Pages

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Wag the dog and grab the land

BY MELISSA ATHERTON

“The land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for, because it’s the only thing that lasts.” -Gerald O’Hara, Gone with the Wind

Wag the Dog: “To divert attention from something that is bad; to change the topic from something more important to something that is not; to hide something.” -theidioms.com

The Town of Davidson Planning Department has proposed approximately 25 text amendments to the watershed chapter of the Davidson Planning Ordinance (DPO). A public hearing is scheduled for March 13th and the Board of Commissioners is scheduled to vote on the changes April 10th. Both meetings are at Davidson Town Hall at 6:00 pm.

In a memo to the Board of Commissioners dated 2/27/2018, Planning Director Jason Burdette states that the purpose of the changes “is to keep our drinking water in Lake Norman clean.” Burdette has also stated in multiple board meetings that Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) has asked the planning department to “tighten up” the watershed ordinance.

What are the major changes? Which changes were recommended by LUESA and which were recommended by the Town? What was the catalyst for the Town-driven changes? What properties do they impact? What are the intended and unintended consequences? Who benefits and who loses?

A thorough analysis reveals that under the misleading disguise of pure “drinking water,” “flexibility,” and “more thoughtful design,” the amendments will: increase variances, increase density, limit the construction of single family homes, increase opportunities for high-density developers, encourage density averaging, threaten the tree canopy, change stormwater requirements by deleting the wet detention pond requirement, and increase impervious footprints for commercial redevelopment purposes.

The owner of one of the nine remaining mill homes on Delburg expressed major concern during the February 13th public comment period. The resident stated a loophole currently allows pre-1993 smaller lots to be excluded from the 24% impervious limits. This loophole has allowed the demolition of mill homes and subsequent construction of larger homes on Delburg Street. Under the new ordinance, the mill home owner would not be permitted the same right.

Thankfully, the planning staff have rewritten this particular text amendment in response to public outcry. The latest version of the text amendment (subject to LUESA approval) will allow the loophole for residents who have owned their home since 1993. But what about the rest of us? How many of us have lived here or owned our property for over 25 years?

If someone purchased the 1911 mill home on Delburg today (blissfully unaware of the text amendments), what could they build if they demolished the existing home? Let’s do the math:

  • 6,000 square foot lot multiplied by 0.24 (impervious limit) = 1,440 square feet
  • 1,440 minus 200 square feet (one-car garage) = 1,240 square feet
  • 1,240 minus 600 square feet (driveway) = 640 square feet
  • 640 minus 150 square feet (required to be reserved for future owners) = 490 square feet
  • 490 multiplied by 2 (two story home) = 980 square feet

What are the unintended consequences? Existing single lots on the West Side, especially small lots, will lose value. A typical pre-1993 lot on Westside Terrace, Lakeside Terrace, Mock Road, or Watson Street is about 0.1-0.2 acre. Many of these homes are owned by investors and the vast majority were purchased after 1993. The investors or long-standing residents will not be able to demolish and rebuild a desirable home on their property due to the 24% impervious requirement. Ironically, a high-density developer could then purchase several contiguous properties and build a “Master Plan” with 50% impervious. The only other option for these residents (if they choose not to spend a fortune renovating) is to sell their home and land to a developer to use as a density averaging donor parcel. The post-1993 homeowner may ask herself, “Is this really about drinking water?”

The original watershed ordinance clearly intended to exempt existing single-family lots, with or without a house on them. The text amendments remove that pro-single-family bias completely to the benefit of commercial development. The text amendments will allow developers in the Village Commerce and Village Center to increase their impervious footprint beyond 50 percent.

Under the moralistic veil of maintaining “greater stability for single-family lots subject to development pressures by clarifying and affirming rights of long-standing landowners and their families” (Memo 2/27/2018), is a push for apartments, quadplexes, Village Courtyards and Village Walkups. The new Board of Commissioners tabled the Missing Middle, but the text amendment phoenix has risen from the ashes. Wag the Dog and Grab the Land!

No comments:

Post a Comment