FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW .
| DEVELOPERS' ASSERTIONS | FACTS |
| 1. Lamar and Good claim that PRDs are a positive tool to encourage creative site design, preservation of open space and unique environmental features, and insure that historic design guidelines are met. |
R. Wayne Lamar and Brad Good are Atlanta developers of infill neighborhoods. PRDs are a modern urban planning tool created to mitigate urban sprawl. They were not designed for slow-growth, historically sensitive areas like historic districts, particularly in small rural towns like Madison. The Lamar/Good plan proposes to pack 32-37 houses onto approximately 6 acres in the middle of the Madison Historic District, where no such density exists, and where there is an existing historic pecan grove. The only traffic study we have seen shows a degradation of the rating of the street, and that study was made past the entry point for the development, away from Main Street, thereby ignoring the traffic that all the feeder streets already place onto the intersection of Main and Foster. The only greenspace the developers offer to preserve is economically unbuildable and protected already as property adjacent to a creek. Moreover, it provides little added benefit to City residents. Because of its isolated location, its potential benefit will go primarily to the homeowners within the development. There is nothing in the nature of PRDs which ensures that historic design guidelines are met. The Historic Preservation Commission does that. |
| 2. Lamar and Good claim that their development will have a significant positive economic impact on the City from the private funds invested in construction, expenditures by new residents, utility fees, and annual tax revenue. |
The developers totally ignore the fact that Madison is not a tax neutral town in terms of new home construction. Except for the most expensive homes, the increased property tax revenue will not cover the additional cost of the services the City provides. This means that existing homeowners will experience an increased tax burden to subsidize these developers’ profits. Historic tourism brings $49 million to the City of Madison every year. If the integrity of the Historic District is degraded by inappropriate development to a significant extent, tourism will suffer. In addition, the District could be removed from the National Register of Historic Places if the degradation is deemed severe. The ultimate impact on historic tourism in our City could be devastating. If these developers are allowed to change zoning simply for profit, a precedent for other existing and potentially aggregated large parcels could be established, and the degradation of the Historic District further threatened. Visible modernization compromising the character of the Historic District could happen within a very few years. The developers’ claims of benefit to the City from construction are hollow. The infrastructure costs are benefits to their development, the costs of which the developers intend to recoup on sale of the properties. The developers have identified publicly their intended Atlanta builder for the project. Madison and its residents typically will benefit very little economically from the construction, as large contractors rely on established work crews and material suppliers from their home base, meaning little or no local Madison/Morgan County jobs or construction expenditures. The developers’ claims of future spending by new residents are without any cited studies or basis, and seem highly exaggerated, given that they presume that the households within the development will spend, on average, about $50,000 per year within Madison. The developers’ claims regarding utility fees paid to the City ignore the costs associated with those fees. Every one of the developers’ assertions is based on the presumption that every one of the newly subdivided lots will be sold. If they are not, the developers will have to sell off the properties for whatever they can to avoid a financial loss, in which case, the City and the Historic District are left with empty lots for which traditional zoning protections have been lost. The developers have stated that private funds will be used to finance this development, but have not named the investors. That is a fact we all would like to know. Who, if anyone, other than Wayne Lamar and Brad Good, stand to profit from this project? |
3.
Lamar and Good claim that their plan calls for the restoration of the Foster-Thomason-Miller house, which will help the City.
|
The development plan does not include plans for restoring the house, which the owners have allowed to deteriorate. The developers say they hope to make enough profit on the infill cluster home sales to be able to sell off the historic house to someone who might restore it.
The developers have stated that they have someone interested in buying it, but they are unwilling to sell it now.
The appearances are very bad, as it seems that the developers are holding the historic house, as it continues to deteriorate, as leverage to convince the City to reintroduce PRDs or whatever accommodation will give them the density they want before they sell off the house.
If they are able to convince the Council to reintroduce PRDs and approve one on this property, and then cannot sell the house, the fate of the house will be up in the air. The home will have become a part of the PRD zoning, and all traditional R-1 zoning protections for the property will have been lost.
|
4.
Lamar and Good claim that their development will be hidden by a buffer.
|
When the developers are so quick to point out that their development will be completely hidden by their buffers, it is clear that this plan is inappropriate for the Historic District. Our District consists of open areas between homes, with very few houses hiding behind buffers. Our historic preservation guidelines reflect this tradition of openness. Further, no buffer the developers have suggested could hide the development if, as variously described, the buffers are for parking, storm water management, and an alley. Simply hiding an infill development does not make it appropriate for the Historic District.
|
5.
Lamar and Good claim that if no PRDs are allowed, they are entitled to put 24 houses on the property without any approval, under R-2 zoning.
|
The entire property at issue is just over 12 acres. The lots on Main street, totaling over 2 acres, are zoned R-1, and the creek property is approximately 3 acres. That leaves approximately 7 acres for building in the R-2 area (1/2 acre minimum). Once a road is cut, only approximately 6 acres would remain, allowing for approximately 12 homes under traditional R-2 zoning.
All approvals required under traditional zoning would apply for site approval and architectural design criteria.
|
6.
Lamar and Good claim that if no PRDs are allowed, while they could put in 24 houses [but see Facts in 5., above], they would not want to go that route. So, they would consider asking for a change in the zoning of the property to R-4, where they claim they would be entitled to build 48 houses on the property, without any other review or approval.
|
This appears to be a scare tactic and an attempt to bully the neighbors and the City into acceding to the developers’ demands.
There is very little R-4 zoning in the Historic District, and none at all in any proximity to the Foster Street property where these developers want to build.
Council would be faced with a claim of spot zoning for this development.
Even if approved, all site and architecture approvals for that zoning still would apply, and the number of buildable lots would be limited by the buildable area of the property.
Resorting to this apparent scare tactic strongly suggests that Wayne Lamar and Brad Good are unconcerned with the integrity of the Historic District or anything other than the profit that they and their investors stand to make from this project. |
