What’s Up With the Clear-Cutting in Midway Woods?
Decatur Metro | June 9, 2009
Annexation isn’t the only thing going on in Midway Woods.
As anyone that lives there knows, talk of annexation just across the border has recently been mixed with another kind of buzz: that of chainsaws.
A home developer has shocked local residents by clear-cutting more than 4 acres of land on the northside of Midway at South Candler in order to construct 28 homes on-site, inspiring one resident to write in asking “Where’s the Lorax when we need him?”
So I decided to do a little digging and clear the air. Here’s what I found…
Though the development plan was approved in 2007, construction didn’t begin until early May of this year. At that time, a letter from resident Conne Thalken was sent to the commission expressing the neighborhood’s concern. [thanks to Paula for fowarding!]
We have not had any contact whatsoever with new developer who assumed ownership of the property since the original developer’s bankruptcy and foreclosure on the property. We in the neighborhood understand that development of the property must hold to the plan as approved in 2006. However, we are uncertain about the new developer’s commitment to the conditions of the plan and concerned about the City monitoring the execution of the plan.
Along with the letter, Conne included the 17 point condition list that was attacted with the city’s approval. It includes things like a privacy fence on the westside of Midway Road, an evergreen buffer on the eastside, a $5000 donation to Midway Woods park, a mandate to clear kudzu and help with traffic calming measures on Midway Road, no gate, and all homes must meet Energy Star rating.
However the biggest condition of all is number 12: “Preservation of the Open Space depicted on the Concept Plan prepared by FocalPoint Engineering, which is dated March 29, 2006, will be achieved and will be placed in a Conservation Easement to be governed by the City of Decatur.”
According to the city’s planning director, Amanda Thompson, the entire site is actually 8.92 acres, and the comprimise the city made for preserving half the site was to allow the full development of the other half. She also adds ” They will have very tiny yards and will probably sell for around $500k.”
In regards to worries about the new developer complying to these conditions, Amanda assures us that they “are being followed and the site is inspected by either the Engineering Department or Development on a weekly basis.”
So…now you know!
Latest from Decaturish
Have we gotten their annexation application yet?
It’s already inside the city limits.
Whoops. I have no sense of geography, especially when it concerns interference with my snark.
Of course it was necessary to ‘clear cut’ an entire 4 acres for sake of development efficiency, I’m sure. I was in D.C. recently and drove by a clear cut development called ‘Oak Forest’ (or something ridiculous like that) and there was one mature oak tree left standing in the middle of it. Developers name these neighborhoods names of natural settings that once existed before they clear cut the entire property.
‘Paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’
‘Don’t know what you got til its gone…’
If Conne Thalken is reading this, I just have one question:
Did the neighbors anticipate this level of clear cutting when they worked with the developer and approved of this plan back in 2007? My understanding was that it was supposed to be a “conservation development,” and am having a hard time understanding how a conservation development can involve clear cutting the entire piece of property.
Can we please stop acting like this is some black and white, either/or situation? If the suggestion is that 8 acres of low-to-medium single family homes performs better ecologically than 4 acres of high-density homes and 4 acres of preserved land, that’s simply wrong.
Land kept in the aggregate is far better when it comes to water filtration, animal habitats, native plant preservation, etc, than is the rural fantasy of individual suburban lawns.
I’m not speaking on behalf of this particular development, per se. What I’m saying is that, if the land has development rights then our goal should be finding the solution that best serves all interests — the property owner and the greater community. Treating it like the proposition is to develop or not develop is unrealistic. It’s just an excuse to vent without actually proposing a real solution.
Clear cutting is not necessary to develop a subdivision. It’s faster, cheaper, and so desirable to developers.
My father built many many homes in DeKalb and he never cut a single tree that wasn’t in the footprint of the house or the driveway. His developements are heavily wooded to this day and his houses have held their value.
That’s true, AMB. But tree preservation on a per-parcel basis requires that you develop at somewhat relaxed densities. So, to match comparable returns overall, you might need to develop the full 8-ish acres at relaxed densities rather than doubling up density on half the site to fully preserve the other half.
My point was that, if the choice is between tree preservation as you describe it and the larger parcel preservation being suggested here, the larger preservation performs better environmentally.
Part of the issue with clear-cutting this particular piece of property is that it is on large hill–it looks like they are trying level it before construction begins. Also, they are trying to put 28 houses in a 8.9 acre area.
28 houses on a 9 acre area really isn’t that unreasonable. That’s a third of an acre a lot, of course, excluding streets, etc.
Yes, it sucks, I know.
Actually, it’s 28 houses on 4.9 acres with the remaining 4 acres in the green space.
As one of the neighbors that drives past the site it just breaks my heart that they have clear cut those acres. The reason I moved into our area was the beauty of the old big trees. From my understanding the orginal Developer had agreed not to clear cut. Fear it came down to cheaper in long run for this Developer to just pay the fines involved after the clear cutting.
I’d love to see a site plan for this development. Anyone know if it is a typical cul-de-sac arrangement with a single entry/exit point? The stipulation of “no gate” makes me think that’s the template.
If so, the conservationists didn’t see the forest for the trees, pun intended.
What they are doing is not pretty, but does appear to be meeting all the agreed upon stipulations that were worked out with the neighborhood committees and the city. I’ve posted here before that I hope the city continues to vigilantly monitor the work they are doing. The agreement was that the developer could do what they needed to do to the trees, dirt, whatever on the 4.9 acres up front where they will build homes as long as they left the rest in conservation. Scott is absolutely right – this is the most responsible way to develop this land if it must be developed. And I didn’t have enough money to buy it from the developer so it’s his to develop. Sam is also right that 28 homes is not an unreasonable number for 9 acres. But if they were able to build them all on one-third acre lots, then we would have effectively lost all the green space. Owners could do whatever they wanted with their trees.
Please remember that there is a long history with this property. Many developers have taken a run at it through the years. Prior to this, Hedgewood Properties proposed to build 20+ homes on the site without any real green space. That looked like a typical suburban subdivision. This does have one entrance in and out. But with the 4 acres of preservation and the homes clustered so tight, it is not as “typical” as it might seem. The curvature of the Midway Road frontage really prevents a second entrance and there were attempts to connect up with the neighbors in the back on Mimosa Drive with a walking path, but that met up with resistance. A vehicular connection to any other street was virtually impossible. So to use a trite saying – it is what it is. Not perfect but better than some alternatives. By the way, I still see and hear the owls in the trees on the preserved 4 acres back there so some wildlife is surviving.
That ain’t an owl GAK, I think that might be W. Gibbets howling at the moon.
I consider owls majestic. (I saw one flying over the remaining trees this morning). And I’ve seen Mr. Gibbets howling at the moon many times. Trust me – that ain’t a majestic sight at all.
Ok, first, the new guy thinks he’s funny, but can he keep it up? And second, my howling at the moon makes the Taj Mahal look like a 19th century Missouri school house.
I used to think conservation subdivision developments were win, win. As a matter of fact I help write the CSD ordinance for DeKalb. However, after seeing this development, I reconsider. Most disturbing to me is that four acres of soil, which takes hundreds to develop to sustain the type of forest that was there was totally nuked. I love trees, but I see them more as anchors of soil retention for ecological harmony. A hybrid of a CSD and traditional development, where some land is set aside but total clear cutting is absolutely prohibited and basement homes on grade are required would be optimal and ultimatelyl be more integrated and require much less than 4 acres of soil disturbance. The connectivity of disrupted areas would be spread over a larger area, which in mind integrates the homes and the residents and has less of an ecological impact, particularly if the residents get involved in creating habitat. The margins may not be the same but I think most would be happier with the outcome and I it would reflect in the value of the homes.
I
It’s all fun and games until a future (or current) owner wants to develop that other 4 acres in the future – and it happens because the possible tax income is just too too damn appealing.
Having less dense housing (with current tree preservation) spread out over 8 acres might be the less desirable of the two current options (and I’m not sure I completely agree with that) but it would keep keep high density off of the entire 8 acres in the future.
That other 4 acres is off limits to any development – ever. There would be no guarantee – ever – that current tree preservation would be preserved with less dense housing. In fact, the only thing that you could guarantee is that many, if not most of those homeowners would cut down some, if not a lot, of trees.
Good point and realistic, however under the new tree ordinance that is being considered new developments are required to have 40% canopy coverage and they receive more credit for existing trees. But yes, they could grade and clear and plant all new trees, that eventually will be 40%, unless there are specimen t trees which would require special permission to take down and incur penalties. Trees do rock and are beautiful, but more importantly they are anchors of undisturbed soil as long as they are protected. Yes, there needs to be flexibility around the building envelop, but other wise existing trees should be protected and basement homes on grade should be strongly encouraged while grading and clearing should be discouraged.
By the way, the development disturbed over 160,000 square feet, it will be interesting to see how they comply to the stormwater management code that requires stormwater runoff to a level of 90% of that which would generated from the site in its natural undeveloped state”. That means they will have to have monster detention or a huge lake. Unless the city waived this requirement, they may wish they kept some of those trees.