Tell the APCA That We Want a Say in Our Zoning Changes

Comments

#5

I would like more time to educate myself on the historic options.

Mary Alice Mina (Atlanta, 2022-03-02)

#9

We have concerns about parity between multifamily and single family homes historic to Ansley. The process for community inputs needs to be extended to ensure the best outcome for this document.

MI Scarlett (Atlanta, Georgia , 2022-03-02)

#12

Can we concentrate our efforts on increasing property values, safety, and sidewalk access?

Beau Aero (Atlanta, 2022-03-02)

#13

The points below penned by neighbor Watt and Katie Boone in an email to the board of Ansley Park Civic Association clearly illustrate my own feelings about this issue:

Dear APCA Board members,

Thank you so much for the time and effort you volunteer to our neighborhood.

I'm writing to ask that you reject Ansley Park Forever's push to impose Historic Designation interim controls onto Ansley Park.

Katie and I are Atlanta natives. We have been Ansley homeowners since 2015. We live in a 2008 newer craftsman style house on Inman Circle that we love. It was built by the previous owner on the site of a 1920's clapboard bungalow that had fallen into disrepair, according to our immediate neighbors and pictures we have seen. We are not "real estate people" or developers, and love old houses. We previously owned a 1904 craftsman in Midtown that we carefully maintained before moving to Ansley. But we moved to Ansley not for an old house, but because of the walkable proximity to Midtown and our club, the curvilinear streets, jewel-like parks, and most importantly the great people! Our kids (6 and 8) love exploring the alleys and the parks and seeing their friends nearby.

Like many, we were also supportive of the battle to preserve our R-4 zoning last year, with yard signs and also emails and comments to Atlanta City Council while they were debating. We will continue that fight.

However, we strongly oppose making Ansley Park a historic district. I've kept an open mind, listened to APF zooms, read the interim controls, and spoken to APF supporters, many of whom I consider friends and well meaning. But simply put, I feel that it would be a terrible mistake for APCA to transfer our property rights into the hands of the City of Atlanta urban design commission.

I worry that APCA has only heard one side of the argument so far. Do not conflate the zoning fight, which unified our neighborhood, with a much broader, and more divisive, push to restrict homeowner property rights under the guise of Historic Designation. The neighborhood went through this battle in the 1990's and rejected it, after in fighting that "tore the neighborhood apart" and "only benefited the lawyers" according to comments on APF's own initial surveys.

We can continue the unified fight to preserve our R-4 residential zoning and platting in Ansley without resorting to the overreach and collateral damage of a Historic Designation. We need to stay observant, but I don't see a great risk of Ansley getting forcibly rezoned this year. Just read the AJC. Alex Wan is against forced rezoning, Doug Shipman is against it, Tim Keane has moved away, and Amir Farokhi is not running the Zoning Committee on the City Council. Andre Dickens has already said neighborhoods are going to have a greater role in determining whether they want to re-zone.

If we, as part of establishing Ansley as a Historic District, transfer our rights to the Atlanta Urban Design Commission, and they consider a pre-1964 house "contributing", demolition of that house will be banned forever even if there is demand for a single family home on that lot with higher value/better use. If I owned a pre-1964 house that would be worth more as a teardown, I'd be really worried about this regressive restriction. Many of us consider our houses the biggest individual investment we will make. Post-hoc interference with the value of that investment is risky, and should be much more carefully considered by APCA before moving forward with interim controls.

While Historic designation might mean some beautiful older houses might be saved from those rapacious developers, certainly not every house is worth saving just because it's old. Some houses simply don't optimize the highest and best use of a single-family property. The market "votes" to save most structurally intact, beautiful, historic houses. It votes to tear down ones that would cost too much to renovate, or that were cheaply made in the first place. Other historic houses are beautiful on the outside but are hiding structural problems underneath. You could be permanently saddling an owner (or future buyer) with hidden money pit, when the house is not impaired enough to be "non conforming" but upon inspection the structural repairs are required by law.

If I owned a historic home, and didn't want my property to be torn down after I move out, I have many options that are more appealing than Historic District designation. First, I don't have to sell, I can pass it to my heirs and they can live in it or rent it out. Second, I could register my home on the National Register of Historic Places registry. This is just a plaque unless I accept federal or state preservation money, but it's a way to mark that home as "worth saving" forever in the eyes of the market. Third, I could sell to an heir or trusted friend that agrees, via handshake, to keep the house preserved. Or fourth, to make it legally binding, I can attach a deed restriction or restrictive covenant at sale. As Kiplinger notes, this interference in the market will likely lower my sale price, but that's an individual choice that I am free to make.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/t010-c013-s002-should-tear-down-plans-be-disclosed-by-home-buyers.html


These individual ways to preserve my home are available to me today, and far better than mandating that everyone else in my neighborhood abide by my personal preservation preferences, for their houses, in perpetuity, after I'm long gone.

For newer houses, APF is unfortunately minimizing the risk of letting a city government authority decide what updates you can make. According to the interim controls, my painting of unpainted brick (2017), re-flagging our front walkway, front porch addition, and steel/glass door (2018-2019) all require Type 2 reviews. So, perhaps they might not have been allowed. "Probably, but not certain". Those additions may have been considered "a design mismatch" with my neo-Craftsman architecture. This is subjective and arbitrary and requires a lot of faith in a city government that has not been very adept at providing basic services or fighting crime in recent years. I love Atlanta, but don't trust our city government to get nuanced design decisions right.

I have not personally ever dealt with the Atlanta Urban Design Commission, but my friend who has recently renovated a historic home in Druid Hills, preserving the facade, told me that dealing with the AUDC, was, quote, " A sh*t show...they'll approve stuff that has zero historic precedent, and then not approve stuff like paved walkway connections between a front stoop and a driveway...it completely depends who is the designated coordinator for the historic district and if they understand the mandate and what is 'historic'". Well, that's a roll of the dice. Better hope the city of Atlanta UDC hired someone that understands the design vision for your exterior home renovations.

I don't want to just criticize. I understand some of the motivations of the APF. It is made up of our dear friends and neighbors that are well meaning, we just happen to fundamentally disagree on what actions to take to make Ansley just as great in 50 years as it is today. There have been a lot of demolitions in the neighborhood, concurrent with the big rise in home values recently. Trees are collateral damage in the redevelopment processes. Can we ensure that new houses are of a quality that befits our neighborhood? Can we urge developers to protect historic trees through a combination of carrots (incentives) and sticks (advocacy)? Can we simply enforce our existing zoning law without having to inspect and advocate for stop-work orders with the city?

My suggestion is to seek a middle ground: Conservation District overlay. Look at Brookwood Hills, our charming residential neighbor to the north with houses from the 1920's. It implements a neighborhood-run Design Review Board that works with developers to ensure the quality of materials, listen to neighborhood concerns, and ensure zoning adherence before ground breaking. Conservation District can slow down a non-conforming build and gently move developers in the right direction but stops the sledgehammer of restrictions that come with Historic District and keeps the city out of neighborhood decisions that can be adapted and changed as needed. Ultimately, homeowners maintain their ability to get new buildings and renovations permitted, and have the final say, as they retain their property rights. I don't think anyone wants an HOA with binding rule-making authority, but in my vision, Conservation status is a way to nudge, not to command. Let's talk to the Brookwood Hills folks.

Furthermore, while Conservation status doesn't block Brookwood Hills from getting forcibly rezoned, I think it helps. Advocating for Conservation District for Ansley would be a strong signal to City Council that Ansley wants to protect their R-4 zoning. I strongly recommend that APCA do more work on this as an alternative.

Another issue is the timing and controlling the process. APF has been transparent and open, to their credit, and I know they care about the neighborhood, but they have run a one sided debate so far. APCA's process has been totally backwards with the conflation of zoning and Historical Controls. Advocating for Historical District status in the Ansleyphile before educating people was the wrong choice. So many are confused in the neighborhood about what is going on. Slow it down! This is important stuff.

APF did not want to put this to a vote before implementing the interim controls, which is not very democratic. Drop the interim controls on the doorstep, and have APCA vote to send it to the city a week later. They told me that nobody would pay attention until they forced the issue...well, we were happy with our existing rights under the status quo, and have jobs and families. I spent many hours over the last week getting educated on the topic just to be able to write a reasonably informed email of dissent. I'm sure you are all spending many more reading these emails.

APF is an advocacy group, and thus should not be the body that sets the bounds of debate and timing of Interim Controls. APCA has a duty to be the governing body for the entire neighborhood. Please intervene, control the process, take a more objective look at what is being proposed, summarize the issues in plain English, give concrete case examples from other neighborhoods, actively seek out opposing viewpoints, run objective straw polls, and look into the Conservation District alternative.

My final issue is the voting, if it eventually comes to a neighborhood wide vote. The 1990's vote on historic designation required 75% turnout, with 55% saying yes to win, a far higher bar. Obviously it failed. APF told me they are pushing for a lower turnout requirement this time around, and I'm not sure why--they are proposing to Alex Wan to only require 50% turnout, with 55% in favor to make historic designation pass (that's 27.5% of households).

In my view, 27.5% of a neighborhood voting to take away home ownership rights from 100% of the neighborhood is totally insufficient and illegitimate. It is nowhere near a majority of the neighborhood. Removal of rights demands a very high bar. It would only be legitimate if over 50% of the neighborhood votes in favor historic designation. Non-voters would have to be considered "no votes/keep status quo" when it comes to removing existing rights.

I personally think we have more important things to worry about in our neighborhood and wish APCA would vote to table this for a few years until we see what's happening with the zoning push.

Thank you for your time and attention to this lengthy email, and once again, thank you for your service on behalf of the neighborhood. Please email if we can help, or answer any questions on this subject.

Sincerely,
Watt and Katie Boone

Gregory Smith (Atlanta, 2022-03-02)

#16

I do not believe that the historic movement represents what is best for Ansley Park. I also feel that any opposition to this movement has been silenced. All dialogue has been incredibly biased towards the benefits of this movement.

Pat Gilroy (Atlanta, 2022-03-02)

#17

I don’t believe the pros and cons of historic designation and the ensuing ramifications have been presented in an unbiased manner such that an informed decision is being made by a sufficient majority of those neighbors who will be directly affected. Nor have alternatives been clearly communicated or fully explored. This effort is being treated as a fait accompli and appears to be driven by a small minority without fully exploring all options or consequences or informing those who will be affected.

Steve Lovoy (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#20

As an architect with experience working in districts with similar ordinances, I am opposed to the ordinance as drafted. Anna and I have lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and raised three children here. Ours is the only house and this is the only neighborhood our children have lived in. The draft ordinance is deeply flawed. I have been working with APF to make the ordinance less onerous and more objective. I have made my concerns clear to APF and the APCA that the ordinance as written is subjective and will be subjectively enforced (as no law should be), it takes entitlement rights away from homeowners, it complicates, adds expense to and time to a homeowner's project, it takes subjective design decisions from homeowners and turns them over to City officials and the Urban Design Commission, it places a greater burden on houses deemed by the City to be contributing with no option for a homeowner to opt out. It weaponizes opposition by given them the option to oppose a project for purely subjective reasons in superior court that the city awards a "Certificate of Appropriateness". Which typically ties a project up for years and costs the owner significant legal fees. The people pushing this are well intended, but they have little actual experience with these ordinances. The rush and push isn't in the interests of the community. I know this from experience.

Jim Winer (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#25

I am concerned that this is being fasttracked without full community involvement and full evaluation

Greg Canzano (Marietta, 2022-03-03)

#26

Disagree with Ansley Park forever process, content
and tactics. Leave Ansley Park Zoning the way it is.

Cristina Montgomery (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#27

These restrictions are way too great an infringement on property rights.

Michael Montgomery (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#28

While I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into APCA's exploration of options to prevent the city zoning proposals made last year, the Interim Controls for Historic District made available just last week go too far. I prefer the Conservation District option.

Kathryn Kreimer (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#30

We should learn more.

Andrew Bate (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#32

We’d like more time to understand other options. The current plans seem very restrictive and in conversations with neighbors it is clear that there is not clear understanding of the proposed rules or alternatives.

Marshall Norseng (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#38

I commend the committed, hard-working volunteers on the board of the APCA, whose laudable efforts enhance our community. But I urge them to slow down and rethink the process of historical designation. The APCA has provided no forum for open discussion and debate. Zoom meetings have been sparsely attended. The APCA is allowing less than two weeks for comment on the dense and complicated draft interim controls. The board has taken it upon themselves to decide on behalf of all homeowners whether to proceed with the nomination (and once it is submitted, the process will play out until the end—a neighborhood vote will not stop it from reaching a full City Council vote). A realtor told me that some people’s long-term financial plans will be “crushed” by this; I believe such a serious issue should be part of the discussion and not brushed aside.

We must slow this down. The urgency of re-zoning has eased. The neighborhood needs to hear and consider all the pros and cons of historical designation. If, after adequate time for discussion, debate, and examination of all the available options, the neighborhood chooses historical designation, that’s fine with me. Ansley Park is facing some serious challenges, and I know APCA and APF believe they’re saving us, but by rushing through what they present as the only solution, they guarantee lasting division, anger, and resentment that will likely cause a great deal of harm. They do not have to do it this way.

Anna Winer (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#40

Not in support of historic preservation designation.

Martin Emmett (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#41

I believe th proposed re-zooning will driv down values in the neighborhood.

ewoud swaak (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#42

I need more time to understand the options. I think a historic designation will be too restrictive.

Keisha Escoffery (Atlanta , 2022-03-03)

#46

We need to explore options that are less onerous on homeowners and promote retention of Ansley Park's core character. The City has rules today that are blatantly disregarded because they are not enforced. The last thing Ansley Park needs is more City bureaucracy, a divided community, and needless barriers to home maintenance.

David Anbari (Atlanta, 2022-03-03)

#50

Would like to suggest there be communication in a public forum (not Zoom and board meetings) where an unbiased outside consultant can present the 4 options before deciding which direction we pursue.

Terry Bozeman (Atlanta, 2022-03-04)

#53

Historic District status disproportionately impacts owners of small homes built before 1966 that might be deemed "contributing". It seems that if the City decides a home is contributing, and the homeowner disagrees, the homeowner has the burden of proof to establish that significant visual alterations had already been made. Owners of small contributing homes could suffer substantial economic harm if historic status is granted. It seems unfair to subject this minority to economic harm, while owners of large contributing homes, non-contributing homes, and the people who have already done teardowns, benefit.

The draft controls are excessively onerous, especially for any home where both the front and the back are visible from public rights-of-way (for example, homes that back up to a park), and thus approval would be required for alterations to both the front and the back. It will take me some time to digest them, but I count 21 guidelines that relate to things visible from a right-of-way.

I support restrictions on lot coverage and height but I strongly oppose any design/aesthetic restrictions. I think enforcement of the existing lot coverage and height (size/scale/light) rules would go a long way to improving the neighborhood. Let's do that instead of entering the proposed burdensome, economically damaging scheme of historic district status.

With respect to things that would require approval or recommendations by a committee of neighborhood residents (if any, as part of this or another scheme), that's real power - more than the current APCA board has - and that kind of power has potential for abuse.

Passage of such an impactful change like historic district status that involves giving up existing property rights should require well over 50% of ALL homeowners (vs more than 50% of only the homeowners who vote).

Given that membership in the APCA is voluntary and not universal in the neighborhood, I don't think a vote of the APCA Board necessarily accurately reflects the desire of the community.

Thank you for starting this petition. It's great seeing everyone else's comments. I hope APCA will make a truly interactive public forum (such as a private Facebook or Nextdoor group) available for a true dialogue on this before making any decisions. Please also consider sharing this with City Council.

R Ruskin (Atlanta, 2022-03-04)

#54

The Ansley Park security patrol does not patrol our street. We used to support the patrol until we were told they don’t patrol on Piedmont— which has historically been a source of crime in the neighborhood. If Ansley Park doesn’t seem us to be “in the neighborhood “ for security purposes, why are we included for historic preservation purposes?

Butch Merritt (Atlanta , 2022-03-04)

#55

Piedmont Avenue is a major traffic artery into and out of the in town business districts. It’s five lanes and Carrie’s over 20,000 vehicles per day. There is NOTHING inside Ansley Park that is even remotely like Piedmont Avenue. Beverly Road and Montgomery Ferry carry only approximately 6,000 vehicles per day.

Patty Merritt (Atlanta, 2022-03-04)

#56

As a 25 year resident and former HOA board member, I am opposed to the process of how the elected HOA members have railroaded their agenda up to this point There needs to be more time for a broader cross section of residents to get informed and provide feedback. Simply running ad hoc surveys and low attendance Q&A sessions is not a statistically consistent sample of the diversity of the residents, and only represents a large group of those in support of minimizing change. Additionally when dealing with Alex Wan and the ATL city council, there should be broader representation than our over jealous President, Paul Dimmick, who’s agenda does not align with the broader consensus of Ansley Park

Kenneth Lee (Atlanta , 2022-03-04)

#59

Am open and thoughtful community discussion is important. Let’s take a little time to do that. It will benefit all of us.

Michael Shapiro (ATLANTA, 2022-03-05)

#60

C

C B Brown (Atlanta, 2022-03-05)

#62

Moving too fast, especially for the large impact it would have on only some properties, the large number of properties not covered, and the large number of owners who are unaware of the proposed controls.

Aimee Geissler (Atlanta, 2022-03-06)

#63

Watt and Katie Boone’s letter raises a lot of questions that I believeshould be addressed and considered carefully. I have no doubt that APCA and all those involved with APF have the best interest of the neighborhood at heart. Let’s just assure that historic designation is the best choice vs. others.

Nicole Bellmann (Atlanta , 2022-03-06)

#65

I'm signing this because I have been against the historic district movement from the first time I heard about it. I don't like what it means to me as a 25 year Ansley homeowner AND I believe it is immoral to be against additional housing for Atlanta. More density is coming to intown Atlanta. To think our neighborhood would not be a part of that is naive and elitist.

Daryn Kagan (Atlanta, 2022-03-06)

#68

I do not agree with the current direction of the APCA

Bill Johnson (Atlanta , 2022-03-06)

#69

We need more time to get up to speed before zoning is changed in our neighborhood without a vote.

D'lynne Plummer (Atlanta, 2022-03-06)

#73

I do not fully understand all the options or who or how the “staff” tasked with approving requests are elected, removed or held accountable.

Malon Courts (Atlanta, 2022-03-06)

#74

Need time to fully evaluate this issue. Should not go forward until the entire neighborhood weighs in.

Kenneth Taylor (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#77

I wish I understood what good these restrictions will provide. The abstract “better looking” neighborhood promises are not stronger than the concrete restrictions it will put on home owners. Inability to make home improvements will decrease the tax base, should demand for houses also decrease. Why would the city vote for decreased tax revenue?

Lisa Shapiro (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#78

I believe that the historic designation will decrease property values.

Jason Howard (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#81

We've lived in Ansley Park since 2000 and do not see the need to move forward with the Historic District designation at this time. Honestly, we have found the process to have simple exterior improvements to our house approved tedious already (dealing with any form of bureaucracy is never great) . Adding the Atlanta Urban Design Commission to this mix is concerning. At a minimum, this process should slow down and allow members of the Ansley neighborhood to better understand the implications of what is being proposed before moving forward with something that takes away many of the basic homeowner rights they have today.

One of the more disturbing elements of this proposal is the idea that any home built before 1964 cannot be torn down. This seems very one dimensional and fails to factor in that many homes may very well need to be torn down in order for the current or future owner to make the best use of their property. Just because it was built before a certain date doesn't by itself mean it's a good house worthy of restoration or preservation.

Please consider pausing this project until the majority of the residents of Ansley understand the implications and can make an informed vote.

Thank you

Gardiner Garrard (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#82

Thank you for the opportunity to sign this petition. I strongly agree all property owners and not just the board should be voting on any changes to limitations of property rights and only after all designations are fully explained and all options are considered.

Kim Orr (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#87

I think more discussion of the available options would ensure the best possible outcome for the community.

David Ford (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#88

Not enough discussion about the ramifications of this proposal.

Bobbo Jetmundsen (Atlanta / Ponte Vedra, FL, 2022-03-07)

#98

Would there be any detriment to the proposed plan's submission if the vote was postponed until the April APCA Board meeting? There seems to be ample concerns express by the residents to warrant a forum at which they can voice their positions.

Jeff Kohn (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#102

I don't think this proposal has been vetted throughout the neighborhood well enough, despite the board's efforts. People do not really understand what this means to them, now and in the future. We need to drastically slow this down and give everyone a chance to have all questions and concerns addressed.

Patrick O'Donnell (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#104

I think this is being rushed through and there should be a neighborhood vote on this if it is going to move forward

Kristen Burton (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#107

I recognize (and share) concerns regarding certain categories of undesirable infill development in Ansley Park, and I am confident that members of the APF Committee and the APCA Board have worked long hours in a good faith attempt to collect neighborhood input, evaluate options, and build consensus around potential solutions to these concerns. However, after reviewing the draft Interim Controls and understanding the developmental restrictions likely to be adopted pursuant to the neighborhood's proposed status as a historic district, I've concluded that such limitations on renovations and new construction would be ill-advised because they are likely to (1) impose unnecessary burdens on the normal process of improving and updating the neighborhood's existing housing stock in the decades ahead and (2) have disparate and regressive effects on many Ansley Park residents and homeowners.

Ben Fox (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#110

For all of the reasons stated in my letter and more. This will destroy Ansley Park and it is contrary to the spirit that makes Ansley special.

Chuck Taylor (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#112

I live in Ansley Park

Jim Jordan (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#114

I am not 100% comfortable moving forward with the current proposals at this time.

Darrie Wohlman (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#116

I do not think we understand the complications that this designation could bring homeowners.

kevin mcbride (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#117

I’m signing because I am not sure of best path.

Matt Bronfman (Atlanta, 2022-03-07)

#123

I’m VERY concerned about these new restrictions being placed on my neighbors with historic houses.

Matt Alley (Atlanta , 2022-03-08)

#124

I m signing because I think there are alternatives that may be more palatable to all. I've seen the application of "subjective" approval criteria and oppose it based on actual experience

Malcolm Young (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#125

I am against this proposal.

Lynn Young (ATLANTA, 2022-03-08)

#129

I don’t believe I can put for an argument any better than some of the comments already posted on this petition. They speak strongly and voice clearly the need to stop this process and to consider all sides that will be impacted by this effort. I add my request that the Board of the APCA defer any vote for time to allow other sides of this effort to impose new legislation on the neighborhood be more fairly presented and considered and to make an effort to engage those neighbors who will be individually directly affected. All neighborhoods are subject to change within a lifecycle – they grow, mature, decline, and, for many, find process of renewal.
Our neighbors who speak with the voices of professionals – Jim Winer and Geoff Graham, for example – should be given heed. Taking entitlement rights (value) from homeowners and adding expense to homeowners’ already costly maintenance and renovation is something that should not be done without support of a majority of those who stand to forfeit that value and incur that expense. There have been positive suggestions in this petition, including hiring an outside consultant to present multiple options to identify and achieve the end that is sought by a majority. I urge you to choose a path that is open and more inclusive of all our neighbors.

Brian Mullaney (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#137

I want to explore all options not just one.

Lisa Taylor (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#138

I disagree with many portions of this petition.

Sheryl Meddin (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#141

I am very appreciative of the work done to better our neighborhood. That said, the volume of information particularly in the Draft Interim Controls and the need to further study those controls and the impact to our neighborhood requires the APCA Board to PAUSE the process. Please do not vote to proceed with the filing. We can and should take the time to get this right.

John Zintak (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#142

I do NOT support the current DRAFT that is being being voted on by the APCA Board on Tuesday. However, I do support the concept of Ansley Park becoming a Historic District after further revisions to the existing DRAFT of the proposed Design & Development Controls.

Any further edits and changes to this once submitted or approved will be a struggle and require far more work than getting it right BEFORE submitting it to the City.

I would ask that you delay the nomination for at least four to six months in order to give us adequate time to further explore other options to the process.

Les Faulk (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#144

I’m concerned this is moving too quickly without due deliberation, community discussion and in depth consideration.

Nicholas Telesca (Atlanta , 2022-03-08)

#146

All stakeholders should be invovled in the decision whether to submit the interim controls to the city. However well-intentioned, the APF/APCA constitutes but a small fraction of residents/property owners, and should not have the authority to legally bind property owners. I foresee unnecessary expense and bad-feelings if this ordinance is pushed through without complete buy-in from a majority of stakeholders.

Will Cutchins (Atlanta, 2022-03-08)

#148

I do not think we should be moving forward with historic district designation. I agree completely with Daryn Kagan and many others signing this petition

Alexis Cutchins (Atlanta, 2022-03-09)

#152

Opposed

Larry Mock (Atlanta, 2022-03-10)

#153

Opposed. Will hurt property values.

Darden Mock (Atlanta, 2022-03-10)

#154

We are in no way historic or should be subjected to these restrictions. People buying in Druid Hills knew the rules, this is an attempt to stop construction that has gone unchecked for years and now you jump on. We have been residents for 50 years and this proposal is not what we want for our
Cherished neighborhood, which seems shared by 50% of responders.

Sally George (Atlanta, 2022-03-10)

#155

I have been a resident over 50 years, and have enjoyed living without architectural restrictions and buying a home and then 51 years later telling what I can and cannot do with my home.This is not a historic neighborhood by any definition nor will any designation change that. It is very unfortunate that we are subjected to this situation when almost 50% do not agree and less than 50% of original house remain.

Walter George (Atlanta, 2022-03-10)

#156

As a homeowner, I want to have a right to research and review for myself, each option available prior to voting.

Neighbors who are forcing others to vote without the ability to review options must realize that democracy is a signature of our country. It is ultimately what dictators fear.

JACQUI CAFFEY (ATLANTA, 2022-03-11)

#157

I am against a Historical District Designation. It is the wrong course of action.

Ron Antinori (Atlanta, 2022-03-11)



Paid advertising

We will advertise this petition to 3000 people.

Learn more...