In a letter to the Decatur City Commission, as part of tonight’s City Commission agenda, City Manager Peggy Merriss proposes a temporary moratorium on demolition of single family dwellings and the “removal of certain trees within the R-60, R-85, and HDSF zoning districts”. Here’s the full letter…
The purpose of this memorandum is to propose that at the October 21, 2013 City Commission Meeting, the City Commission consider establishing a temporary moratorium on the demolition of single-family dwellings and the removal of certain trees within the R-60, R-85 and HDSF zoning districts. It is anticipated that it would be recommended that the moratorium be effective from October 22, 2013 until January 24, 2014.
At your regular meeting on Monday, September 16, 2013, the City Commission approved the selection of the Decatur Coding Studio Team, led by TSW, to prepare a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for the City of Decatur. Phase One of the project includes development of a detailed technical report that will provide a table of contents for the new UDO and outline exactly what should be changed. The current schedule calls for the technical report to be presented to the City Commission in January, 2014. Extensive stakeholder interviews and community engagement on desired code changes are scheduled to occur during the temporary moratorium period.
The temporary moratorium would preserve the status quo during this period of study, research and deliberation. The temporary moratorium would allow staff and the City’s consultant team the opportunity to identify primary areas of concern from the community, particularly as those concerns relate to demolitions and removal of trees on private property. Temporarily halting further single-family demolitions would also provide time for research and analysis of a number of issues that community members have raised about recent single-family development that would inform decisions about the direction that the UDO should take such as:
- the number and type of demolitions;
- the size and scale of new single-family detached residences;
- the type and number of variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and,
- other general development issues.
It would also allow time for the tree canopy analysis to be completed and reviewed and the issues of boundary trees and tree removal on private properties to be researched before additional trees are removed. We would also anticipate review of current staffing and professional services contracts to determine if changes or modifications in service delivery need to be considered.
At this point we anticipate that the temporary moratorium on demolitions and tree removal would only apply to development or redevelopment of detached single-family dwellings and would prohibit removal of any healthy trees with a 12-inch or greater “diameter-at-breast-height” (DBH). Commercial zoning districts are already subject to the existing tree ordinance. The temporary moratorium would not apply to demolition of dangerous structures or dangerous or diseased trees, as determined by a certified arborist or urban forester. An appeals process for exceptions to the temporary moratorium requirement will be available.
This reminds me of the tactics Richard Nixon used to fight inflation in 1971 – wage and price controls. This approach was found to be completely ineffective economics by the time it ended in 1974, although it was initially popular. The freeze being proposed in Decatur is reactionary government rather than proactive. If this is the best the City Manager and City Commision can do, they should resign. If we had leadership instead of ego turf games in the planning department, the problems of home demolition and tree protection could be addressed in a rationale way. Gut wrenching stoppages have a reputation for disrupting the homeowners as much as the developers.
If ‘redevelopment’ extends into renovation, this will affect far more homeowners than developers.
I think “demolition” in the letter just means demolition. Renovation, to me, is completely separate.
It depends entirely on where they’re drawing the line. Plenty of renovations involve demotion, wether it’s back half of the house, just the roof, or just the back wall.
If they specify complete demolition, it’s completely different.
Yeah, they probably need to tighten up the language a bit if they move forward. We had to demolish an old, poorly constructed addition as part of our renovation. We didn’t remove any trees in the process, but, as written, I think it would have applied. Thus, the moratorium would have the effect of enacting an ordinance where none currently exists.
More specific wouldn’t hurt, I suppose.
But when I read “establishing a temporary moratorium on the demolition of single-family dwellings” I don’t see “additions, just the roof, just the back wall”. To me, single-family dwelling means the whole structure.
Rival, read the last paragraph and the anticipated scope of application, which includes “and redevelopment.”
I think this proposal is too drastic. I say this even though I am in support of better tree planning. If it is only certain developers who are taking advantage/ being a problem, then extra attention should be paid to those developers during this period of zoning code review. Perhaps repeat a users get addressed in the code as well, such as no more than one tree variance per developer per year or the like.
Well, I read that as construction of new single family dwelling on a new lot (development) and demolition & reconstruction of an existing dwelling (redevelopment). But it could be read broader.
We’ll just have to wait until the motion, if any, to figure out the exact scope.
Yes, I’ll be curious to see the final scope, if approved. Just curious, where do you see empty sf lots in Decatur though?
I don’t. But that’s how I interpreted it.
There’s gonna be one on my street tomorrow. Just reserved the demo equipment to knock down our 1948 non-renovated, concrete walled hovel. We’ve got to sell this sucker before the McMansion Nazis make that impossible!
J_T, I’ve already chained myself to your home, as an act of anti-McMansion activism.
Ha! In that case, I’m coming out there to slather you in bacon grease and sic Stella on you.
One of the points I had hoped to make with my posting (above) was that buying older houses, demolishing them and building new homes (of whatever size) isn’t new. This sort of redevelopment may be new to Decatur Heights, but is not a recent urban innovation. In fact, it’s been going on in Atlanta for three decades. Where has the planning department been for the past few years? Obviously, not proactively reworking ordinances. But, now, we have to institute a “freeze” so the planning department can spend a few months doing something it already should have done. This isn’t the kind of management to be so proud of.
I understand that the city wants to reassess their coding, but a temporary moratorium implies that there is some crisis that deserves such a stoppage, which undoubtedly will cause some degree of inconvenience. This does appear to be quite reactionary at least on the surface.
Agreed. We have ordinances on the books that deal with these areas – if they need to be addressed, use the normal process, don’t freeze the market while you look into it.
Maybe they just should shut down the whole government until they can figure out what to do with the trees. 😉
As I understand it, this temporary moratorium on single family home demolition and tree removal came at the request of the Commission related to comments made by city residents at the August 5 Commission meeting. At this meeting, several residents and a couple of business owners from different parts of the city spoke about concerns they had about developers who are clear cutting lots (with at least one example shared where developer gladly paid steep penalty to remove a specimen tree) and also doing things that impact boundary trees (a tree that may sit on a neighbor’s property but whose roots grow across properties) as well as environmental impacts (bee keeper spoke on this). They presented Commission with a petition they were currently circulating. The ask to the Commission was that they consider an ordinance with “more teeth.” The group stressed they were not anti development, that there were plenty of “good” developers in the city but concerns that others don’t have city’s best interest at heart. You can watch the comments if you are interested here: http://decaturga.swagit.com/play/08052013-836. Under Item IV Requests & Petitions.
OK, So I’m reading between the lines – “anticipate review of current staffing and professional services contracts to determine…”
Also could mean – “Hey City Council, We here in the Development dept. are working so hard at trying to get all these single family permits through, and they just keep on coming, Please give us some relief to get caught up. The developers are screaming because we can’t keep up, and neighbors to projects are screaming at us because we “let” someone build a new house, so give us a break”
So the solution is to use the neighbors’ complaints of “too much construction and trees cut down” as an excuse to impose a moratorium.
We just went through a huge development code re-work in Nov 2005, if memory serves, which put in place a clear set of lot coverage and many other rules. Why is this suddenly insufficient?
My property value has gone up with all of the school improvements, and new development, and so has many other folks’ value, even the people that are loudly complaining.
I am not so sure what good those codes really are since variances and zoning variances are given out like beads to a topless sorority girl at Mardi Gras.
+1
Hey, I go topless every Mardi Gras and I assure you I am no sorority girl.
Have you tried to build/removate in COD recently? We did, and we were given NO wiggle room w/r/t any of the ordinances (written or unwritten…you would be amazed, but I digress). We even had to take down a beautiful magnolia tree even though we fought to keep it. Our home is no McAnything, taking up approximately 1/10 of our lot.
Although not mentioned as a line item, I hope that examination of impact to water flow and potential flooding is included. Another FEMA update is on the way.
Yes, if we were strictly talking economics, then maybe I could see the Nixon reference, possibly. But quality of life and the value of trees to our community don’t exactly register to the conservative viewpoint.
Yeah, conservatives hate good quality of life. And puppies.
Don’t forget rainbows 🙂
+1
Tom says, “But quality of life and the value of trees to our community don’t exactly register to the conservative viewpoint.”
Wow. Just wow, Tom.
So, if I want to demo a portion of my house and rebuild on the same footprint, can I under this new regulation? I sure hope the choice is still mine.
Just what we need, more regulations. Are these the same folks who circulated the super-clever tree petition a month or two ago?
Yes, it is the same folks whe claim not to be anti-developer despite all evidence to the contrary. These are also the same folks who want ordinances preserving specific, individual trees.
I don’t think they’re anti-development. They’d surely allow you to develop your property in exactly the way they happen to prefer.
This just sounds completely ridiculous. You buy a property and want to tear down a dilapidated structure and build something that’s nice and new, improves the value of the neighborhood and the tax base, but the government says you can’t? If it’s tree is, shouldn’t that be the specific problem to address?
Interesting that this moratorium won’t stop recent multifamily projects from continuing.
I’m not against those multifamily projects, but could they not impact “the status quo during this period of study, research and deliberation” and thus helpful to temporarily halt while we study things?
The outcome will surely result in more onerous and restrictive renovation and development criteria for all us. If we only spent as much time advocating the poor, homeless and unborn as we do for trees.
Interesting how a small group of people can command the attention of our government to call for a “temporary moratorium”. If the decisions of a few property owners to tear down older homes or a few trees requires drastic action by the commission, just think of what could happen in a real emergency.
How’s that Stragetic Plan feelin now?
Actually, that Strategic Plan is working out pretty much the way most of the fair minded, forward thinking people who participated in it had hoped it would. But thanks for asking!
That Strategic Plan is feeling like it led to one of the 10 best neighborhoods in the country. Wanna see how no strategic plan feels? Go visit one of those wastelands of unfinished developments out on the borders of eastern Gwinnett or some other craphole where developers called all the shots.
Good one!
This and the strategic plan are two separate things. I don’t think the strategic plan had anything in it about knee-jerk reactions leading to moratoriums on private property use.
Never mind. Mr B deliberately didn’t participate in the Strategic Plan process because, in his mind, the outcome was preordained, so he doesn’t know what’s in it anyway.
The thing that saddens me is that Decatur is well on its way to becoming a gated community for the upper middle class, albeit with economic gates rather than physical ones. The median sales price in CoD is approaching half a million bucks. I guess with the downtown retail district being essentially a playground for the well off, it’s inevitable.
Stopping renovation and the ability for a private land-owner to update his/her property is a sure-fire way to tank the market. You won’t have to overinflate statistics to support your point.
Not sure what your source is, but according to Trulia, median home sales this summer in 30030 were $325 K — I suppose that is ‘approaching’ $500 K in some loose definition.
Why does that sadden you? Do you have a problem with the upper middle class? Are you a class warrior?
No, actually, he just became a real estate agent at a firm based in Downtown Decatur!
Look at the Decaturish blog entry about Decatur home prices in the 2nd Quarter of 2013.
Thanks for the link, I hope what Jon Effron says is right.
I don’t support the moratorium. I do support living and working in an economically diverse community. Our first responders are being priced out of the market, for instance.
There is plenty of affordable housing in Decatur, unless you’re a snob who only defines Decatur as City Of, and not the more politically correct version defined by no less an authority than the United States Postal Service.
Sure, there’s “plenty of affordable housing in Decatur” as long as you’re not interested in accessing city schools, public safety or public works. Otherwise, you’d better have a key to those economic gates.
I’m not following. Are you saying there’s a difference between CoD and Postal Decatur? Careful with that – you’ll be called a snob.
Amateur snobs. You should see how us OAKies talk about those unfortunates who have to live north of the Dequator
Postal Decatur isn’t even on our radar.
So the answer to a valid point about affordability is a sarcastic remark that has nothing to do with the topic but instead refers to the tiresome whining about media descriptions of location?
Didn’t the city just go through a tree ordinance revision vote in the past few years. I believe it was approved by the council and eventually vetoed by the mayor? Instead of shutting things down, why wouldn’t they try to put that tree plan back up for a vote? Temporary or not it would avoid a complete shut down.