, and loss of community amenities… Right?
Looks like the developer is not happy:
http://www.decaturish.com/2015/05/developer-may-sue-the-city-over-its-role-in-oakhurst-dog-park-controversy/
That Mayor of ours has to go.
“That Mayor of ours has to go.”
Not sure I would be very excited to have the next person in line though either.
Who’s the next in line? Not criticizing or praising anyone, just wondering.
I would guess that’d be Kecia Cunningham, the Mayor Pro-tem.
While I think it would be a bad idea, what is to prevent the B&G Club from simply closing the dog park…?
I had the same thought. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the B & G Club is being punished for letting the community use its land until the Club wanted to sell it. Now that they want to sell it, people who were allowed to use it are crying foul and the city buckled to the loudest constituents.
Exactly
This has been set up as an argument between the people and the developer… but the Boys & Girls Club are the party most impacted. The value of their property has just been significantly degraded – they are getting punished for their generosity to host a dog park on their private property for $1/year.
What could they have done with those funds to build on their mission? How many needy kids will not get the opportunity to participate in their programs because our city wanted to preserve access to an unfunded public good?
While I would prefer that the city buy this land for a school than it get subdivided, property rights should be paramount and the city needs to operate with that in mind.
Looking forward to the next battle of the padlocked gate. Rights of dogs vs. property owner.
I am really interested to know if the club’s original purchase had some sort of covenant. I cannot wait for the report from our investigator above!
In 6 months, when the City is engaged in a very expensive losing-battle in court, the streets will still be in godawful shape, the schools will still be overcrowded, and traffic on Commerce drive will be at a standstill.
Nice job, Mayor, and city commissioners! Why don’t you celebrate by approving another mid/high rise condo complex!
We MUST vote these idiots out of office or Decatur will continue to degrade.
Geez, is this blog just becoming a sounding board for the 10 people in Decatur who don’t like the Mayor? I’m not the biggest fan, but chill peeps. God forbid the city commission should not allow a developer to do whatever they want with a piece of property. God forbid! For all those worried about setting precedents, don’t worry, elected officials tend to ignore precedent just as much as they create it.
I couldn’t care less about the developer. It’s the Boys & Girls Club getting screwed that pisses me off. The mayor flat out said “I can’t believe they wouldn’t sell it to us!” before nixing the subdivision that the sale was contingent upon. What reasonable conclusion could one draw if not that the city still wants the property, but at a price that’s lower than what the developer offered? Looks like dirty pool to me. But you won’t see me killing the mayor for it – I actually applaud him for being so open and honest about so that there’s no plausible deniability later!
From what I’ve read, the city has mentioned repeatedly that they’re interested in buying the entire site, together with the building. I’ve also heard, but not read, that the B&G Club expects demand for their services to further decline in Oakhurst in coming years and would be interested in leasing back whatever space is necessary for them to continue the level of operations that allows them to meet their mission.
Granted that’s not verified but, if it were true, wouldn’t such an arrangement result in considerably more money for B&G Club, together with reduced operating costs? Not suggesting it’s a given. Just that it’s not a given they’re getting screwed either.
Or, B&GC decided that selling now for cash on hand was in their best interest and had a deal in place to do so before the city scuttled it. In any event, they already did get screwed, as their first-choice plan has effectively been killed. Just because they MIGHT make more money from a different deal later doesn’t mean that what happened here was right. The funny thing is that if the city had just kept their mouths shut and denied the subdivision request on reasonable grounds, this would have been much less of an issue. Whether you agree with the commission’s decision or not, I don’t think anyone can argue that this was both a political and PR nightmare.
Understood. I’ve no knowledge or legal expertise to comment on the legality, righteousness, clumsiness or anything else. I’m just curious where things will head and remain hopeful for a win-win.
Thanks DM for allowing this discussion. I was unable to attend the commission meeting but here is my comment to the planning commission on 5/14. There are only so many government meetings an average citizens can attend. For what its worth
My name is Chris Billingsley… Good evening. I want to begin by thanking the members of this board for your service to the City of Decatur.
As a life-long resident of the City of Decatur, I would like to share my thoughts on the subdivision and sale of property owned by the Samuel L. Jones Boys Club. Back in the late Seventies and early Eighties, when I was coaching basketball at Decatur High School, I would visit the Boys Club, most of the time to play ball with the high school guys but sometimes just to hang out. This was kind of weird because I was usually the only white guy there. But with the help of the high school players, Melvin Howard, Johnny and Royce Toombs, Travis Benton and others, all DHS sports heroes back in the day, I was slowly accepted. However the younger ones would often view me with a great deal of suspicion. One afternoon, a kid maybe six or seven, was starring at me intently. Instead of saying “How You Doin’?”, I kinda went all big eyed and leaned towards him and said “boo”. Terrified, he ran screaming and crying to Mr. Chisem, who was at the time in charge of the Boys Club. He later told me that the kid thought I was “The Monster”. Many of younger children were being told by their parents that someone, described as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was kidnapping and murdering young black boys. Mr. Chisem told the boy, “That’s Coach B from the high school. You don’t have to be afraid of him.” A few months later, one of my former students who had dropped out of DHS in the 9th grade was found murdered near I-20. Many in Decatur and throughout the metro area were on edge until finally, someone was arrested and convicted of these horrible crimes.
Now I bring this to your attention because throughout this time, the Samuel L. Jones Boys and Girls Club was a safe haven for the children of Oakhurst and the surrounding area and it remains so today. Their focus has always been to provide a place where children can play, learn and develop under the supervision of caring professionals. It requires a great deal of money to pay for the many services provided for the kids. Most of this money comes from private foundations and individual donations. An organization like the Boys and Girls Club is always concerned about money. With this in mind, it makes good sense for the owners of the property to sell part of the land. Two families will move into Oakhurst and the children of these households will benefit from a close association with the club. I hope the windfall will be used to improve the facilities and services in such a way that the children of Oakhurst and the surrounding communities will continue to reach their full potential.
I ask you to approve the subdivision of the property. In my opinion, it is a reasonable use of private property and the children of Oakhurst and surrounding neighborhoods will benefit from a ruling that favors the sale of the property.
Finally I believe that if this petition is denied you will set a dangerous precedent that will encourage small group of activists to use the government of the City of Decatur to restrict the reasonable use of private property. This is unfair, for the Boys and Girls Club and every property owner in Decatur.
I ask that my comments be added to the minutes of this meeting. May God continue to bless you and your families, the City of Decatur, the Great State of Georgia and the United States of America. Thank you.
“
Chris, Chris, Chris. Can we get our priorities straight, please? Without the upper portion of the dog park, where will my dog go to feel safe?