Appeal of Avondale Bungalow Demolition Denial @ LUZ tonight

[CS Foltz]

grimss........much thanks for the heads up! Last time I saw Paul Hardin @ City Hall..........no socks in loafers! I just thought that was funny as hell! Love that 2 year time limit.......heck my grand- daughter could scribble something on the back of a napkin that would fit that criteria...........Hardin has a buyer, maybe even himself, he has had enough clients coughing up big bucks, he thinks he is the man!

[Steve]

RAP feels windows in certain houses should be repaired not replaced by a superior product that looks exactly the same.
Who needs modern, insulated dual pane windows these days anyway? Energy is only getting cheaper and our climates not changing.

I wish RAP was as powerful and effective as you say they are. Protecting our neighborhood from greedy developers and nuclear waste dumps.
But instead they go after homeowners that widen their driveways, replace patio tile and install fences to protect their children.

thirdeye - it sounds like you have a personal issue with RAP regaridng the windows in your house.  While I don't know your particular situation, this particular thread is not really the place for a festivus-style airing of grieveances that you have personally with them. 

On a side note, there is no way that RAP has denied you permission, as they don't have the legal authority. That authority (to grant a COA) resides with JHPC.

Back on topic, this certainly wasn't the decision I expected at this meeting, but I suppose it's better than approving the demolition.

I agree with grimss - Jason Teal brought his A-Game tonight.  Personally, I do have to laugh at the fact that he is trying to demolish this home because of maintenance issues, yet hires Paul Harden, who has to be one of the most expensive attorneys in the city for this sort of thing.  I have no ill will towards Harden, as he is just doing what he is being paid to do by his client.  Mr Lamb freely admitted to me after the meeting that he simply wants to be rid of the property, but not the land.

The one thing that I could not understand is that some of the council members kept going back to the current wind code.  Older homes are NOT subject to today's wind code, so I couldn't understand why they kept coming back to this.

I'll be interested in February to hear what the structural engineers say, as this will most likely make the decision.  If there is no structural issue, then it looks like the house stays.  If there is one, then it probably depends on what the issue is.  CM Joost specifically asked for (and I'm glad) not only a thumbs up or thumbs down on the structural integrity, but what specifically would need to be done to make it sound.

[grimss]

I think the fixation with the whole wind code problem just underscored that most of the council has no conception of what issues you're dealing with in historic homes.

Strangest moment of the night: After multiple RAP representatives referenced that the ordinance (and its subsequent obligations for area homeowners) had been democratically approved through a referendum process in which 81% of voters voted to establish the R/A Historic District, Harden quotes Ben Franklin saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome." Um, okay.

Best line of the night: Harden later admitting that perhaps "well-heeled Lamb" was the more appropriate analogy in this case. Pretty funny stuff.

[JeffreyS]

What exactly was the decision?

[thirdeye]

I guess making fun of Paul Harden is "on topic" but challenging RAP is not. I know how the system works on RAP/JHPC are hand in hand and rarely oppose each other.

I drove by the home this morning and was curious what the perceived value of this home is. It is not in very good shape and what is to keep Mr. Lamb from allowing it to decline into such a state that it will be condemned?

The meter has been pulled from the property and obviously will be empty for a long time.
Is this what our neighborhood needs, more poorly maintained homes?

If Mr. Lamb were to demo the building and eventually build on it, wouldn't he have to jump through the hoops that RAP lays out for new construction? JHPC reviews new construction don't they with RAP's input?

Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.

[NthDegree]

Same kinda thing here in St. Augustine.  We see it all.  Property owner represents his property is unsafe and/or too far gone ... etc..       

and ... its always about the property owner letting out his/her true intentions for the property a bit at a time, and only after being pushed by the review board.  His true intentions?  Could be his motive is he just doesn't want to pay the extra to insure the property with a building on it until such a time comes around that he can sell it as vacant land. Could be he has a buyer.  Could be he wants to get an exception for some kind of concession on a costly rehab item, or two.  Could be a number of things, who knows, but it sounds like the review board knows how to do its job and will take the time it needs to do it right in preparation for a legal challenge.   

Which brings me to ... Harden.  He seems to know how to play the game. $ocks or no, he's the one most likely to benefit -- at least in the $hort term. 

I wish the review board and the neighborhood the best.  Stable, protected neighborhoods, especially historic ones are golden investments -- for many reasons -- not just financial.   


 

[grimss]

They decided to defer deciding until the city's engineers go out to the bungalow to assess its structural soundness.  Harden's presentation made it sound like we're just one good wind storm away from this house becoming an airborne missile. His key pieces of evidence were reports from 1) a building inspector, who documented the cosmetic and systems deficits in the house and 2) an engineer who wrote that the roof was missing every third support beam and needed to be replaced.

The counter arguments from RAP and Jason Teal were that 1) 90% of the damage noted in the building inspector's report was done by the owner in preparation for demolition or was the result of 40 some years of deferred maintenance. (I couldn't believe Harden was able to keep a straight face when he argued that the fact the house was missing its traditional detached garage was yet another reason it has no economic value--umm, that traditional two-story garage was there until the owner tore it down 18 months ago.)

2) The engineer's proposed remedy entailed bringing the roof up to modern wind codes--a very expensive option that requires a lot of retrofitting.  Corrigan and others clarified that replacing the roof would not require bringing it up to modern code, as historical structures are grandfathered under the existing building code unless substantial alterations are made to the structure; even then, only those alterations that are actual additions to the structure need to be compliant.  Teal pointed out that the missing beams in the roof can't be all that bad since the house has managed to stand for the last 90 years despite not having them; he also noted that the present roof is 21 years old, and that of course it will require reroofing now and again--"welcome to homeownership," was I believe his line.

To be fair, Corrigan said that several entities--the company giving the demo quote, city agencies, etc.--failed in disclosing to the owner that he'd need to get a demolition permit to demolish the historic structure. Apparently the owner, because no one said otherwise when he tore down the garage, thought tearing down the main home wasn't anything that needed approval. Presumably he ripped out all the systems in preparation for the demolition, only to learn he'd need a COA and that demolishing a contributing structure is a big no no.

[JeffreyS]

Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.

If the home is in a historic district being old probably does make it historic on the basis that each part of the district contributes or detracts from the historical nature of the area.

Dictionary.com
his·tor·ic    (hĭ-stôr'ĭk, -stŏr'-)   
adj. 

   1.   Having importance in or influence on history.
   2.   Historical.

    Usage Note: Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.

I feel bad for the guy if he put his money out before knowing what he was doing his contractor should have pursued the permits before starting.

[grimss]

Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.

Whether any particular building is "historical" or deemed to be "contributing" to the historic district (and thus worthy of protections) was determined during the surveys of the district conducted in the 1980s.  Each house â€" including this bungalow â€" was photographed and documented, and it was determined at that time that the home retained sufficient architectural integrity to be classified as a contributing structure.  That determination was then adopted into the ordinance when the City Council created the historic district in 1998. The bungalow is individually listed as a historically contributing structure on both local and state historical inventories.

So, it is not really an issue as to whether the Greenwood home is historic or architecturally significant.  That was decided over a decade ago.  Under the ordinance, the bungalow is contributing.

As to old not necessarily being historical, I can understand your point, but don't agree in this case. The bungalow is the oldest home on the block and actually predates the platting of Avondale.  When this home was built, it was quite literally on the very edge of Jacksonville--the city's boundary line was expanded in 1914 or 1918 (can never remember which) to Fishweir Creek.  Bungalows are pretty common (and beloved) in Riverside, less so in Avondale--but the fact there's more than one of them doesn't mean they aren't deserving of ordinance protections if they've been deemed to be contributing.

[vicupstate]

Has the owner considered donating the house to anyone that will agree to pay the cost of moving it? Donating to RADO perhaps?  Could be a tax dedduction for donating to a non-profit.

Is it a big/nice enough house that someone would want it?

[JeffreyS]

Perhaps if he wants to build a new structure he should buy where it is more appropriate. I'll bet he likes the area and would like the fabric of it to remain with his property as the "exception".

[thirdeye]

Once again just because a home is old it does not make it historic and it seems at the end of the day a new home would be a better addition than what is currently there.

Whether any particular building is "historical" or deemed to be "contributing" to the historic district (and thus worthy of protections) was determined during the surveys of the district conducted in the 1980s.  Each house â€" including this bungalow â€" was photographed and documented, and it was determined at that time that the home retained sufficient architectural integrity to be classified as a contributing structure.  That determination was then adopted into the ordinance when the City Council created the historic district in 1998. The bungalow is individually listed as a historically contributing structure on both local and state historical inventories.

So, it is not really an issue as to whether the Greenwood home is historic or architecturally significant.  That was decided over a decade ago.  Under the ordinance, the bungalow is contributing.

As to old not necessarily being historical, I can understand your point, but don't agree in this case. The bungalow is the oldest home on the block and actually predates the platting of Avondale.  When this home was built, it was quite literally on the very edge of Jacksonville--the city's boundary line was expanded in 1914 or 1918 (can never remember which) to Fishweir Creek.  Bungalows are pretty common (and beloved) in Riverside, less so in Avondale--but the fact there's more than one of them doesn't mean they aren't deserving of ordinance protections if they've been deemed to be contributing.

Thank you for the explanation.
Did Mr. Lamb ever reside in this home? If not how did he become the owner?

[lowlyplanner]

Grimss - Do you think that MetroJax would want to post the presentation that RAP gave at the meeting last night? 

I thought it was very professionally done and laid out the issues very clearly.

[Steve]

Thank you for the explanation.
Did Mr. Lamb ever reside in this home? If not how did he become the owner?

He bought it in 1970, for his Mother in Law, then his Mother in Law's daughter until last year (I think that's right).  He then began to remove stuff in preparation for demolition.  Harden ws quoting the cost of fixing the house up, such as HVAC and electrical and plumbing, but the fact was, Mr. Lamb removed the stuff himself.

The problem that I have with this is that it creates a very dangerous precedent.  It would allow any homeowner to let a house deteriorate, and then remove core components, and say it is beyone repair, and demolish it.  That is the core issue with me.

[CS Foltz]

Steve.........you have a valid point! Anyone could remove interior systems, plumbing, electrical and HVAC, it it had it, and wallah! House ready for demolition! I think it would set a precedence and not the right one! If anything Mr Lamb should be cited for making the house uninhabitable!