Substitute
Public Hearing: YES ☐ NO ☒ Department: Planning & Sustainability
SUBJECT:
Title
COMMISSION DISTRICT(S): 2 & 6
Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission at 1853 North Decatur Road
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 February 21, 2023, decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness application at 1853 North Decatur Road in the Druid Hills Historic District.
SUMMARY:
Recommended Action
On February 21, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission denied an application to demolish and replace a historic house. The appellant contends the commission abused its discretion by disregarding evidence of the feasibility of rehabilitation and applying an incorrect standard when assessing the demolition request; and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious in light of prior demolition approvals of historic properties, that there was no evidence of a substantial adverse effect on any specific property or on the district as a whole, and the written decision failed to clearly set forth the reasons for the decision.