the unpainted house has the traditional orange sticker from the city that hints towards demolition which the car cannot prevent. certainly the car would have someting to say about the paint color suitability
I understand that wric8 may be doing a story on this house and its paint and/or this stream of commentary. Check’em out at 11 and see if I look like an ass on the TV…
John – well, keep us posted! (Hmm, chpn.net gets more media coverage – how great, and you do such a great job!)
R – you wrote “I rather like it. It’s better than some of the wacked out colors that RBVA paints its houses.” Aside from my personal opinion that RBVa does great work, I feel obligated to take up for RBVa, since I happen to know and like the owners. I don’t think any of their colors are ‘whacked out’ – and I happen to know that, for any house in any city-regulated historic district, they get approval for all their colors!
Bill – CAR saved 11 1/2 North 29th Street from falling apart and then being demolished. The roof had leaked, and it contained about two dozen pianos (along with a lot of other stuff), the pianos were in process of falling through the floors, etc. It was a fairly complicated process, but CAR actually spearheaded it, way back when John Albers was on staff there. I know and understand your frustration with them, but hey, you challenged anyone to name something, so I did LOL!
[...] was interviewed a little while ago by a dude from channel 8 in response to this succinct post on CHPN. Watch’em at 11 and see how my 1 word blog post gets turned into “news”. Posted [...]
As a point of clarification, the CAR cannot “save” any buildings that have been deemed unsafe by the Building Commissioner or the Fire Marshal. Many times, buildings that are demolished are deemed condemned and unsafe under the basic city-wide zoning ordinances that CAR has no jurisdiction over.
The CAR is a custodial entity that oversees an O&H “overlay” that is separate from the basic zoning that all property owners adhere to. Unfortunately, it’s too late for CAR to save many buildings because they’ve been left in disrepair for so long.
Brick structures have a much better chance of avoiding the wrecking ball than wood structures do. That’s why St John’s is much more intact than North of Broad. St. John’s has also had a 50 year lead on NOB.
it is called demolition by neglect. it is condoned by the car. where is the so called preservation when the car looks the other way from a negligent property owner and sends inspectors and possibly prosecutes responsible owners over a paint color?
Ever read the children’s story The Big Orange Splot Daniel Manus Pinkwater?
I’ve always loved it. A seagull drops a bucket of orange paint on Mr. Plumbean’s house and the neighbor’s complain a lot.
Mr Plumbean gets some blue paint. He runs out of blue paint but for some reason doesn’t buy more of the blue.He buys white, red, orange, green and pink. Before he knows it his house is a multicolor wonder. The neighbors complain and send a representative to have a talk with him….
I won’t spoil it for you but it has a happy ending that doesn’t involve ordinary colors, organizations, task forces, Channel 8,lawyers or complaining neighbors:)
Orange is a perfectly viable color. Now, if you need to give directions, just say, “go to the orange house and take a right…..” or “2 blocks east of the orange house”.
Plus, my understanding is that Geese are scared of the color orange.
You’re obviously anti-CAR, anti O&H. I’m sorry you feel that way, and am glad that we got our designation and are enjoying the benefits of it.
As for the “orange” house, looks more yellow to me, and I, like Kimmy and others like it. My house is close to this color, but not as dramatic. CAR has used our house in photo examples of Church Hill North O&H, and I know for a fact that the CAR approves of my color.
The CAR does not condone demolition by neglect. They simply don’t have the power to save some of these buildings. The CAR is not a panacea, nor the cause for all the ills of negligent properties.
You really need to have a conversation with the CAR board and other historic preservation city staff. You’re speaking from a lot of misinformation and prejudice and are doing a disservice to the community with your comments.
I know that your a long time property owner up here, and think you are more informed, insightful that most, but you need to get an update on your info.
I personally don’t have a problem with paint colors, and believe it or not, neither does the CAR. A while back the CAR looked into lessening and even eliminating color guidelines, but property owners in the O&H’s wanted the restrictions so the CAR kept the guidelines in place.
The CAR is a very qualified, competent group of individuals who are constantly reviewing their guidelines to meet the modernization of building materials and the needs/wants of the property owners while maintaining the historic integrity of our community. They are not a marauding group of preservation pirates that you like to make them out to be.
‘
Laura – actually I think Bill is sort of saying that they don’t enforce what they should enforce to begin with.
And to both of you – I will stand corrected if my memory is wrong here, but as I recall it, 11 1/2 North 29th was about to be condemned (this was back in the late 1980′s). The problem was that it was a truly contributing structure (brick and covered with really great exterior wrought iron work). CAR’s charter (at least at that time, I don’t know about now) involved saving contributing structures by …. here’s where memory is murky…. forcing a public sale or something like that, at what was considered market value? APVA took title and then they auctioned it to the person who could provide evidence of financial ability to fix it up as well as a serious plan for doing so, or something like that. That’s how the Sledds ended up with the house -which was very nearly a ruin by then. Again, if my memory is wrong, someone please correct me, thanks.
P.S. Sometimes I think there should be a device on my computer about posting to blogs…. no posting after such and such a time or no posting after more than one glass of wine….but then it wouldn’t be so much fun I guess!
I think people might like the orange color a lot more if they used a different trim color – something darker, not light like white. Also, I think the house could use a porch. That would help draw eyes to the architectural features more than to the color. Right now, it’s kind of a large, squarish, orange canvas.
celeste, i think it was either hrf or apva that fixed the deal for sledd
laura, i apologize for having a different point of view. your approach to making it personal should make for a good fit when you become a member of the car
Whats wrong with people today? Everything around us is so bland. Someone puts a little color in the world and you people go nuts. Plus i find it interesting that when all the Virginia Tech stuff happened, people who never even visited the campus were buying orange and showing it everywhere. Then a house is painted orange (i am not saying it’s for VTech) and now you dislike it. This is why i and many other Richmonders or sick of this city. It’s full of lazy, hypocrites who really aren’t concerned about the future of the city. Just want to force your opinions on others. Fight over something more important then an orange house. What is the crime rate for this year so far?
So… CAR is to preserve the historic nature of the community but they have “color guidelines”. Ok, were there guidelines as to color, window types, etc when these houses were built?
Obviously not.
The statement, “but property owners in the O&H’s wanted the restrictions”, leads you to believe that the restrictions have nothing to do with historical preservation but rather to allow neighbors to dictate what color I can paint my house.
I know it’s delicate balancing act, but I too am taken aback by the idea of “color guidelinesâ€. It reminds me of the by-laws in the suburbs. And I HATE the suburbs, which is why I live here. I love my neighborhood here and I don’t care if everyone’s brass door knobs match or what color they paint their house. As long as an effort is taken to try to maintain the historic character of a home and the home is taken care of, I am happy to see a bit of variety.
Ooops was I supposed to consult with some organization before I rehabilitated my house in Fairmount? I thought it was enough to make it habitable and clean, as opposed to abandoned and decayed. I hope white is okay…
I don’t know where you got the impression that I’m getting personal with you, and kudos for having your point of view. I welcome the discussion and enjoy it.
Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences with the CAR. Is that the source of your opposition to Old & Historic Districts?
No worries, I have absolutely no interest in being a member of CAR and doubt very much that anyone would appoint me. That should make many people who post to this site very happy!
Clay Street:
I’ll tell you what makes me barf is posters who can’t handle any kind of confrontational or engaged argument on this site.
Here’s some advice to all you Scarletts: fix yourself a mint julep and go have the vapors on your fainting couch!
“me” I dont get that anyone is fighting on this thread, sounds to me like a good debate. I thought that’s what this site was about. and I don’t see that anyone made a comment about not liking the “orange house”. Most all seem to like the color. One suggestion made, which I also agree with – a darker color trim and a porch would help with aesthetics.
I’m new to Richmond & Church Hill, so please forgive me that I don’t completely understand everything that is being talked about. I moved into Church Hill because I like the freedom it gives, no homeowner’s association telling me what I can do with my own home. If people want this area to be like the suburbs, why not just move to the suburbs? If I want to paint my house neon green with purple spots, it’s my home. Not just a house, my HOME. For whoever owns the orange house, if you like orange than you keep it orange! If you’re trying to sell it, then whoever moves in can paint it any color they want, even if it’s green with purple spots.
Hi, my husband and I own the orange house. The paint chip actually said “Apricot”! We bought the house about 2 months ago and rent it out. We don’t have plans to sell it right away. If you live in the neighborhood, you may recall that it was overgrown with weeds and creepers. The exterior was in poor repair with the paint peeling off the wooden siding and trash all around. It had several code violiations when we bought it and was not only a health hazard to the neighborhood, but an eyesore!
Even though the color is bright, (he picked it!) it is a huge improvement over what was there. The house is located near the library and there are lots of abandoned and or overgrown homes over there. I feel that we are part of an effort to clean up that area of the neighborhood which has many abandoned or dilapidated homes. I hope those who don’t like the color will grow to like it and those who do like the color, thanks for the support!
…now to convince my husband not to paint our other rental properties the same color – one’s enough!
Kelley: You may live in an Old & Historic District and not know it, although I doubt it. If you do, by law, you should have received a disclosure statement with all of your property transfer documents telling you that you are purchasing a home in a City Historic District. A good deal of Church Hill is in an O&H District and more efforts are underway to create/expand the districts in Union Hill and Chimborazo.
You can check by going online at the website that john_m listed above to find out if you live in an O&H district.
You are correct that you don’t understand everything that’s being talked about and are incorrect about presuming that those of us in O&H’s want to live in a situation like the burbs covenants. We don’t want to live in a suburban environment either.
You might want to get involved with one of the hood associations up here like the CHA or the UHCA and learn more about why the O&H’s are important and beneficial to the area, and at the same time you can make lots of new friends.
You might want to get involved with one of the hood associations up here like the CHA or the UHCA
And if you’re in Fairmount, check out the New Vision Civic League for south of Fairmount and Unity Civic League for North of Fairmount.
Also, you can use the property search form on the city site. Under the planning tab is info about which civic association is closest to you & other useful info.
Baiting people with negative images of the CAR doesn’t solve anything.
Is the CAR perfect? No. Is the city good at handling negligent properties? No. But it’s what we have in place, and without it, we would be a lot worse off than we are right now. It’s because of St. John’s efforts and CAR incarnation 50 years ago that the rest of Church Hill is even close to what it is right now. And, of course, the many long-time residents who hung in there through thick and thin maintaining their properties.
Richmond’s preservation efforts have been a model for the rest of the country. Our City was one of the first to even have a municipal O&H district.
I’m told by one of your friends that you are pro-preservation. Then why don’t you say so? Why don’t you articulate your argument to reflect that.
Or, are you the type to sit back and not do a damn thing to CHANGE the situation, or make suggestions for change? Someone as knowledgeable and experienced with preservation needs to be an advocate and a change agent.
Maybe you have been, and I don’t know that. If so, tell us about it.
To say that you’re going to paint a color in an O&H just to see what the CAR does is asinine.
That contributes nothing to the conversation, and is a complete waste of time. And, I believe you know it and do it intentionally.
Take a proactive stance on preservation instead of being the bad, bratty school boy who stirs up trouble. I’d really like you to speak more clearly about the specifics of your argument. It’s hard to read between th lines of your clipped, curmudgeon comments.
Again, I agree that the city is shitty about dealing with negligent properties and I have been very vocal about this publicly and in editorials in the RTD and with City Council hearings. The CAR is the best tool that we have right now, even though it’s not a panacea.
Do we need reform? Yes. You should talk to Brooke Hardin and Rachel Flynn and engage in conversations that will make this reform happen? Yes. I do.
I’ve attended zoning meetings where this conversation is very much in their minds right now.
The planning department and preservation resources have been woefully disconnected for years. Brooke, Tarisa, Saul and Rachel are trying to change that. They are aware that it should’ve happened a long time ago. However, efforts are in place to change that and there will be an opportunity for the public to attend meetings addressing these issues in the near future.
As you know, I’m a bit of a brawler and like a good debate. I will continue to respond to your comments and defend the O&H process and CAR, warts and all.
Laura, why don’t you just ask bill for his e-mail address and spare us all? Bill was addressing the topic at hand and you start taking personal swings as always. And you say bill “stirs up trouble”?
You know what J, he and everyone knows my email and I invite any discussion here or offline. The invitation is here and there. And no, I won’t spare you or anyone. Just don’t read it if you don’t like it.
Personal swings are part and parcel sometimes. I identify myself always, which is more than I can say for you, or “bill.”
And once again, I bet you are a woman, right? Why don’t you “spare us?” Scold, scold, scold…
Oh, that’s right, you don’t have anything substantive to say about this topic, so you choose to scold others.
kelley the chatter may be confusing but i think you have a clear understanding of what is going on when you own a house and the city council ordinance zones it in the boundary of a historic district and makes you follow hd rules. sometimes it is called a “taking”. maybe depending on the purpose of the ordinance and the rules. if the purpose is preservation, the city ordinance fails because the arrangement allows/encourages demolition by neglect (among other things)
Didn’t most folks up here purchase their property because of the historic charm, history,and being in the hd, which holds
property value? Properties have been left abondoned for years; this didn’t happen overnight, and, if not for Historic Richmond,the hd, along with CAR’s efforts and diligent property owners, one can only guess what O&H CH would be today.
What should the City do with neglected properties?
How does the ordinance encourage demolition by neglect? I’d like you to expand on your argument and clarify your views. Clipped, cryptic remarks just don’t cut it.
Also, since you don’t live up here and haven’t for years, what’s your stake in CH other than what I assume, is financial?
Neighborhoods rise and fall, that is a typical cycle. They become “hot”, then cool off and (hopefully) become hot again. The location near the downtown boom, Philip Morris, MCV expansion, Federal Courthouse, VCU expansion and national trends back to urban living are all helping Church Hill areas. It is not just artsy people who think they have “saved” an area and must control it. They are one part of a big pie. Please, some of you are being quite rude.
Laura, please offer some POSITIVE SUGGESTIONS in regards to Bob’s posting, as to what the city should do about neglected properties and demolition by neglect, thanks.
CH O&H district -it is what it is. Who are these “artsy people” trying to control what? Historic Richmond had a major role in “saving” CH when purchasing pilot blocks.
After a period of time, say two years when a property owner has been cited and fined and non-compliant, the city should enforce eminent domain and seize the property. Pay them market value and sell the property to someone who will develop it within a certain time frame and under the current zoning ordinances and code enforcements.
I’ve suggested this many times on this site.
Old & Historic Districts help protect against demolition by neglect. A building cannot be demolished without CAR approval unless it is deemed unsafe by the Commissioner of Bldgs. or the Fire Marshal.
A property owner is in violation of the law if they demolish a property that is not considered unsafe. They are fined and prosecuted. The current fines are ridiculously low. They should increase the severity of the fines, and really throw the book at them.
Additionally, there will be a public meeting regarding proposed zoning changes in Church Hill North, Chimborazo and Union Hill.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, Nov, 29, 6:00pm at EDI first Fl. conference room.
All property owners within the boundaries of the proposed rezoning should have received notices in the mail and are encouraged to attend. John_m will probably post the pdf documents that I sent him with more info.
Here’s an opportunity for all of us to continue the conversation face to face and address the concerns discussed here.
I have to agree with Bill about CAR,CH zoning and HRF selectively enforcing the rules. I saw in the Oct. CH newsletter where they approved a carport for an 1818 property. There is only one problem, the car wasn’t invented until 1908. Why not just approve a helipad too? Thanks for keeping it historic.
It seems like paint color is the biggest general beef with the CAR. Other CARs have loosened their paint color guidelines. Why don’t we use all the energy on this thread to encourage the CAR or Council or whomever sets the guidelines to revist the paint color idea? Instead of calling Laura names for conveying accurate information, how about sending an e-mail to Rachel Flynn or Saul Gleiser?
The CAR is the only thing keeping this neighborhood from becoming the suburbs. Do you want vinyl ranchers up here? Developers do. The CAR is the only tool we have to stop that kind of in-fill.
Unfortunately we have to suffer the paint color requirements in order to have that.
East Side – I think most of the people who are griping on here about paint colors are griping because they just plain don’t like the idea of being restricted (I could be wrong, if two hundred people or even twenty people write in and say they were turned down for paint selection by CAR and didn’t like any of the alternatives, I’ll stand corrected).
CAR has a “paint palette of sixty colors for use on historic properties…not all paint chart colors are appropriate for use on every historic building…” – that’s a pretty good selection to choose from, but if you want to try to add some, I wish you best of luck. (I’ve got their guidelines open in a separate window as I type this hence the quote, above. It’s on the city’s website, go to Community Development, then historic, then download Handbook and Design Review Guidelines, it’s pretty interesting.)
I’ve got friends who’ve redone houses and they have gotten their color selections approved without a lot of hassle. That’s just my take on the complaints about paint selection.
As Celeste mentioned CAR has a paint palette of sixty colors for use on historic properties. Even if not on the paint palette, most all get approved. CAR is NOT unreasonable. They do try to work with you. I believe they just want to make sure that one keeps with the character of the neighborhood, and not a development of vinyl ranchers.
In response to “annen” about the carport approved on 27th Street, the plans for that were submitted and approved before the O&H designation took place. Therefore, the zoning for the carport fell under the regular basic zoning in the area and met all the requirements of it.
Again, another example of why the O&H is a valuable tool for preventing a structure like that from being built. Had the O&H been in place at the time that the plans were submitted, the carport would not be there.
I’ve read pamphlets and comments (on this site) about the benefits of Old & Historic Districts, so what’s the down side? (Not a rhetorical question). It can’t be all sunshine and daisies. There has to be some drawback. Throw me a clue.
LC – There are 2 kinds of districts in effect up here, national and city. The national designation makes tax credits available, and only imposes restrictions if the tax credits are used. I really can’t see a downside to national designation. The city O&H designation is more restrictive, which is where some of the friction comes from. You can find out more about city O&H designation on the city’s site.
What kind of designation is Fairmont trying to achieve? Will I have to ask a “governing board” about changes I want to make to MY home. I sure hope not, that whole process seems to restrictive and “watched”.
Here’s 1 thing that people try to claim as a CON of becoming an O&H is that “it causes property taxes go up.” Having lived in St. John’s for almost 10 years, this is NOT true. Higher demand of houses in an area and the recent long-standing seller’s market create higher RE taxes. (the city gets wind of what people are now paying and sends out the assessors!)My property value stayed the same until the last 4 years.
But seriously, I had to go to the CAR to get my renovations approved in St. Johns district (w/my own renderings – too poor for an architect to draw them) and they weren’t as bad as people make them seem.
Perhaps it was just luck b/c that night they also had a HUGE plan on the table (the museum up on Blvd) OR maybe in a block of boarded up homes they were just happy something was happening OR maybe it was pre-Saul (a few years ago while he was on site for an ‘inspection’, he told the builder working on a home beside me that I did NOT have my porches approved by CAR – yeah, buddy, try again, got the letter in my file dude) OR MAYBE they just aren’t as uptight as we think they are.
I don’t know, but I did have my color approved (albeit it’s one of the ones from Lowes w/the historic designation) but I also cringe anytime I get mail with the CAR logo in the return address….
The building permit for the property in question was issued AFTER the expiration of the 30-day grace period following the O&H designation on May 29. By the time CAR and HRF belatedly held its architectural review on August 28 (two months after the O&H designation), construction was already underway. It appears that far from being “a valuable tool for preventing a structure like that from being built”, the O&H designation did nothing to prevent its construction. The carport is there.
Thanks for keeping Church Hill North “old and historic.”
The carport thing was underway LONG before any official permit was issued. I live within a block of it and it doesn’t bother me one bit. Several of us neighbors gave written approval of the plans because we were in the immediate impact zone, and that was well over a year ago. Wanda does a great job of maintaining her property and the historic character of her home–this is a non-issue.
You and Clay Street are incorrect concerning the timeline for the permits. I was very close to this process and kept abreast of every aspect of it, including communications with Rachel Flynn and Saul Gleiser.
I too, as Clay Street expressed, feel that this is a non-issue at this point.
There is more to this situation than meets the eye concerning a long-term dispute with a renter near Wanda.
I know Wanda very well and she has been a champion for the O&H and has worked very hard to contribute to the betterment of our community. Nuf said.
Below is Saul’s email to me. I stand corrected on CAR’s stance on the project, however it is not relevant because the permits were issued well before CAR oversight.
“You are exactly right, the permits and many other reviews such as Board
of Zoning Appeals approvals go back at least two years. The only reason
CAR got to review the project was because the City’s Attorneys office
felt that to avoid any potential litigation it should go to CAR. The CAR
found the proposed car port to be appropriate based on the fact that it
was a clearly utilitarian structure that was design in a clearly
contemporary fashion yet reflecting some of the main characteristics of
secondary structures within the District. Car ports are not an uncommon
occurrence within this District. Yes you are right also in your
statement that the use is acceptable under the zoning ordinance so she
or anyone else has the right to build a car port and the CAR will review
the structure with only the question about the appropriateness of the
proposed design. Use is never a consideration for CAR’s reviews.
I hope this is helpful.”
Saul
Additionally, Saul wrote (in regards to the carport):
“I think this is one of those cases that shows that the system works,
that contrary to what many of the opponents say you can build a
structure that is allowed by zoning even if the Commission doesn’t “like
it” as long as it is design in a way that meets the guidelines.”
in an ideal world a carport in a historic district is about the standards and has nothing to do with wanda or a renter near wanda. in the real world of richmond, applications before the car are often about who you are.
this is not amazing. what is amazing is that the community would by into the city version of historic preservation (taking of your property rights) where the city is the culprit in demolition of most of the historic buildings in the city.
i remember a quote from a rrha person way back that explained it this way. “we had to tear down your neighborhood to save it”
ever wonder where all of the vacant lots came from?
JC:
You owe me an apology for spelling my name wrong.
bill:
Church Hill North is only 5 months into it’s O&H designation so it barely seen the benefits of CARS custodial oversight. Many of demolitions in the past happened because of the lack of protection offered by the CAR.
Your argument just doesn’t apply to NOB.
We can go on and on arguing for and against O&H’s.
The bottom line: the folk NOB wanted the designation and we are all looking forward to the benefits that they will bring.
I am already enjoying the benefits on my block as there are two new houses being constructed under the CAR guidelines. If these guidelines weren’t in place, at least one of the houses would have been completely inappropriate.
I’m sure it burns you up, but the O&H is here to stay.
Bill, are you saying that the city selectively sends applicants to car. As I understand, ANY application for a permit with the city that involves changes in an historic district, must go through CAR. If you are implying unethical dealings you should be able to provide some hard evidence. To do otherwise is very irresponsible, and rather unethical.
While I will not defend the city or the rrha on past demolitions, that has absolutely nothing to do with CAR or O&H districts. The St John’s district has almost no empty lots.
If you want to argue that O&H districts, encourage, show me where demolition has increased after an O&H designation has been put into place. Or give me an address where there was a house in an O&H and CAR or the City encouraged it’s demolition. I’ve seen this request of you before here. Support you arguments. If you can’t do that, you are not engaging in debate, but merely ignorant ranting.
Puhleeze, Ms. Dabb – don’t project your own shortcomings on other people. What is it about City Code Sec. 114-930.6 that the office of the City Attorney understands but you cannot or will not understand?
Sec. 114-930.6. Certificate of appropriateness.
(a) Approval required. No building or structure or any exterior portion thereof, sign or paving shall be constructed, altered, reconstructed, repaired, restored or demolished within any old and historic district unless the building or structure or any exterior portion thereof, sign or paving is approved by the commission of architectural review or, on appeal, by the city council, as being architecturally compatible with the buildings, structures, sites and general character of the old and historic district. All such approvals shall be evidenced by a certificate of appropriateness. No permit to construct, alter, reconstruct, repair, restore or demolish any building, structure or site shall be issued by the commissioner of buildings unless the applicant has first obtained approval of a certificate of appropriateness for such work.
Now let’s recount the timeline of events concerning this case. The O&H designation was enacted on May 29. The building permit was issued without a certificate of appropriateness on July 2 – that’s 34 days after the O&H designation became law.
Now, what could possibly be wrong with this picture, Ms. Dabb?
What could possibly explain Bill’s cynicism, rubberneck?
As for your apology, Ms. Dabb, I’ll write it in the sky the day you have the courage and the decency to march down to that whistleblower’s house and deliver your thinly veiled ad hominem attack against that individual in person.
I think the whole point is that this project was grandfathered because it was already clicking along in the system–the whole thing goes back a couple of years. I’m (admittedly) speculating that CAR couldn’t retroactively insert itself in something that was already progressing in the permitting process before the OHD even existed.
JC question to you; I have read the previous posts and, also taken the time to speak with Saul from CAR. The building permit was applied for long before the O&H was inacted, and was not required to go through the review process. In spite of this the owner went through it any way,just to head off any appearance of impropriety. CAR approved the project, because it fit into the CAR guidelines. That is quoted in an email from Saul earlier I see absolutly nothing wrong with this picture.
I guess you can’t read either. Comments #79 and #80.
Clay Street is correct and to explain further, because the O&H was taking place, they wanted to make sure that no one thought that any indiscretions were taking place, even though they weren’t. The CAR approved Wanda’s carport because she adhered to the design guidelines for an O&H without being required to do so. The CAR didn’t approve her design because of who she is or the renter situation.
I don’t know where your getting that the renter was a “whistleblower”? I’ve not said one word against whoever the renter is.
This was a very transparent process.
When will you have the courage and decency to identify yourself and stop disrespecting and attacking others.
The language in the statute is unambiguous – the determining factor is the date the building permit is issued. The only exceptions that were made – and this isn’t even included in the language of the ordinance – were for building permits issued within 30 days of the passage of the O&H designation (i.e., by June 29). That means every building permit issued from June 30th forward required a Certificate of Appropriateness. The recommendations of the City Attorney’s office appear to confirm this.
I really do not understand why people are having trouble understanding this simple fact. The application for this carport was taken out before the O&H, thus grandfathered in. I have read the quoted city staute and do not see it mention the 30 day grace period. I also see a quote from Saul at CAR stating that they approved the structure. I have a genuine question here. I want someone to put into simple words what they thing went wrong here. Are you saying this person illegally put up an inapproriate structure and are getting special treatment? Are you saying laws have been broken? Please refrain from clever little quips and state your case simply.
also just a point to ponder
assuming this structure was put up without the proper Certification. As I understand, when reported, that persone would have to submit the structure for approval to CAR. If it not approved it would need to be taken down. If approved, it could stay.
Saul has already said CAR approved it, so the bottom line is, the buildib is there for good.
I just want to know what the geese think of the structure. They should be incorporated into any structure approval. If they squawk it is denied…if they poo it is approved.
Again, I would like to put the question to both you and bill:
Neither of you live in the neighborhood. You are both multiple property owners against the O&H’s.
I’m sure you see them as a big hassle when all you really want to do is make the most cash on your properties with the least amount of work.
Other than hating me and hating the O&H’s, what is the purpose of your rants?
I can only assume to keep other O&H’s from happening where you own properties so that the cash can keep coming in with the least amount of maintenance.
What’s your stake in CH other than self- interest and financial?
the o&h dist zoning ordinance is effective upon adoption (unless specified otherwise) a permit application is subject to the rules in place at the time the application is received by the ahj.
taxes, death, shabby govt and 2 dollar whores have been, are, and always be a fact of life
someone with poor eyesight should be able to see the impact of demolition in their neighborhood.
anyone with an inquiring interest in historic preservation in their neighborhood should be able to figure out how it got demolished. a demand for evidence would only come from lawyer. (same as 2 dollar whore with a yellow pages listing)
laura i think you are confused. i do not hate you or people in general. in fact i am hoping you can get some medical attention so that you can have a long and pleasant life. i have a different point of view about the city hd. their actions are too often based on who you are and not the standards they claim. their actions have diminished the value of my property. i dont know where you live and dont really care. since you seem to kown all there is about things large and small, it is clear your stake is in climbing some kind of ladder in social and shabby govt circles and i dont care why. with medical attention that might get figured out.
First of all, permit me to point out that it doesn’t appear that the City Attorney’s office shares your interpretation of the language in City Code Sec. 114-930.6, otherwise, why would it have advised CAR, in the interest of avoiding “any potential litigation”, to review that project and determine whether or not it was appropriate for that property? If the project was truly grandfathered, as you claim, why would the City Attorney’s office have advised CAR to review it?
Secondly, you are correct that there is no 30-day grace period included in the O&H ordinance.
Third, you are correct that CAR approved the project, but it was approved, as annen pointed out (#74), on August 28th, which was long after construction began on the carport. As we all know, that is not how the permit process is supposed to operate. The CoA is supposed to be issued before, not after, construction begins on any property within a designated O&H district.
Let me put it another way. Let’s say i have been planning to build a replica of the Taj Mahal (CAR might approve it?) in my newly designated O&H backyard for three years now. It doesn’t matter when i started discussing the Taj Mahal plan, but what matters is that i get a certificate of appropriatenes before being granted a building permit.
laura, i apologize if i offended you with my comments at 102. it has been a long busy week. actually i sort of think i like you even if i dont know you. you know you can like someone even if there are different opinions. i can tell (regardless of your motives) that you will speak out and are not consumed by the “polite paralysis” that is typical of richmond. i think you have got some balls but not in the biological sense, at least i am hoping not. i promise that i will get back to your interogation at 99.
Once again, we find you resorting to mistatements of fact and ad hominem attacks, Ms. Daab. Why do you insist on employing the tactics of an intellectual pygmy who cannot sustain a defensible position in a debate? Is there a reason you keep distracting from the subject of this conversation, which is the enforcement of the O&H ordinance? What are you trying to hide?
For your information, I do live in this neighborhood and I do not own multiple properties in this or any other area, so you may dispense with the slander and return to the topic of this discussion, which is the enforcement of the O&H ordinance.
(2) Assist and advise the city council, the mayor, the chief administrative officer, the planning commission, the board of zoning appeals, property owners and individuals in matters involving historic resources relating to appropriate land use, zoning, and other issues.
is there any record that the car has advised the city not to demolish properties in a state/fed historic district?
bad exterior paint lasts for 5 to 10 years
bad development lasts for 20 to 60 years
demolition is forever
so why is the car focus on paint colors?
not a whimper about the city demo of historic buildings.
why do you need the car to control development? that can be done with an overlay district that is not the city version of the o&h district.
laura, abt your interogation at 99. i like to buy historic buildings that the city is threatening to demolish and then fix them to prevent demo. just to see if i can do it. also sort of like joy if i can do it, i get a certain amount of joy fighting back at shabby govt. abt your other allegations, i thought you knew everything but from you allegations, maybe you really dont know jack.
officially, any and all of your allegations, made or implied, are denied.
Only the Great Leader and her comrades are permitted to promote their own interests and self-aggrandizement within the NOB Gulag!
Bill, you are hereby pronounced guilty of being an eeeeeeeeeevil, capitalistic counter-revolutionary, and are sentenced to be purged of your own ideas, opinions and carpentry hobby. Report immediately to your nearest commissar for re-education.
Anne, it does not matter when discussion started, but it does matter when the building permit was applied for. It has been stated many many times that this application was made BEFORE the O&H designation, and was thus, grandfathered in. The CAR review was above and beyond what was required by law.
wow jc, this sounds like it might be fun. gatekeepers for the department of community dismemberment huh? a house paint gestapo self appointed for cultural cleansing? this could be big fun!
What section of the City Code contradicts the language in Section 114-930.6?
“No permit to construct, alter, reconstruct, repair, restore or demolish any building, structure or site shall be issued by the commissioner of buildings unless the applicant has first obtained approval of a certificate of appropriateness for such work.”
Where are the exceptions articulated in the language of this ordinance? I don’t see anything about when a person applies for a permit, where do you see it??
I’ve been open-minded about your argument. I went through the trouble of combing through the City’s zoning codes and I still can’t find word one to support your claims.
Furthermore, why did the City Attorney’s office advise CAR to review this project if it was legally grandfathered?? Are you a lawyer? What in the City Code do you see that the City’s finest legal minds do not? What City Code are you looking at? What’s the language in that ordinance? What’s the link?
Here are the meeting minutes from the Planning Commission discussing North Church Hill grandfathering: Read it and weep, bill, annen and JC!
“Mr. Gleiser reported that effective May 30, 2007 Church Hill North was a City Old and Historic District. He explained that many Building Permits had been issued prior to the designation but work has not yet taken place, similarly he stated that some projects that required no Building Permit had been contracted prior to designation. He said that in discussions with the Zoning Administrator, The Commissioner of Buildings, and the City Attorney’s it was agreed that those projects should be grandfathered. He suggested that to avoid administrative problems if a building permit was received, or if a project was contracted prior to May 29, 2007 then Staff should send a letter stating that the project is grandfathered. After hearing Mr. Gleiser’s proposal, Ms. Hunton made a motion to allow Staff to provide a letter of compliance for any project that received a Building Permit was started or contracted prior to the formal designation of the District, provided they produce a copy of the contract dated prior to May 29, 2007 for those cases where work has not been started and no Permit is required. Ms. Wood seconded the motion. Ms. Davis asked that those projects be added to the Administrative Approval log. Ms. Wood asked about a time line for the completion of those projects. Mr. Gleiser said that although Building permits are good for two years, he thought the grandfathering of a project should be only available for those projects that would be started prior to July of 2007 or contracted out within that period of time and to be commenced this summer. After further discussion, the Commission voted on the motion that would allow Staff to certify projects in the new Church Hill North Old and Historic District that were contracted prior to May 29, 2007, but will begin no later than the month of July, 2007, and the vote was 6-0-0.”
interesting gobelygoop but it means nothing. if the permit application was received by the city before the adoption of the ordinance for nob chd, that application is not subject to the ordinance.
what is interesting is that the planning commission and staff are attempting to establish when an ordinance is valid, contradicting the action of council
no weeping here. this is just another example of shabby govt. council says one do thing, administration does another.
Damn! JC, Ms Daab beat me to the punch. The minutes from the zoning commision explain the cities position on this. And According to evryone I have consulted at City Hall, this project fell under the “grandfathering” umbrella. They also told me about a deck being built on Marshall that would not be allowed under the present law, but had it’s permit before the O&H.
In answer to your question, I am not a lawyer, but I do think that in any zoning change like this, projects already in the process are grandfathered, so people who stated the process in good faith are not screwed over. It is only right, and not some big conspiracy to grant special favors to someone.
Apparently, the cities finest legal minds see exactly what I see here.
interesting gobelygoop but it means nothing. if the permit application was received by the city before the adoption of the ordinance for nob chd, that application is not subject to the ordinance.
what is interesting is that the planning commission and staff are attempting to establish when an ordinance is valid, contradicting the action of council
no weeping here. i did get a brief laugh cause this is just another example of shabby govt. council adopts an ordinance, and administration amends it. best i can figure is admin could easily see what was in the pipeline (entry in the bldg inspect office) and some more projects coming in late needed to slip thru and avoid car.
Jeez.
I’m guessing that it was considered diplomatic to have some non-binding and cursory CAR “review”, so they could confirm what everybody here already knows– that, in fact, Wanda did not plan on building a neon-green and fuschia quonset hut or any other such abrasively in your face un-historic building.
What is the big deal? You’re acting like it’s some sort of Rosicrucian conspiracy….
Yes, Clay Street is right. As I said in post #92 “because the O&H was taking place, they wanted to make sure that no one thought that any indiscretions were taking place, even though they weren’t.”
Happy trails, Ms. Dabb. No one’s keeping you here.
As for Clay Street, jeez, since when is avoiding “any potential litigation” an act of diplomacy? When it involves one of your friends? I hope the Department of State can help you with that.
As for whether or not a carport is an anachronistic structure for an early 18th Century site in an O&H district, well, that’s about as debatable as the appropriateness of any particular shade of orange paint on a house in this district, now, isn’t it?
And to think our biggest concern in November was the color of the house. Was this a single family rental or a rooming house at the time of the shooting?
OMG! That orange house is SUCH a drug hot spot. I rode my bike past it today about 10am, on the way to the library to use the copy machine. It was like a hawk flying over the pigeons’ roost. Guys running way in all directions as I pedaled by, admittedly gawking.
What really, really pisses me off is the fact it’s only one block from the library, which this morning was full of happy, knowledge-seeking youngsters. Damn it!
fabulous.
It’s the great pumkin, Charlie Brown!
I rather like it. It’s better than some of the wacked out colors that RBVA paints its houses.
I think the house next to it unpainted looks better.
the unpainted house has the traditional orange sticker from the city that hints towards demolition which the car cannot prevent. certainly the car would have someting to say about the paint color suitability
CAR can’t say anything: this is outside of any current historic area, national or city.
and when it is in a city historic district, the car will have no ability to stop demo, but they will tell you what color to paint.
can you find a building in a city historic district that the car saved?
i have plenty of photos of buildings demolished in city historic districts that the car could not prevent
Looks like a dreamsicle..
can we please nick-name it “the cheeto?”
nice.
I understand that wric8 may be doing a story on this house and its paint and/or this stream of commentary. Check’em out at 11 and see if I look like an ass on the TV…
John – well, keep us posted! (Hmm, chpn.net gets more media coverage – how great, and you do such a great job!)
R – you wrote “I rather like it. It’s better than some of the wacked out colors that RBVA paints its houses.” Aside from my personal opinion that RBVa does great work, I feel obligated to take up for RBVa, since I happen to know and like the owners. I don’t think any of their colors are ‘whacked out’ – and I happen to know that, for any house in any city-regulated historic district, they get approval for all their colors!
Bill – CAR saved 11 1/2 North 29th Street from falling apart and then being demolished. The roof had leaked, and it contained about two dozen pianos (along with a lot of other stuff), the pianos were in process of falling through the floors, etc. It was a fairly complicated process, but CAR actually spearheaded it, way back when John Albers was on staff there. I know and understand your frustration with them, but hey, you challenged anyone to name something, so I did LOL!
P.S. While I REALLY like ‘The Cheeto House,’ I also agree that Dreamsicle is a great match.
[...] was interviewed a little while ago by a dude from channel 8 in response to this succinct post on CHPN. Watch’em at 11 and see how my 1 word blog post gets turned into “news”. Posted [...]
celeste, sledd saved 11 1/2 n 29
As a point of clarification, the CAR cannot “save” any buildings that have been deemed unsafe by the Building Commissioner or the Fire Marshal. Many times, buildings that are demolished are deemed condemned and unsafe under the basic city-wide zoning ordinances that CAR has no jurisdiction over.
The CAR is a custodial entity that oversees an O&H “overlay” that is separate from the basic zoning that all property owners adhere to. Unfortunately, it’s too late for CAR to save many buildings because they’ve been left in disrepair for so long.
Brick structures have a much better chance of avoiding the wrecking ball than wood structures do. That’s why St John’s is much more intact than North of Broad. St. John’s has also had a 50 year lead on NOB.
it is called demolition by neglect. it is condoned by the car. where is the so called preservation when the car looks the other way from a negligent property owner and sends inspectors and possibly prosecutes responsible owners over a paint color?
Ever read the children’s story The Big Orange Splot Daniel Manus Pinkwater?
I’ve always loved it. A seagull drops a bucket of orange paint on Mr. Plumbean’s house and the neighbor’s complain a lot.
Mr Plumbean gets some blue paint. He runs out of blue paint but for some reason doesn’t buy more of the blue.He buys white, red, orange, green and pink. Before he knows it his house is a multicolor wonder. The neighbors complain and send a representative to have a talk with him….
I won’t spoil it for you but it has a happy ending that doesn’t involve ordinary colors, organizations, task forces, Channel 8,lawyers or complaining neighbors:)
Hip hip hooray for houses with color!
There’s my 50 cents worth.
Mr Plumbean was a commie! Everyone knows that.
Orange is a perfectly viable color. Now, if you need to give directions, just say, “go to the orange house and take a right…..” or “2 blocks east of the orange house”.
Plus, my understanding is that Geese are scared of the color orange.
bill:
You’re obviously anti-CAR, anti O&H. I’m sorry you feel that way, and am glad that we got our designation and are enjoying the benefits of it.
As for the “orange” house, looks more yellow to me, and I, like Kimmy and others like it. My house is close to this color, but not as dramatic. CAR has used our house in photo examples of Church Hill North O&H, and I know for a fact that the CAR approves of my color.
bill:
The CAR does not condone demolition by neglect. They simply don’t have the power to save some of these buildings. The CAR is not a panacea, nor the cause for all the ills of negligent properties.
You really need to have a conversation with the CAR board and other historic preservation city staff. You’re speaking from a lot of misinformation and prejudice and are doing a disservice to the community with your comments.
I know that your a long time property owner up here, and think you are more informed, insightful that most, but you need to get an update on your info.
I personally don’t have a problem with paint colors, and believe it or not, neither does the CAR. A while back the CAR looked into lessening and even eliminating color guidelines, but property owners in the O&H’s wanted the restrictions so the CAR kept the guidelines in place.
The CAR is a very qualified, competent group of individuals who are constantly reviewing their guidelines to meet the modernization of building materials and the needs/wants of the property owners while maintaining the historic integrity of our community. They are not a marauding group of preservation pirates that you like to make them out to be.
‘
Barf.
That’s how I feel about where this thread is going…
However, the orange is dreamy. Love it.
Chimbo – If geese are scared of the color orange then that would go against the hunters wearing orange vests and hats.
Laura – actually I think Bill is sort of saying that they don’t enforce what they should enforce to begin with.
And to both of you – I will stand corrected if my memory is wrong here, but as I recall it, 11 1/2 North 29th was about to be condemned (this was back in the late 1980′s). The problem was that it was a truly contributing structure (brick and covered with really great exterior wrought iron work). CAR’s charter (at least at that time, I don’t know about now) involved saving contributing structures by …. here’s where memory is murky…. forcing a public sale or something like that, at what was considered market value? APVA took title and then they auctioned it to the person who could provide evidence of financial ability to fix it up as well as a serious plan for doing so, or something like that. That’s how the Sledds ended up with the house -which was very nearly a ruin by then. Again, if my memory is wrong, someone please correct me, thanks.
P.S. Sometimes I think there should be a device on my computer about posting to blogs…. no posting after such and such a time or no posting after more than one glass of wine….but then it wouldn’t be so much fun I guess!
I think people might like the orange color a lot more if they used a different trim color – something darker, not light like white. Also, I think the house could use a porch. That would help draw eyes to the architectural features more than to the color. Right now, it’s kind of a large, squarish, orange canvas.
celeste, i think it was either hrf or apva that fixed the deal for sledd
laura, i apologize for having a different point of view. your approach to making it personal should make for a good fit when you become a member of the car
Whats wrong with people today? Everything around us is so bland. Someone puts a little color in the world and you people go nuts. Plus i find it interesting that when all the Virginia Tech stuff happened, people who never even visited the campus were buying orange and showing it everywhere. Then a house is painted orange (i am not saying it’s for VTech) and now you dislike it. This is why i and many other Richmonders or sick of this city. It’s full of lazy, hypocrites who really aren’t concerned about the future of the city. Just want to force your opinions on others. Fight over something more important then an orange house. What is the crime rate for this year so far?
So… CAR is to preserve the historic nature of the community but they have “color guidelines”. Ok, were there guidelines as to color, window types, etc when these houses were built?
Obviously not.
The statement, “but property owners in the O&H’s wanted the restrictions”, leads you to believe that the restrictions have nothing to do with historical preservation but rather to allow neighbors to dictate what color I can paint my house.
Nor were there cement block apartment buildings or vinyl siding.
I know it’s delicate balancing act, but I too am taken aback by the idea of “color guidelinesâ€. It reminds me of the by-laws in the suburbs. And I HATE the suburbs, which is why I live here. I love my neighborhood here and I don’t care if everyone’s brass door knobs match or what color they paint their house. As long as an effort is taken to try to maintain the historic character of a home and the home is taken care of, I am happy to see a bit of variety.
“Nor were there cement block apartment buildings or vinyl siding.”
True, but my argument that the CAR color guidelines have nothing to do with preservation is still valid.
(there was wood siding that vinyl is now supposed to replicate…although)
Ooops was I supposed to consult with some organization before I rehabilitated my house in Fairmount? I thought it was enough to make it habitable and clean, as opposed to abandoned and decayed. I hope white is okay…
bill:
I don’t know where you got the impression that I’m getting personal with you, and kudos for having your point of view. I welcome the discussion and enjoy it.
Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences with the CAR. Is that the source of your opposition to Old & Historic Districts?
No worries, I have absolutely no interest in being a member of CAR and doubt very much that anyone would appoint me. That should make many people who post to this site very happy!
Clay Street:
I’ll tell you what makes me barf is posters who can’t handle any kind of confrontational or engaged argument on this site.
Here’s some advice to all you Scarletts: fix yourself a mint julep and go have the vapors on your fainting couch!
Laura:
Sorry you are barfing.
It’s O.K, man, I just wish I hadn’t had the chili for lunch!
“me” I dont get that anyone is fighting on this thread, sounds to me like a good debate. I thought that’s what this site was about. and I don’t see that anyone made a comment about not liking the “orange house”. Most all seem to like the color. One suggestion made, which I also agree with – a darker color trim and a porch would help with aesthetics.
“me”,
Did you just post to complain about people complaining?
Classic….
I’m new to Richmond & Church Hill, so please forgive me that I don’t completely understand everything that is being talked about. I moved into Church Hill because I like the freedom it gives, no homeowner’s association telling me what I can do with my own home. If people want this area to be like the suburbs, why not just move to the suburbs? If I want to paint my house neon green with purple spots, it’s my home. Not just a house, my HOME. For whoever owns the orange house, if you like orange than you keep it orange! If you’re trying to sell it, then whoever moves in can paint it any color they want, even if it’s green with purple spots.
Hi, my husband and I own the orange house. The paint chip actually said “Apricot”! We bought the house about 2 months ago and rent it out. We don’t have plans to sell it right away. If you live in the neighborhood, you may recall that it was overgrown with weeds and creepers. The exterior was in poor repair with the paint peeling off the wooden siding and trash all around. It had several code violiations when we bought it and was not only a health hazard to the neighborhood, but an eyesore!
Even though the color is bright, (he picked it!) it is a huge improvement over what was there. The house is located near the library and there are lots of abandoned and or overgrown homes over there. I feel that we are part of an effort to clean up that area of the neighborhood which has many abandoned or dilapidated homes. I hope those who don’t like the color will grow to like it and those who do like the color, thanks for the support!
…now to convince my husband not to paint our other rental properties the same color – one’s enough!
the prior, drab version is to all the way to the left:
I live in the purplest of purple houses and LOVE IT so I say YOU GO Orange Julius/creamsicle/tang house, color me happy!! :)
kelley i don’t know who you are or where you are from but i am glad you are here.
michelle, i like the color. do you remember the paint manuf with apricot? i want to try it out in a city hd.
Michelle:
I like it… definately has a personality of its own!
O.K., you knew this was coming.
Kelley: You may live in an Old & Historic District and not know it, although I doubt it. If you do, by law, you should have received a disclosure statement with all of your property transfer documents telling you that you are purchasing a home in a City Historic District. A good deal of Church Hill is in an O&H District and more efforts are underway to create/expand the districts in Union Hill and Chimborazo.
You can check by going online at the website that john_m listed above to find out if you live in an O&H district.
You are correct that you don’t understand everything that’s being talked about and are incorrect about presuming that those of us in O&H’s want to live in a situation like the burbs covenants. We don’t want to live in a suburban environment either.
You might want to get involved with one of the hood associations up here like the CHA or the UHCA and learn more about why the O&H’s are important and beneficial to the area, and at the same time you can make lots of new friends.
Welcome!
And if you’re in Fairmount, check out the New Vision Civic League for south of Fairmount and Unity Civic League for North of Fairmount.
Also, you can use the property search form on the city site. Under the planning tab is info about which civic association is closest to you & other useful info.
That’s a very old picture taken in Winter or early spring before the weeds grew up. As you can see the house next to it has not yet been condenmed.
The paint was from Lowe’s. Don’t know which manuf, sorry!
bill:
Baiting people with negative images of the CAR doesn’t solve anything.
Is the CAR perfect? No. Is the city good at handling negligent properties? No. But it’s what we have in place, and without it, we would be a lot worse off than we are right now. It’s because of St. John’s efforts and CAR incarnation 50 years ago that the rest of Church Hill is even close to what it is right now. And, of course, the many long-time residents who hung in there through thick and thin maintaining their properties.
Richmond’s preservation efforts have been a model for the rest of the country. Our City was one of the first to even have a municipal O&H district.
I’m told by one of your friends that you are pro-preservation. Then why don’t you say so? Why don’t you articulate your argument to reflect that.
Or, are you the type to sit back and not do a damn thing to CHANGE the situation, or make suggestions for change? Someone as knowledgeable and experienced with preservation needs to be an advocate and a change agent.
Maybe you have been, and I don’t know that. If so, tell us about it.
To say that you’re going to paint a color in an O&H just to see what the CAR does is asinine.
That contributes nothing to the conversation, and is a complete waste of time. And, I believe you know it and do it intentionally.
Take a proactive stance on preservation instead of being the bad, bratty school boy who stirs up trouble. I’d really like you to speak more clearly about the specifics of your argument. It’s hard to read between th lines of your clipped, curmudgeon comments.
Again, I agree that the city is shitty about dealing with negligent properties and I have been very vocal about this publicly and in editorials in the RTD and with City Council hearings. The CAR is the best tool that we have right now, even though it’s not a panacea.
Do we need reform? Yes. You should talk to Brooke Hardin and Rachel Flynn and engage in conversations that will make this reform happen? Yes. I do.
I’ve attended zoning meetings where this conversation is very much in their minds right now.
The planning department and preservation resources have been woefully disconnected for years. Brooke, Tarisa, Saul and Rachel are trying to change that. They are aware that it should’ve happened a long time ago. However, efforts are in place to change that and there will be an opportunity for the public to attend meetings addressing these issues in the near future.
As you know, I’m a bit of a brawler and like a good debate. I will continue to respond to your comments and defend the O&H process and CAR, warts and all.
O.K., let the bullets fly!!!
Laura, why don’t you just ask bill for his e-mail address and spare us all? Bill was addressing the topic at hand and you start taking personal swings as always. And you say bill “stirs up trouble”?
You know what J, he and everyone knows my email and I invite any discussion here or offline. The invitation is here and there. And no, I won’t spare you or anyone. Just don’t read it if you don’t like it.
Personal swings are part and parcel sometimes. I identify myself always, which is more than I can say for you, or “bill.”
And once again, I bet you are a woman, right? Why don’t you “spare us?” Scold, scold, scold…
Oh, that’s right, you don’t have anything substantive to say about this topic, so you choose to scold others.
b
Sometimes I think entries should be limited to only a couple of paragraphs. Any longer, and they tend to be attacks.
Many non-Church Hill folks read this, and I am sure a negative image is presented when commenters post a tirade.
kelley the chatter may be confusing but i think you have a clear understanding of what is going on when you own a house and the city council ordinance zones it in the boundary of a historic district and makes you follow hd rules. sometimes it is called a “taking”. maybe depending on the purpose of the ordinance and the rules. if the purpose is preservation, the city ordinance fails because the arrangement allows/encourages demolition by neglect (among other things)
I agree. zip it…..Missy D.
Didn’t most folks up here purchase their property because of the historic charm, history,and being in the hd, which holds
property value? Properties have been left abondoned for years; this didn’t happen overnight, and, if not for Historic Richmond,the hd, along with CAR’s efforts and diligent property owners, one can only guess what O&H CH would be today.
What should the City do with neglected properties?
Right on, Bob!
bill:
How does the ordinance encourage demolition by neglect? I’d like you to expand on your argument and clarify your views. Clipped, cryptic remarks just don’t cut it.
Also, since you don’t live up here and haven’t for years, what’s your stake in CH other than what I assume, is financial?
Neighborhoods rise and fall, that is a typical cycle. They become “hot”, then cool off and (hopefully) become hot again. The location near the downtown boom, Philip Morris, MCV expansion, Federal Courthouse, VCU expansion and national trends back to urban living are all helping Church Hill areas. It is not just artsy people who think they have “saved” an area and must control it. They are one part of a big pie. Please, some of you are being quite rude.
Laura, please offer some POSITIVE SUGGESTIONS in regards to Bob’s posting, as to what the city should do about neglected properties and demolition by neglect, thanks.
CH O&H district -it is what it is. Who are these “artsy people” trying to control what? Historic Richmond had a major role in “saving” CH when purchasing pilot blocks.
Celeste:
After a period of time, say two years when a property owner has been cited and fined and non-compliant, the city should enforce eminent domain and seize the property. Pay them market value and sell the property to someone who will develop it within a certain time frame and under the current zoning ordinances and code enforcements.
I’ve suggested this many times on this site.
Old & Historic Districts help protect against demolition by neglect. A building cannot be demolished without CAR approval unless it is deemed unsafe by the Commissioner of Bldgs. or the Fire Marshal.
A property owner is in violation of the law if they demolish a property that is not considered unsafe. They are fined and prosecuted. The current fines are ridiculously low. They should increase the severity of the fines, and really throw the book at them.
Additionally, there will be a public meeting regarding proposed zoning changes in Church Hill North, Chimborazo and Union Hill.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, Nov, 29, 6:00pm at EDI first Fl. conference room.
All property owners within the boundaries of the proposed rezoning should have received notices in the mail and are encouraged to attend. John_m will probably post the pdf documents that I sent him with more info.
Here’s an opportunity for all of us to continue the conversation face to face and address the concerns discussed here.
I hope to see you all there!
I have to agree with Bill about CAR,CH zoning and HRF selectively enforcing the rules. I saw in the Oct. CH newsletter where they approved a carport for an 1818 property. There is only one problem, the car wasn’t invented until 1908. Why not just approve a helipad too? Thanks for keeping it historic.
It seems like paint color is the biggest general beef with the CAR. Other CARs have loosened their paint color guidelines. Why don’t we use all the energy on this thread to encourage the CAR or Council or whomever sets the guidelines to revist the paint color idea? Instead of calling Laura names for conveying accurate information, how about sending an e-mail to Rachel Flynn or Saul Gleiser?
The CAR is the only thing keeping this neighborhood from becoming the suburbs. Do you want vinyl ranchers up here? Developers do. The CAR is the only tool we have to stop that kind of in-fill.
Unfortunately we have to suffer the paint color requirements in order to have that.
East Side – I think most of the people who are griping on here about paint colors are griping because they just plain don’t like the idea of being restricted (I could be wrong, if two hundred people or even twenty people write in and say they were turned down for paint selection by CAR and didn’t like any of the alternatives, I’ll stand corrected).
CAR has a “paint palette of sixty colors for use on historic properties…not all paint chart colors are appropriate for use on every historic building…” – that’s a pretty good selection to choose from, but if you want to try to add some, I wish you best of luck. (I’ve got their guidelines open in a separate window as I type this hence the quote, above. It’s on the city’s website, go to Community Development, then historic, then download Handbook and Design Review Guidelines, it’s pretty interesting.)
I’ve got friends who’ve redone houses and they have gotten their color selections approved without a lot of hassle. That’s just my take on the complaints about paint selection.
As Celeste mentioned CAR has a paint palette of sixty colors for use on historic properties. Even if not on the paint palette, most all get approved. CAR is NOT unreasonable. They do try to work with you. I believe they just want to make sure that one keeps with the character of the neighborhood, and not a development of vinyl ranchers.
In response to “annen” about the carport approved on 27th Street, the plans for that were submitted and approved before the O&H designation took place. Therefore, the zoning for the carport fell under the regular basic zoning in the area and met all the requirements of it.
Again, another example of why the O&H is a valuable tool for preventing a structure like that from being built. Had the O&H been in place at the time that the plans were submitted, the carport would not be there.
I’ve read pamphlets and comments (on this site) about the benefits of Old & Historic Districts, so what’s the down side? (Not a rhetorical question). It can’t be all sunshine and daisies. There has to be some drawback. Throw me a clue.
LC – There are 2 kinds of districts in effect up here, national and city. The national designation makes tax credits available, and only imposes restrictions if the tax credits are used. I really can’t see a downside to national designation. The city O&H designation is more restrictive, which is where some of the friction comes from. You can find out more about city O&H designation on the city’s site.
John,
What kind of designation is Fairmont trying to achieve? Will I have to ask a “governing board” about changes I want to make to MY home. I sure hope not, that whole process seems to restrictive and “watched”.
Fairmount is going for the national designation. There would be no restrictions unless you choose to apply for the federal tax credits.
The federal designation won’t prevent cinderblock apartment buildings or vinyl ranchers, either.
….haven’t been entertained this much since South Park’s last Christmas episode!
Here’s 1 thing that people try to claim as a CON of becoming an O&H is that “it causes property taxes go up.” Having lived in St. John’s for almost 10 years, this is NOT true. Higher demand of houses in an area and the recent long-standing seller’s market create higher RE taxes. (the city gets wind of what people are now paying and sends out the assessors!)My property value stayed the same until the last 4 years.
But seriously, I had to go to the CAR to get my renovations approved in St. Johns district (w/my own renderings – too poor for an architect to draw them) and they weren’t as bad as people make them seem.
Perhaps it was just luck b/c that night they also had a HUGE plan on the table (the museum up on Blvd) OR maybe in a block of boarded up homes they were just happy something was happening OR maybe it was pre-Saul (a few years ago while he was on site for an ‘inspection’, he told the builder working on a home beside me that I did NOT have my porches approved by CAR – yeah, buddy, try again, got the letter in my file dude) OR MAYBE they just aren’t as uptight as we think they are.
I don’t know, but I did have my color approved (albeit it’s one of the ones from Lowes w/the historic designation) but I also cringe anytime I get mail with the CAR logo in the return address….
Oh, and PS on the matter at hand, I LOVE the color!
In response to Laura :
The building permit for the property in question was issued AFTER the expiration of the 30-day grace period following the O&H designation on May 29. By the time CAR and HRF belatedly held its architectural review on August 28 (two months after the O&H designation), construction was already underway. It appears that far from being “a valuable tool for preventing a structure like that from being built”, the O&H designation did nothing to prevent its construction. The carport is there.
Thanks for keeping Church Hill North “old and historic.”
The carport thing was underway LONG before any official permit was issued. I live within a block of it and it doesn’t bother me one bit. Several of us neighbors gave written approval of the plans because we were in the immediate impact zone, and that was well over a year ago. Wanda does a great job of maintaining her property and the historic character of her home–this is a non-issue.
annen:
You and Clay Street are incorrect concerning the timeline for the permits. I was very close to this process and kept abreast of every aspect of it, including communications with Rachel Flynn and Saul Gleiser.
I too, as Clay Street expressed, feel that this is a non-issue at this point.
There is more to this situation than meets the eye concerning a long-term dispute with a renter near Wanda.
I know Wanda very well and she has been a champion for the O&H and has worked very hard to contribute to the betterment of our community. Nuf said.
so what is the story? does car prohibit a carport or not? i cannot find it in the city standards. or does it depend on who you are?
If you have questions about the carport, contact Saul.Gleiser@richmondgov.com
Below is Saul’s email to me. I stand corrected on CAR’s stance on the project, however it is not relevant because the permits were issued well before CAR oversight.
“You are exactly right, the permits and many other reviews such as Board
of Zoning Appeals approvals go back at least two years. The only reason
CAR got to review the project was because the City’s Attorneys office
felt that to avoid any potential litigation it should go to CAR. The CAR
found the proposed car port to be appropriate based on the fact that it
was a clearly utilitarian structure that was design in a clearly
contemporary fashion yet reflecting some of the main characteristics of
secondary structures within the District. Car ports are not an uncommon
occurrence within this District. Yes you are right also in your
statement that the use is acceptable under the zoning ordinance so she
or anyone else has the right to build a car port and the CAR will review
the structure with only the question about the appropriateness of the
proposed design. Use is never a consideration for CAR’s reviews.
I hope this is helpful.”
Saul
Additionally, Saul wrote (in regards to the carport):
“I think this is one of those cases that shows that the system works,
that contrary to what many of the opponents say you can build a
structure that is allowed by zoning even if the Commission doesn’t “like
it” as long as it is design in a way that meets the guidelines.”
Now ask yourselves why the system was given an opportunity to work in the first place?
Could it have something to do with the diligence of a certain “renter near Wanda”?
It would appear that you owe some people an apology, Ms. Dabb.
in an ideal world a carport in a historic district is about the standards and has nothing to do with wanda or a renter near wanda. in the real world of richmond, applications before the car are often about who you are.
this is not amazing. what is amazing is that the community would by into the city version of historic preservation (taking of your property rights) where the city is the culprit in demolition of most of the historic buildings in the city.
i remember a quote from a rrha person way back that explained it this way. “we had to tear down your neighborhood to save it”
ever wonder where all of the vacant lots came from?
JC:
You owe me an apology for spelling my name wrong.
bill:
Church Hill North is only 5 months into it’s O&H designation so it barely seen the benefits of CARS custodial oversight. Many of demolitions in the past happened because of the lack of protection offered by the CAR.
Your argument just doesn’t apply to NOB.
We can go on and on arguing for and against O&H’s.
The bottom line: the folk NOB wanted the designation and we are all looking forward to the benefits that they will bring.
I am already enjoying the benefits on my block as there are two new houses being constructed under the CAR guidelines. If these guidelines weren’t in place, at least one of the houses would have been completely inappropriate.
I’m sure it burns you up, but the O&H is here to stay.
Circling the wagons, Laura?
The information I provided is accurate, and Saul Gleiser can verify it for you.
annen:
I guess you can’t read, and/or are in major denial. Read comments #79 and #80.
Bill, are you saying that the city selectively sends applicants to car. As I understand, ANY application for a permit with the city that involves changes in an historic district, must go through CAR. If you are implying unethical dealings you should be able to provide some hard evidence. To do otherwise is very irresponsible, and rather unethical.
While I will not defend the city or the rrha on past demolitions, that has absolutely nothing to do with CAR or O&H districts. The St John’s district has almost no empty lots.
If you want to argue that O&H districts, encourage, show me where demolition has increased after an O&H designation has been put into place. Or give me an address where there was a house in an O&H and CAR or the City encouraged it’s demolition. I’ve seen this request of you before here. Support you arguments. If you can’t do that, you are not engaging in debate, but merely ignorant ranting.
O&H must stand for “OLD and HYSTERICAL”
Puhleeze, Ms. Dabb – don’t project your own shortcomings on other people. What is it about City Code Sec. 114-930.6 that the office of the City Attorney understands but you cannot or will not understand?
Sec. 114-930.6. Certificate of appropriateness.
(a) Approval required. No building or structure or any exterior portion thereof, sign or paving shall be constructed, altered, reconstructed, repaired, restored or demolished within any old and historic district unless the building or structure or any exterior portion thereof, sign or paving is approved by the commission of architectural review or, on appeal, by the city council, as being architecturally compatible with the buildings, structures, sites and general character of the old and historic district. All such approvals shall be evidenced by a certificate of appropriateness. No permit to construct, alter, reconstruct, repair, restore or demolish any building, structure or site shall be issued by the commissioner of buildings unless the applicant has first obtained approval of a certificate of appropriateness for such work.
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13859&sid=46
Now let’s recount the timeline of events concerning this case. The O&H designation was enacted on May 29. The building permit was issued without a certificate of appropriateness on July 2 – that’s 34 days after the O&H designation became law.
Now, what could possibly be wrong with this picture, Ms. Dabb?
What could possibly explain Bill’s cynicism, rubberneck?
As for your apology, Ms. Dabb, I’ll write it in the sky the day you have the courage and the decency to march down to that whistleblower’s house and deliver your thinly veiled ad hominem attack against that individual in person.
I think the whole point is that this project was grandfathered because it was already clicking along in the system–the whole thing goes back a couple of years. I’m (admittedly) speculating that CAR couldn’t retroactively insert itself in something that was already progressing in the permitting process before the OHD even existed.
JC question to you; I have read the previous posts and, also taken the time to speak with Saul from CAR. The building permit was applied for long before the O&H was inacted, and was not required to go through the review process. In spite of this the owner went through it any way,just to head off any appearance of impropriety. CAR approved the project, because it fit into the CAR guidelines. That is quoted in an email from Saul earlier I see absolutly nothing wrong with this picture.
forgot to ask the question; how is thsi not clear to you?
JC:
I guess you can’t read either. Comments #79 and #80.
Clay Street is correct and to explain further, because the O&H was taking place, they wanted to make sure that no one thought that any indiscretions were taking place, even though they weren’t. The CAR approved Wanda’s carport because she adhered to the design guidelines for an O&H without being required to do so. The CAR didn’t approve her design because of who she is or the renter situation.
I don’t know where your getting that the renter was a “whistleblower”? I’ve not said one word against whoever the renter is.
This was a very transparent process.
When will you have the courage and decency to identify yourself and stop disrespecting and attacking others.
You still owe me that apology…
Clay Street -
The language in the statute is unambiguous – the determining factor is the date the building permit is issued. The only exceptions that were made – and this isn’t even included in the language of the ordinance – were for building permits issued within 30 days of the passage of the O&H designation (i.e., by June 29). That means every building permit issued from June 30th forward required a Certificate of Appropriateness. The recommendations of the City Attorney’s office appear to confirm this.
Got that, Ms. Dabb?
Just call me Laura, or “b” as someone above so affectionately has, since you can’t spell.
And people accuse me of getting personal and having tirades?
I really do not understand why people are having trouble understanding this simple fact. The application for this carport was taken out before the O&H, thus grandfathered in. I have read the quoted city staute and do not see it mention the 30 day grace period. I also see a quote from Saul at CAR stating that they approved the structure. I have a genuine question here. I want someone to put into simple words what they thing went wrong here. Are you saying this person illegally put up an inapproriate structure and are getting special treatment? Are you saying laws have been broken? Please refrain from clever little quips and state your case simply.
also just a point to ponder
assuming this structure was put up without the proper Certification. As I understand, when reported, that persone would have to submit the structure for approval to CAR. If it not approved it would need to be taken down. If approved, it could stay.
Saul has already said CAR approved it, so the bottom line is, the buildib is there for good.
I just checked back and I have to wonder, do you guys have to work?
I just want to know what the geese think of the structure. They should be incorporated into any structure approval. If they squawk it is denied…if they poo it is approved.
Hi Joe, I mean JC:
Again, I would like to put the question to both you and bill:
Neither of you live in the neighborhood. You are both multiple property owners against the O&H’s.
I’m sure you see them as a big hassle when all you really want to do is make the most cash on your properties with the least amount of work.
Other than hating me and hating the O&H’s, what is the purpose of your rants?
I can only assume to keep other O&H’s from happening where you own properties so that the cash can keep coming in with the least amount of maintenance.
What’s your stake in CH other than self- interest and financial?
the o&h dist zoning ordinance is effective upon adoption (unless specified otherwise) a permit application is subject to the rules in place at the time the application is received by the ahj.
taxes, death, shabby govt and 2 dollar whores have been, are, and always be a fact of life
someone with poor eyesight should be able to see the impact of demolition in their neighborhood.
anyone with an inquiring interest in historic preservation in their neighborhood should be able to figure out how it got demolished. a demand for evidence would only come from lawyer. (same as 2 dollar whore with a yellow pages listing)
laura i think you are confused. i do not hate you or people in general. in fact i am hoping you can get some medical attention so that you can have a long and pleasant life. i have a different point of view about the city hd. their actions are too often based on who you are and not the standards they claim. their actions have diminished the value of my property. i dont know where you live and dont really care. since you seem to kown all there is about things large and small, it is clear your stake is in climbing some kind of ladder in social and shabby govt circles and i dont care why. with medical attention that might get figured out.
rubberneck -
To answer your question:
First of all, permit me to point out that it doesn’t appear that the City Attorney’s office shares your interpretation of the language in City Code Sec. 114-930.6, otherwise, why would it have advised CAR, in the interest of avoiding “any potential litigation”, to review that project and determine whether or not it was appropriate for that property? If the project was truly grandfathered, as you claim, why would the City Attorney’s office have advised CAR to review it?
Secondly, you are correct that there is no 30-day grace period included in the O&H ordinance.
Third, you are correct that CAR approved the project, but it was approved, as annen pointed out (#74), on August 28th, which was long after construction began on the carport. As we all know, that is not how the permit process is supposed to operate. The CoA is supposed to be issued before, not after, construction begins on any property within a designated O&H district.
Let me put it another way. Let’s say i have been planning to build a replica of the Taj Mahal (CAR might approve it?) in my newly designated O&H backyard for three years now. It doesn’t matter when i started discussing the Taj Mahal plan, but what matters is that i get a certificate of appropriatenes before being granted a building permit.
laura, i apologize if i offended you with my comments at 102. it has been a long busy week. actually i sort of think i like you even if i dont know you. you know you can like someone even if there are different opinions. i can tell (regardless of your motives) that you will speak out and are not consumed by the “polite paralysis” that is typical of richmond. i think you have got some balls but not in the biological sense, at least i am hoping not. i promise that i will get back to your interogation at 99.
Once again, we find you resorting to mistatements of fact and ad hominem attacks, Ms. Daab. Why do you insist on employing the tactics of an intellectual pygmy who cannot sustain a defensible position in a debate? Is there a reason you keep distracting from the subject of this conversation, which is the enforcement of the O&H ordinance? What are you trying to hide?
For your information, I do live in this neighborhood and I do not own multiple properties in this or any other area, so you may dispense with the slander and return to the topic of this discussion, which is the enforcement of the O&H ordinance.
The vertically challenge disapprove the usage of pygmy but the irony in this context is priceless.
Now…what do the Geese think people??? Focus.
rm-
The geese have pooed, hence the stench to high-heaven?
car duty
(2) Assist and advise the city council, the mayor, the chief administrative officer, the planning commission, the board of zoning appeals, property owners and individuals in matters involving historic resources relating to appropriate land use, zoning, and other issues.
is there any record that the car has advised the city not to demolish properties in a state/fed historic district?
bad exterior paint lasts for 5 to 10 years
bad development lasts for 20 to 60 years
demolition is forever
so why is the car focus on paint colors?
not a whimper about the city demo of historic buildings.
why do you need the car to control development? that can be done with an overlay district that is not the city version of the o&h district.
laura, abt your interogation at 99. i like to buy historic buildings that the city is threatening to demolish and then fix them to prevent demo. just to see if i can do it. also sort of like joy if i can do it, i get a certain amount of joy fighting back at shabby govt. abt your other allegations, i thought you knew everything but from you allegations, maybe you really dont know jack.
officially, any and all of your allegations, made or implied, are denied.
THOUGHT CRIME!!!!!!!!
Individual freedom will not be tolerated!!
Only the Great Leader and her comrades are permitted to promote their own interests and self-aggrandizement within the NOB Gulag!
Bill, you are hereby pronounced guilty of being an eeeeeeeeeevil, capitalistic counter-revolutionary, and are sentenced to be purged of your own ideas, opinions and carpentry hobby. Report immediately to your nearest commissar for re-education.
Die kulak scum!
MINISTRY OF CONFORMITY
Anne, it does not matter when discussion started, but it does matter when the building permit was applied for. It has been stated many many times that this application was made BEFORE the O&H designation, and was thus, grandfathered in. The CAR review was above and beyond what was required by law.
wow jc, this sounds like it might be fun. gatekeepers for the department of community dismemberment huh? a house paint gestapo self appointed for cultural cleansing? this could be big fun!
rubberneck:
sounds like more damage control. you are incorrect.
Annen,
Please tell me how I am incorrect. The date of the application, or the fact that the application is grandfathered in?
rubberneck:
ref: post #79. why don’t you ask the city attorney. it appears that he did not think it was grandfathered and needed a CoA.
rubberneck -
It’s time you substantiated your claims.
What section of the City Code contradicts the language in Section 114-930.6?
“No permit to construct, alter, reconstruct, repair, restore or demolish any building, structure or site shall be issued by the commissioner of buildings unless the applicant has first obtained approval of a certificate of appropriateness for such work.”
Where are the exceptions articulated in the language of this ordinance? I don’t see anything about when a person applies for a permit, where do you see it??
I’ve been open-minded about your argument. I went through the trouble of combing through the City’s zoning codes and I still can’t find word one to support your claims.
Furthermore, why did the City Attorney’s office advise CAR to review this project if it was legally grandfathered?? Are you a lawyer? What in the City Code do you see that the City’s finest legal minds do not? What City Code are you looking at? What’s the language in that ordinance? What’s the link?
Let’s see something besides “I said so”.
Here are the meeting minutes from the Planning Commission discussing North Church Hill grandfathering: Read it and weep, bill, annen and JC!
“Mr. Gleiser reported that effective May 30, 2007 Church Hill North was a City Old and Historic District. He explained that many Building Permits had been issued prior to the designation but work has not yet taken place, similarly he stated that some projects that required no Building Permit had been contracted prior to designation. He said that in discussions with the Zoning Administrator, The Commissioner of Buildings, and the City Attorney’s it was agreed that those projects should be grandfathered. He suggested that to avoid administrative problems if a building permit was received, or if a project was contracted prior to May 29, 2007 then Staff should send a letter stating that the project is grandfathered. After hearing Mr. Gleiser’s proposal, Ms. Hunton made a motion to allow Staff to provide a letter of compliance for any project that received a Building Permit was started or contracted prior to the formal designation of the District, provided they produce a copy of the contract dated prior to May 29, 2007 for those cases where work has not been started and no Permit is required. Ms. Wood seconded the motion. Ms. Davis asked that those projects be added to the Administrative Approval log. Ms. Wood asked about a time line for the completion of those projects. Mr. Gleiser said that although Building permits are good for two years, he thought the grandfathering of a project should be only available for those projects that would be started prior to July of 2007 or contracted out within that period of time and to be commenced this summer. After further discussion, the Commission voted on the motion that would allow Staff to certify projects in the new Church Hill North Old and Historic District that were contracted prior to May 29, 2007, but will begin no later than the month of July, 2007, and the vote was 6-0-0.”
interesting gobelygoop but it means nothing. if the permit application was received by the city before the adoption of the ordinance for nob chd, that application is not subject to the ordinance.
what is interesting is that the planning commission and staff are attempting to establish when an ordinance is valid, contradicting the action of council
no weeping here. this is just another example of shabby govt. council says one do thing, administration does another.
Bill,
PROPERTY IS THEFT!!! Desist with your subversive, reactionary humor!!
MINISTRY OF THOUGHT
CCCP
Damn! JC, Ms Daab beat me to the punch. The minutes from the zoning commision explain the cities position on this. And According to evryone I have consulted at City Hall, this project fell under the “grandfathering” umbrella. They also told me about a deck being built on Marshall that would not be allowed under the present law, but had it’s permit before the O&H.
In answer to your question, I am not a lawyer, but I do think that in any zoning change like this, projects already in the process are grandfathered, so people who stated the process in good faith are not screwed over. It is only right, and not some big conspiracy to grant special favors to someone.
Apparently, the cities finest legal minds see exactly what I see here.
interesting gobelygoop but it means nothing. if the permit application was received by the city before the adoption of the ordinance for nob chd, that application is not subject to the ordinance.
what is interesting is that the planning commission and staff are attempting to establish when an ordinance is valid, contradicting the action of council
no weeping here. i did get a brief laugh cause this is just another example of shabby govt. council adopts an ordinance, and administration amends it. best i can figure is admin could easily see what was in the pipeline (entry in the bldg inspect office) and some more projects coming in late needed to slip thru and avoid car.
Of course, Bill is right. Administrative procedures are supposed to enforce, not contradict, the Law.
rubberneck -
Why did the City Attorney’s office advise CAR to review that project?
Jeez.
I’m guessing that it was considered diplomatic to have some non-binding and cursory CAR “review”, so they could confirm what everybody here already knows– that, in fact, Wanda did not plan on building a neon-green and fuschia quonset hut or any other such abrasively in your face un-historic building.
What is the big deal? You’re acting like it’s some sort of Rosicrucian conspiracy….
Yes, Clay Street is right. As I said in post #92 “because the O&H was taking place, they wanted to make sure that no one thought that any indiscretions were taking place, even though they weren’t.”
Good ending. Let’s all go home now.
Happy trails, Ms. Dabb. No one’s keeping you here.
As for Clay Street, jeez, since when is avoiding “any potential litigation” an act of diplomacy? When it involves one of your friends? I hope the Department of State can help you with that.
As for whether or not a carport is an anachronistic structure for an early 18th Century site in an O&H district, well, that’s about as debatable as the appropriateness of any particular shade of orange paint on a house in this district, now, isn’t it?
What an inconvenient little can of worms…
[...] shot at THAT ORANGE HOUSE on the 1100 block of 24th Street. Initial reports are that one of the victims was shot in the back [...]
And to think our biggest concern in November was the color of the house. Was this a single family rental or a rooming house at the time of the shooting?
yea, reality check for park ave refugees
OMG! That orange house is SUCH a drug hot spot. I rode my bike past it today about 10am, on the way to the library to use the copy machine. It was like a hawk flying over the pigeons’ roost. Guys running way in all directions as I pedaled by, admittedly gawking.
What really, really pisses me off is the fact it’s only one block from the library, which this morning was full of happy, knowledge-seeking youngsters. Damn it!