1325 Laura -- demolition hearing at HPC

iloveionia · February 25, 2011, 07:47:14 PM

We already have surface parking over on Ionia, and we keep gaining.
Add that to our own public speedway and Hoo Rah.

sheclown · March 10, 2011, 08:56:12 AM

We found out yesterday that the owner of this property has requested demolition.

As a historic neighborhood, we need to come out very strongly against owner requested demolitions. We can point to the mothballing legislation which gives homeowners a viable alternative.

Buyer beware. If you buy a historic home, you accept the responsibility for it.

If you cannot afford to restore the house, you can protect it enough so that someone else can.

You could not buy Mount Vernon and then decide to tear it down.

Garden guy · March 10, 2011, 09:03:40 AM

Quote from: sheclown on March 10, 2011, 08:56:12 AM
We found out yesterday that the owner of this property has requested demolition.

As a historic neighborhood, we need to come out very strongly against owner requested demolitions. We can point to the mothballing legislation which gives homeowners a viable alternative.

Buyer beware. If you buy a historic home, you accept the responsibility for it.

If you cannot afford to restore the house, you can protect it enough so that someone else can.

You could not buy Mount Vernon and then decide to tear it down.

Girl...you so fabulous...keep fighting for our neighborhoods

sheclown · March 10, 2011, 12:10:34 PM

<shucks>

Interestingly enough, the owner in this case is in a pickle. When he bought the place, it was in fairly good condition (on record by the next door neighbor, HPC minutes Feb 2011). Fast forward a couple of years and he has removed the chimneys leaving gaping holes in the roof (which the poor house is still surviving through), but if he now cries out that it is too far gone to save (no doubt with a contractor's statement to back it up or a structural engineers report), HE IS THE ONE WHO HAS CAUSED THE DAMAGE TO THE HOUSE.

The HPC ruled on this last month and denied the demolition request by code enforcement asking code to come up with a better plan. I doubt they will allow the owner to tear it down, now.

Debbie Thompson · March 10, 2011, 01:01:12 PM

It has to stop where the owner messes up the property and then claims it's too far gone.

Timkin · March 10, 2011, 02:08:24 PM

What has to STOP is an owner NEGLECTING A PROPERTY, Commercial and/or Residential , and then requesting to demolish it ,citing it cost-prohibitive to save. This is beyond absurd.

If there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be. Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied. I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition. This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

urbaknight · March 10, 2011, 02:11:06 PM

Quote from: Timkin on March 10, 2011, 02:08:24 PM
What has to STOP is an owner NEGLECTING A PROPERTY, Commercial and/or Residential , and then requesting to demolish it ,citing it cost-prohibitive to save. This is beyond absurd.

If there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be. Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied. I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition. This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

I say it a lot but, Thos are Floridiots for you.

fieldafm · March 10, 2011, 02:19:04 PM

HPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less). You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

QuoteIf there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be. Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied. I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition. This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

Agreed. In a designated historic district, this city needs to have concrete laws against demo by neglect. Would be a great topic to bring up in front of council candidates at the Hyatt tonight....

Timkin · March 10, 2011, 02:20:41 PM

AND ....on any designated Historic Landmark. you all know where I am going with that

cline · March 10, 2011, 02:24:08 PM

QuoteHPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less). You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

Why didn't RAP step up to stop the demolition to the house on Orleans Court last year?

sheclown · March 10, 2011, 02:27:07 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on March 10, 2011, 02:19:04 PM
HPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less). You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

QuoteIf there are not rules in place to stop this nonsense , there needs to be. Ordinary property owners are REQUIRED to maintain their properties, and if not , code enforcement cites violations. Eventually fines are levied. I fail to understand how /why this is different, particularly if the home owner is the one who removed the chimneys, and then a few years later, seeks demolition. This is no different ,than , in effect , neglecting a roof ,to the point that it collapses, then letting it remain like that and water damage continuing to deteriorate the structure, and then finally seeking to demo the building because it is now "beyond repair" .

Agreed. In a designated historic district, this city needs to have concrete laws against demo by neglect. Would be a great topic to bring up in front of council candidates at the Hyatt tonight....

Someone bring it up! I'll be hosting out of town guests and unable to attend.

fieldafm · March 10, 2011, 02:30:34 PM

Quote from: cline on March 10, 2011, 02:24:08 PM
QuoteHPC ruled against a similar case in Avondale on Greenwood last year(with Paul Hardin representing the homeowner no less). You ladies should contact Kay Ehas, as RAP had a phenomenal presentation on the case against demolition for that particular property on Greenwood.

Why didn't RAP step up to stop the demolition to the house on Orleans Court last year?

I'm not RAP, you'll have to ask the powers that be.

I am unable to attend the next HPC meeting, but I think I have a pdf of the Greenwood presentation at home.

sheclown · March 17, 2011, 08:16:57 PM

Not looking too good for this little old house. I believe she just failed Joel's matrix.

We need to convince the powers that be to revamp the matrix. With a mothballing option we ought to be able to eliminate the "economic hardship" argument to demolition.

Now would be a great time to email the HPC commissioners and let them know how important this house is to the historic fabric of the neighborhood.

HPC MEMBERS
dcase@rs-architects.com
rmoore@jaxlegelhelp.com
aschifanella@bellsouth.net
joe_thompson@gspnet.com
jennifer.mansfield@hklaw.com
lisasellsjax@gmail.com
Jerry@DZYNECONCEPTS.com

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
billk@coj.net

PRESERVATION OFFICE
jcrofts@coj.net
mceachin@coj.net
sheppard@coj.net
amartina@coj.net
spaull@coj.net

PRESERVATION SECRETARY
scherrie@coj.net

PRESERVATION OFFICE INSPECTOR
mkennelly@coj.net

ATTORNEY FOR PRESERVATION AND CODE
CherryS@coj.net

iloveionia · March 17, 2011, 09:28:12 PM

How is it again a historic home can be demolished? I have absolutely zero tolerance for this cowardace. Okay, fine, some owners are not responsible. That's where the city should step in. We (SOS) do what we can to speak for the houses. Our voice and passion has worked for some homes, but the system is flawed.

buckethead · March 17, 2011, 09:37:58 PM

Mrs Buckethead and I are SERIOUSLY considering a move into Springfield.

Something about rejoining the human race.

I have my eye on a couple nice little rehabs, and this one is certainly a fairly major undertaking. That said, we did see this little jewel, and it is in a prime location.

Gruntwork? It's what I do! Now how to get my hands on a property the owner seems unwilling to sell or maintain?

Is he looking to keep the lot for posterity? This should not be a consideration in a historic district.