Decatur planning commission approves 48‑unit apartment site plan amid heavy neighborhood opposition

The Decatur Planning Commission voted 5‑2 to approve site plan 724‑26, a proposal to build a 48‑unit multifamily apartment complex on a 19.66‑acre parcel along 2nd Street SW, after more than two hours of public comment and technical review. The approval was conditioned on departmental requirements including apparatus access per the International Fire Code, water and sewer main extensions, and a landscaping buffer and planting plan to be completed before a building permit is issued.

Neighbors packed the meeting to oppose the project, repeatedly citing the city’s experience with the older Stonegate complex as a cautionary example. “The traffic that’s going to be coming in and out of that area is just going to be devastating,” said Edward Franklin, a District 1 resident who asked the commission to require traffic studies and to consider other locations. Kimberly Safaya, another longtime neighborhood resident, said the site’s proximity to existing homes raises safety and quality‑of‑life concerns and called for single‑family housing instead.

Several residents also raised infrastructure issues. Colin Fletcher, who said he has lived in Decatur for decades, described prior sewer blowouts in the area and asked whether the development would have adequate drainage and sewage capacity. Commissioners and staff noted that Decatur Utilities has reviewed and approved the applicant’s sewer and water access plans; the applicant’s civil engineer also said the plans had been updated to address departmental comments.

The developer and engineer pushed back on some neighborhood assertions. Chris Bostic of Pilgrim and Bostic Engineering said technical review comments identified at TRC have been addressed and that the landscape architect is finalizing plans. “We are willing to do the required 20‑foot buffer and meet or exceed all requirements of the landscape ordinance,” Bostic told the commission. Developer David Morrow said the project is privately owned, not a public‑housing project, and that on‑site management and background checks would be part of operations.

City staff and the commission discussed the legal standard for site‑plan decisions under the zoning ordinance. An assistant city attorney reminded members that denials must be supported by specific factual findings tied to the ordinance’s decision‑making standards (Section 25.2.4.6) — for example, a demonstrable health, safety or welfare violation — rather than a general policy objection.

Traffic and safety were central to the debate. A city engineer quoted a typical trip generation estimate for a 48‑unit complex — roughly 325 vehicle trips per day — and contrasted that with published roadway capacity figures, while residents asked staff to pull crash data for the previous 12 months to evaluate relative safety. Commissioners agreed to have staff compile crash counts and other data as part of the project record.

The final vote approved the site plan with the staff‑listed conditions; planners emphasized that meeting those conditions (landscaping, apparatus access, water/sewer connections and any other departmental signoffs) remains a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit. Commissioners also discussed the appeal and resubmission timeline in the zoning code: a denial of a major application generally precludes a substantially similar resubmission for one year unless the commission waives that limit.

The decision is subject to the formal written conditions recorded in the planning file; the applicant must finalize the landscaping plan and satisfy all departmental requirements before construction permits are issued. The commission approved the remaining consent agenda items earlier in the meeting.