Many of you have seen the Willows Cottage at the entrance to Willows Park. Several months ago there was an item on the BOC agenda concerning approval of demolition of the cottage. Fortunately several folks raised an objection and the Commissioners tabled the action, minutes of the meeting contain this:
Further discussion on use and disposition of 304 Liberty Lane and Willows cottage: authorization to develop demolition specifications and go to bid.
“Thomas Blomstrom advised the Board that demolition costs for the Willows Cottage were $34,000... Commissioner Fisher questioned whether the Township has adequately maintained the Willows cottage and asked how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Bashore reported that the former Township Manager and his family lived in the cottage from 1987 until a few years ago, when the late Manager’s deceased wife moved out. Commissioner Fisher then recommended that the HARB evaluate the property to determine its historical significance before deciding whether to demolish it.
Commissioner Paolino recommended obtaining a cost estimate of rehabilitating the property, with the intentions of salvaging it for some community use. Mr. Bashore agreed to have his staff explore all available resources.
Diane Wilson, resident of Radnor Township, asked how many unoccupied properties are currently owned by the Township. [3 – all occupied and leased]
President Mahoney motioned to authorize the development of construction specs and to go to bid on the Liberty Lane House and to table the decision to demolish the Willows Cottage for further review by the HARB and other appropriate input. Seconded by Commissioner Paolino, the motion was unanimously passed.”
Several concerned individuals have pulled together an informal group to review the situation and they provided an initial report to the Commissioners with recommended actions including installation of sump pumps and redirecting the downspounts away from the house. These actions were promptly taken by the Township staff. (Thanks) This informal group will be making further recommendations at the BOC meeting next week. Both the Radnor Historical Society and the Radnor Conservancy have joined this group. Stay tuned for further developments.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
May 12 Commissioners' Meeting Report
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.
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.
Monday, May 05, 2008
A prisoner of our own rules. North Aberdeen
Tonight I attended a Planning Commission Meeting. The item of interest for me was Number 3
S.D. # 2008-S-06 (Final) of David Buckley & Sherrie Burlingham
to subdivide property into two (2), raze existing dwelling and
construct a twin home with a residence on each lot at 236 N.
Aberdeen Ave.
This was approved. I must say that I would have voted differently.
The design was predicated on a revised Flood Plain Delineation, not the FEMA flood line. It was pointed out by one of the neighbors that this was not according to Code. The Commissioners (or FEMA) must approve any change and the authority is NOT delegated to the Township Engineer. The case was made that the Commissioners will approve this at some time in the future since the Township Engineer is the person who advises them. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? I believe the SD should have been denied or tabled until the Commissioners approved the flood line changes.
I think it is incumbent upon the Township to follow the process. Even in the case where the ultimate outcome is a foregone conclusion, it is important to avoid any potential lawsuits.
Now back to the title of this post: This sub-division plan was "by-right" (excepting the flood line discussion) and the Planning Commission was in a tough spot. They had to approve the plan, although they could and did attach recommendations. The simply did not have the tools available to change the outcome
We have a good Comprehensive Plan, although mostly un-implemented...
We have a HARB... but it doesn't have jurisdiction over all the historical assets...
So, we are victims of our own rules. And now we will have a new twin on North Aberdeen. A building that will be totally out of character with the community and exacerbating an already serious parking problem. In return we loose a historic asset, the house being torn down was owned by Johnathan Lengel in 1888. The already congested neighborhood looses open space and a Heritage Tree (36 inch Maple) will be destroyed.
We must get on the stick and modernize our codes before it is all gone. Perhaps Radnor's theme song should be "Big Yellow Taxi"...... they paved paradise and put up a parking lot..
A little history for you (I copied this from SAC Blog)
236 N. Aberdeen is purportedly the home that famous Wayne builder Jonathan Lengel lived in. Mr. Lengel was part of the founding fabric of Wayne itself:
S.D. # 2008-S-06 (Final) of David Buckley & Sherrie Burlingham
to subdivide property into two (2), raze existing dwelling and
construct a twin home with a residence on each lot at 236 N.
Aberdeen Ave.
This was approved. I must say that I would have voted differently.
The design was predicated on a revised Flood Plain Delineation, not the FEMA flood line. It was pointed out by one of the neighbors that this was not according to Code. The Commissioners (or FEMA) must approve any change and the authority is NOT delegated to the Township Engineer. The case was made that the Commissioners will approve this at some time in the future since the Township Engineer is the person who advises them. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? I believe the SD should have been denied or tabled until the Commissioners approved the flood line changes.
I think it is incumbent upon the Township to follow the process. Even in the case where the ultimate outcome is a foregone conclusion, it is important to avoid any potential lawsuits.
Now back to the title of this post: This sub-division plan was "by-right" (excepting the flood line discussion) and the Planning Commission was in a tough spot. They had to approve the plan, although they could and did attach recommendations. The simply did not have the tools available to change the outcome
We have a good Comprehensive Plan, although mostly un-implemented...
We have a HARB... but it doesn't have jurisdiction over all the historical assets...
So, we are victims of our own rules. And now we will have a new twin on North Aberdeen. A building that will be totally out of character with the community and exacerbating an already serious parking problem. In return we loose a historic asset, the house being torn down was owned by Johnathan Lengel in 1888. The already congested neighborhood looses open space and a Heritage Tree (36 inch Maple) will be destroyed.
We must get on the stick and modernize our codes before it is all gone. Perhaps Radnor's theme song should be "Big Yellow Taxi"...... they paved paradise and put up a parking lot..
A little history for you (I copied this from SAC Blog)
236 N. Aberdeen is purportedly the home that famous Wayne builder Jonathan Lengel lived in. Mr. Lengel was part of the founding fabric of Wayne itself:
Wayne PA: Builders and Architects
Most of Wayne’s most historical structures can attribute their existence to five men. W. L. and F. L. Price were the architects of most of the houses in North and South Wayne. Herman Wendell and Frank Smith were a team of builders who built mainly houses designed by Price in North and South Wayne. The team of David K. Boyd and Jonathan Lengel built some of Wayne’s most recognizable landmarks, both past and present.
David K. Boyd and Jonathan D. Lengel
David Knickerbacker Boyd’s first assignment as an architect was for several Wendell & Smith houses in Wayne, Radnor and St. David’s. At the time he was working with his brother in a firm called Boyd & Boyd. Eventually the two separated, and David started his own practice which he ran until 1914. He became very influential in the architecture and building codes of Philadelphia and New York, and is quoted as being one of the only people to propose a set-back principle to the design of skyscrapers. Boyd oversaw the construction of almost every building in Philadelphia, and by 1931 had designed, supervised or directed 3,000 buildings. Although he had a major influence on the world of architecture on the east coast, one place whose influence of Boyd is most evident is Wayne. Many of the landmark buildings in Wayne built from about 1890-1910 were designed by Boyd.
All of the buildings designed by Boyd were built by Jonathan D. Lengel. Although their association is probably limited to Wayne, it is interesting that the two would maintain such a close business relationship.....In addition to Boyd’s projects, Lengel built the North Wayne fire house, Union (Masonic) Hall, and the Waynewood Hotel. He came to Wayne in 1888 and continued building here for decades. His sons continued the family construction tradition into the 1960’s. Lengel had an office in the Wayne Title and Trust building, on the corner of Lancaster and Audobon Avenues.
The things Jonathan Lengel built or was involved in building in North Wayne is purported to be the following list of structures - some of which are very familiar even today:
1893: Radnor Memorial Library
1897-98: The Central Baptist Church
1898: The Saturday Club
189?: Temperence Society Coffee House
1901: Wayne Grammar School
Waldheim mansion
1909: Radnor High School
1913: Walmarthon estate (mansion and numerous other buildings)
In addition to the list of Boyd buildings)1892: Radnor Fire House
1892: Union Hall
189?: Hale and Menagh grocery store, Aberdeen & Lancaster Aves.
1906: Waynewood Hotel(Many thanks to www.waynepa.com for this list and info on Mr. Lengel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
