6 Responses to “long article about the development issues facing north of Broad Street”

1. posted by rj at April 27, 2006 12:31 pm :
   

   Does the overlay zoning discussed in this article include Union Hill? Has the committee in question done any polling on its prospects for passage?

2. posted by Anonymous at April 28, 2006 2:13 pm :
   

   It does not include Union Hill. Too many absentee landlords or unknown landlords in Union Hill still - not a majority of support… yet.

3. posted by rj at April 28, 2006 6:56 pm :
   

   Is there not another way then to promote more venacular architecture that is not regulatory or punitive but, like the restoration tax credit, rewarding of design decisions. With the number of vacant lots and soon to be vacant lots in this section of Church Hill, one can see the day when the numbers of the newly constructed will rival the old.

4. posted by Anonymous at May 2, 2006 2:34 pm :
   

   Rehabilitation tax credits already exist, but are incentives, not prohibitions.

   A developer can do whatever she wants with her land, especially if she doesn’t care about tax credits when demolishing something historic, or is developing a long-empty lot.

5. posted by John m at September 24, 2006 9:15 am :
   

   The article is available, ‘Preserving the Past, Protecting the Future’

   by Cesca Janece Waterfield, is now available online.

6. posted by Laura Daab at September 24, 2006 11:39 pm :
   

   Union HIll is not included in the Church Hill North Historic District Intiative because we simply could not extent the boundaries that far. As it is, CAR is questioning the scope of our boundaries in the proposed area.

   Absentee landlords and supoosed lack of support have nothing to do with it.

Share a Comment