Public Hearing: YES ☐ NO ☒ Department: Planning & Sustainability
SUBJECT:
Title
COMMISSION DISTRICT(S): 2 & 6
Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission at 1176 Lullwater Road by Virginia Tate
Body
INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon White, Current Planning Manager
PHONE NUMBER: 404-371-2155
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
Chapter 13.5-8 (12) allows an applicant to appeal a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission to the Board of Commissioners. The appeal shall be limited to a review of the record of the proceedings before the preservation commission. The standard of review shall be an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists where the record presented to the governing authority shows that the preservation commission exceeded the limits of its authority or that the preservation commission's decision was not based on factors set forth in the section 13.5-8(3) or the guidelines adopted by the preservation commission pursuant to section 13.5-6 or that the preservation commission's decision was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. If the governing authority finds no abuse of discretion, then it may affirm the decision of the preservation commission. If the governing authority finds that the preservation commission abused its discretion in reaching a decision, then it may reverse the preservation commission's decision, or it may reverse the preservation commission's decision and remand the application to the preservation commission with direction.
PURPOSE:
Appeal of the January 16th, 2024 decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness application at 1176 Lullwater Road in the Druid Hills Historic District.
SUMMARY:
Recommended Action
Appellant Tate asserts that the commission abused its discretion pursuant to DeKalb County Code 13.5-8(12) and exceeded its authority by ruling over a Certificate of Appropriateness application for a property that had a previous Certificate of Appropriateness overturned by the Board of Commissioners; and that the commission’s decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it was not based on factors set forth in Section 13.5-8(3) or the Druid Hills Design Guidelines, and took into consideration the approved stream buffer variance granted to the property but not the Board of Commissioners’ prior reversal.