![]() ![]() ![]() They generally oppose any new regulations,” Pattison said.Record It offers you a light but professional tool to capture screen and voice, or create video tutorials. “If they want to take a building they should take it by buying it.” “If we said ‘when you build a new building from now on you have to go to planning review’ the chamber would oppose it. “They shouldn’t take a building by regulation,” Hulbert said. He said more properties would be forced into foreclosure proceedings, eventually become the property of the city who will ultimately be responsible for knocking them down. Hulbert also disagrees with the city’s claim there will not be any fiscal impact andmaintains the ordinancewouldcost the city money. Until the applicant comes up with plans for the lot we would like to screen it with something to mitigate the negative impact (of a vacant lot).” Hulbert said city can require a land owner to maintain the lot administratively, and he wrote in the memo that “it has not been demonstrated that these stated goals cannot be achieved through better building code enforcement of existing regulation.” Landowners, he said, may in some situations more readily attract a seller to a vacant lot than one with a decrepit building on it, which requires a higher tax be paid and can be a financial liability. “But we may tell them to put up plants or shrubs around it. Pattison maintains the ordinance does not try to protect buildings, nor does it try to take away the rights of landowners, but will work “to protect the city’s interest.’ “We will not require plans for the future of the lot,” he said. It also exempts residential dwellings having less than two units and accessory structures that do not exceed 100 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. The ordinance exempts the city from seeking a site plan approval prior to demolition. About half of the buildings were taken down by the city in 19. A year prior 33 buildings were demolished and in 1997, 22 buildings were demolished. ![]() “It no way gets in the way of anyone taking down their building.” The city already protects buildings listed on the national Historic Registry with strict regulations, and those buildings located in a historic districts as well, so Hulbert asked “what buildings they want to protect.” According to research conducted by the chamber, 29 buildings were demolished in 1999, 16 of which the city took down. “It says they will go through a site plan review and the Planning Commission will use its normal powers of design to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact. “This has nothing to do with denying someone’s ability to tear down a building,” Pattison said. Mayor Mark Pattison, a proponent of the ordinance, said he doesn’t view the legislation as an increase in governmental regulation. The demolition issue came to a head recently when it was announced that Freihofer’s Bakery, and the historic water commissioners house located on the Lansingburgh property, would be knocked down to make way for an Eckerd drug store. The ordinance, which will be on the April 6 City Council agenda, would require the city’s planning commission to approve the applicant’s proposal for the property after the existing building was torn down.Current city practice requires building owners to obtain only a demolition permit. “Generally, our chamber resists increased governmental regulation as a primary means to achieve public policy objectives,” said the memo, signed by chamber President Timothy Hulbert. ![]() The chamber, in a lengthy memo, said that the city should not try to place further restrictions on private property owners. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |