Dublin Core
Title
Box 1, Folder 2, Document 21
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
.
{i CITY OF ATLANTA
CITY HALL aTLANTA, GA. 303038
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
February 3, 1967
TO; Bill Wofford
Earl Landers
FaoM: Collier Gledin AJ)
SUBJECT: 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program
This memo is in response to @ discussion a few days ago between Mr.
Wofford, myself and Pierce Mahony concerning some problem aspects
of the 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program. At the meeting a
decision was tentatively reached that Mr. Wofford would draft some
changes to the program for a different approach in clearance - code
enforcement areas. Even then the Planning Department had reservations
concerning Mr, Wofford's suggestions. The draft and further analysis
has not provided sufficient grounds to justify eny change.
This department is in basic disagreement with the new concept of
clearance - code enforcement as expressed in HCCP policy and procedure
guide version of February 1, 1967. This refers specifically to
paragraphs II. A. 4. on pages 2 and 3 and IV. E. 2. on page 12.
We realize that substandard houses in industrially zoned areas are a
problem but do not feel that this is an acceptable answer, The word
“ultimately” is too vague and indefinite and only serves to further
postpone solution of the problem,
According to the Zoning Ordinance construction of new residences is
not permitted in M-l and M-2 districts end existing residences are
nonconforming uses. To rehabilitate many of these substandard residences
would require structural alteration which would be in violetion of the
nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. I am opposed to
the city supporting a policy of rehabilitation in these areas which is
in conflict with @ efty ordinance, I feel thes two wrongs do not make
@ right in this case and propose to submit such a policy to the City
Attorney for his review and evaluation. In any event, @ strict
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
interpretation must be made of the provision of the policy that
states "provided he complies in full with a1} codes and ordinances,"
and enforced with no deviation whatsoever.
If this interpretation is followed and full compliance is insisted
upon, as the latter is now stated in the cited dreft, then in the
majority of cases the property owner would not be allowed to rehabilitate
at all.
This department formally proposes that the nonconforming use provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance be clarified and strengthened right away to
permit a better resolution of the entire problem. The Planning Department
will do this and strive to have them ready for adoption within 30 days.
{i CITY OF ATLANTA
CITY HALL aTLANTA, GA. 303038
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director
February 3, 1967
TO; Bill Wofford
Earl Landers
FaoM: Collier Gledin AJ)
SUBJECT: 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program
This memo is in response to @ discussion a few days ago between Mr.
Wofford, myself and Pierce Mahony concerning some problem aspects
of the 1967 Housing Code Compliance Program. At the meeting a
decision was tentatively reached that Mr. Wofford would draft some
changes to the program for a different approach in clearance - code
enforcement areas. Even then the Planning Department had reservations
concerning Mr, Wofford's suggestions. The draft and further analysis
has not provided sufficient grounds to justify eny change.
This department is in basic disagreement with the new concept of
clearance - code enforcement as expressed in HCCP policy and procedure
guide version of February 1, 1967. This refers specifically to
paragraphs II. A. 4. on pages 2 and 3 and IV. E. 2. on page 12.
We realize that substandard houses in industrially zoned areas are a
problem but do not feel that this is an acceptable answer, The word
“ultimately” is too vague and indefinite and only serves to further
postpone solution of the problem,
According to the Zoning Ordinance construction of new residences is
not permitted in M-l and M-2 districts end existing residences are
nonconforming uses. To rehabilitate many of these substandard residences
would require structural alteration which would be in violetion of the
nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. I am opposed to
the city supporting a policy of rehabilitation in these areas which is
in conflict with @ efty ordinance, I feel thes two wrongs do not make
@ right in this case and propose to submit such a policy to the City
Attorney for his review and evaluation. In any event, @ strict
MEMORANDUM
Page 2
interpretation must be made of the provision of the policy that
states "provided he complies in full with a1} codes and ordinances,"
and enforced with no deviation whatsoever.
If this interpretation is followed and full compliance is insisted
upon, as the latter is now stated in the cited dreft, then in the
majority of cases the property owner would not be allowed to rehabilitate
at all.
This department formally proposes that the nonconforming use provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance be clarified and strengthened right away to
permit a better resolution of the entire problem. The Planning Department
will do this and strive to have them ready for adoption within 30 days.
Comments