There were several items of interest on the agenda last night that are worthy of further discussion.
1) Stormwater management "does it make sense" funding study. This was a lengthy report that, in my humble opinion, said very little. It doesn't take a lot of study to understand that we need to to be more strategic regarding stormwater and develop dedicated funding sources. Also, it appeared as if this was a "surprise" to the Commissioners.
2) Certificate of appropriateness for demolition of two historic properties on Bloomingdale. Surrounding discussions were long, boring and revealing. The Commish voted 4-3 to reverse the HARB and issue the demo permit. Regardless of where you stand on the outcome I believe the process worked as designed. The HARB is an advisory body and the Commissioners make the decision....
That being said, there were numerous points of frustration for me and exposing of significant weakness in our codes.
I found the statement that "if I had known that this is what the HARB could do .... then I wouldn't have voted for the HARB (ordinance)". Excuse me.... if you didn't understand than you should not have voted for the ordinance in the first place. The points of contention that were discussed (such as the fact that the HARB can limit what folks do with their property) were discussed ad nauseaum when the ordinance was passed.
How absurd to make the claim that the property owner "wasn't properly notified" that their property was affected by the new HARB ordinance? Gee I guess they were "victims". I suspect that the attention given to the properties was reflective of the amount of interest taken regarding historical significance.
It is difficult to believe that we accept the renovation cost estimates provided by the applicant without having some type of review conducted by staff or third party for reasonableness.
Why are properties allowed to go into ruin (applicants claim not mine) without something being done? If you don't cut your grass the Township can go out and cut it and charge you.
Why do our neighborhoods have to suffer the housing issues discussed in this case?
I also felt that the comment that folks that don't live nearby have no right to comment was completely invalid.
We really need to do a little progressive thinking. A good question was asked about what would happen if the HARB was upheld by the Commissioners? Well, nothing I guess, although the residents of the buildings should have been evacuated based on the testimony about the condition of the buildings. But why don't we offer incentives for restoration? Why don't we change our zoning to prohibit short term rentals? Why don't we require rental property owners to maintain their properties? What about historic properties that aren't in the historic districts?
In caucus the subdivision of 236 North Aberdeen was reviewed. I had previously blogged about this case so I won't rehash the details except to say that the proposed project is too large, totally out of character with the neighborhood and will exacerbate an already bad parking situation. Many neighbors showed up to give their input to the Commissioners. Many of these folks have lived in "Little Chicago" all their lives. It is that kind of neighborhood. The issue was raised concerning the revision to the 100 year flood line. The proposed development needs the line to be moved so that the impervious coverage limits can be met. The Commissioners recommended that the folks get the relocation approved by FEMA before the project moves forward. This will take 60 to 90 days and will provide an opportunity for the developer to meet with the neighbors and better understand the concerns.
I was somewhat surprised that the "developer" never spoke but rather allowed their engineer to do do all the talking.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"2) Certificate of appropriateness for demolition of two historic properties on Bloomingdale."
While I agree with a number of your points/observations (but certainly not all), here are two of the ones with which I most strongly disagree:
"Regardless of where you stand on the outcome I believe the process worked as designed."
The process did not work as designed. The structures met all of the criteria of the ordinance. The reason they will be demolished is because the four Commissioners voted to overturn the denial recommendation based upon things that cannot be considered for the basis of a vote:
- They didn't know that the ordinance allowed this (it does)
- They don't think that any property owner should be told they can't demolish a structure (although that is what the ordinance says)
- They feel (incorrectly) that because individual property owners weren't notified that it is unfair to enforce the ordinance (plenty of ordinance changes have been made that will prohibit property subdivision where it would have been previously allowed - these property owners were not individually notified, but the new ordinances will be enforced)
- They felt that it would cause an economic hardship (not to be considered unless it rises to the level of "taking" which wasn't proven and isn't true)
"The HARB is an advisory body and the Commissioners make the decision....
"
This is erroneous thinking. The advisory boards/commissions do the fact-finding and ordinance evaluation work for the BOC. Just because they are advisory boards doesn't mean that the Commissioners can ignore the underlying ordinance that a recommendation was based upon. The Planning Commission is also an advisory body, but the Commissioners cannot (without risk of a lawsuit) reverse a Planning denial recommendation if the proposal is in violation of a subdivision or other ordinance. Both Planning and HARB are advisory bodies to evaluate proposals based upon their respective ordinances - there should only be a reversal if the facts or ordinances were misinterpreted or if there is a gray area (none of which occurred in the Norcini case). That's when the BOC will be the ones making the make the actual decision.
Thanks for your input. We need To strengthen our codes to define what will occur if the certificate of demolition is not issued. I would not vote to overturn HARB unless it could be shown that their decision was seriously, seriously flawed. My understanding is that HARB ordinances have been challenged in court and have been upheld.
Thanks for providing the forum and your entries.
PA HARB ordinances have been tried and tested. Our commissioners chose not to follow ours. Unfortunately, some of the commissioners also hinted at weakening the ordinance, not strengthening it like we desire.
Perhaps you'll be blogging about the Bloomingdale houses again, because unlike Sam's Suburban article title, the story may not have ended for them yet...
hmmm. 236 North Abderdeen should also be kept alive for so many reasons. But will it be swept under the carpet? It's pretty tricky biz when government lets an engineer muck about with flood plain lines willy nilly, right? That could affect the ability for flood insurance claims to get paid out down the road, right? And what about the history? Everyone waxes poetic about Wayne's historical structures, right? Well Jonathan Lengel build a good portion of them, right?
But this is the low rent district and does anyone give a hoot about a small neighborhood devoid of millionaires?
Post a Comment