long article about the development issues facing north of Broad Street
The April 24 issue of the lamentably print-only City Edition (Vol.3, #3) has a long article about issues relating to development north of Broad Street. Pick up a copy just about anywhere…
Does the overlay zoning discussed in this article include Union Hill? Has the committee in question done any polling on its prospects for passage?
It does not include Union Hill. Too many absentee landlords or unknown landlords in Union Hill still – not a majority of support… yet.
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.
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.
The article is available, ‘Preserving the Past, Protecting the Future’
by Cesca Janece Waterfield, is now available online.
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.