1 CITY OF
2 LAND USE AND ZONING
3 COMMITTEE
4
5
6 Proceedings held on Tuesday, March 2, 2010,
7 commencing at 5:05 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers,
8 1st Floor,
9 Tropia, a Notary Public in and for the State of
10
11
12 PRESENT:
13 RAY HOLT, Chair.
WARREN JONES, Vice Chair.
14 REGINALD BROWN, Committee Member.
DANIEL DAVIS, Committee Member.
15 JOHNNY GAFFNEY, Committee Member.
STEPHEN JOOST, Committee Member.
16 DON REDMAN, Committee Member.
17
ALSO PRESENT:
18
JOHN CROFTS, Deputy Director, Planning Dept.
19 SEAN KELLY, Chief, Current Planning.
FOLKS HUXFORD, Zoning Administrator.
20 KEN AVERY, Planning and Development Dept.
JASON TEAL, Office of General Counsel.
21 DYLAN REINGOLD, Office of General Counsel.
RICK CAMPBELL, Research Assistant.
22 MERRIANE LAHMEUR, Legislative Assistant.
JESSICA STEPHENS, Legislative Assistant.
23
- - -
24
25
Diane M.
Tropia,
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 March 2, 2010 5:05 p.m.
3 - - -
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, everybody.
5 All right. We have a short agenda tonight,
6 but we have one that I anticipate is going to
7 take a little bit of time, and that is item
8 number 7, our appeal.
9 So what I'd like to do is go through the
10 remainder of the agenda, which I don't think is
11 going to take any more than about 15, 20
12 minutes, and then we'll go back to the appeal.
13 Council members, if we could go to page 2,
14 item number 1, we will open the public hearing.
15 Seeing no speakers, we'll close the public
16 hearing.
17 MR. DAVIS: Move withdrawal.
18 MR. JOOST: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
20 withdraw -541.
21 Please open the ballot.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
3
1 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
2 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
6 vote.
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
10 withdrawn 2008-541.
11 I assume all of our name tags are correct,
12 so we're now trying to get through this as
13 quickly as possible.
14 Item 2008-542. Open the public hearing.
15 Seeing no speakers, we'll close the public
16 hearing.
17 MR. DAVIS: Move withdrawal.
18 MR. BROWN: Second.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
20 withdraw the bill.
21 Please open the ballot.
22 (Committee ballot opened.)
23 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
24 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
25 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
Diane M.
Tropia,
4
1 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
2 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
6 vote.
7 (Committee ballot closed.)
8 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you've
10 withdrawn 2008-542.
11 Item 3, 2009-429. We'll open the public
12 hearing.
13 Seeing no speakers, we'll continue that
14 public hearing to 3/16, take no further action.
15 Items 4 and 5 are deferred, as well as 6 on
16 page 4.
17 Item 7 we will come back to.
18 Mr. Brown, are we ready for number 8?
19 MR. BROWN: We're going to defer two weeks.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Item number 8 we
21 will defer for another cycle at the request of
22 Mr. Brown. But we do have to open the public
23 hearing, don't we?
24 We will open the public hearing.
25 Mr. Allen, do you want to speak,
Diane M.
Tropia,
5
1 considering we're deferring?
2 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening, sir.
4 If you could give your name and address for
5 the record.
6 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Earl Allen, 16964 North
8 The reason I come is -- I understand there
9 was a problem. They were concerned about the
10 road. I had a friend of mine with the fire
11 department, a chief that had his engineer to go
12 down from that district to go drive an engine
13 down that road. And he went down that road,
14 turned around and come out and said there was no
15 problem whatsoever.
16 I measured the road. The road is 20 foot
17 wide and approximately 500 foot long. I took
18 pictures of whatever it's worth of some county
19 roads or kind of city roads. And a lot of them
20 are 16 foot wide, where this one is 20 foot
21 wide. Whatever that's worth, I don't know. But
22 that's the main thing, I was trying to compare
23 that to some city roads and there was no problem
24 engineer -- an engine getting down that road and
25 out.
Diane M. Tropia,
6
1 So I don't know what else, you know, I can
2 say.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. You can submit those
4 photos for the record if you'd like. She can
5 come up there and take them.
6 We have a couple of questions.
7 Councilmember Brown.
8 MR. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair to
9 Mr. Allen. Just so you know that I'm definitely
10 in favor of this bill. However, what we want to
11 do is hash out all of the details so later on,
12 years after we're gone, we have an understanding
13 of what's expected from that property. So
14 that's all it is. We're just -- we're pretty
15 much there. If you just give us the two weeks
16 that we need, I'll assure you that this will
17 work out in all of our favor. We just want to
18 make sure that we dot our Is and cross our Ts.
19 And I do need to declare ex-parte. I had
20 an opportunity to talk to Mr. Boswell about it
21 in my office on -- actually twice; 2/17 as well
22 as today -- about this particular project. And
23 also ask that he go out and talk to
24 Mr. Anderson. That's the Pickettville
25 Association president. Just want to make sure
Diane M.
Tropia,
7
1 that everything is done in proper order and that
2 the people in the community is excited about
3 what we're doing in the community.
4 So just give us a little time. I'll assure
5 you that --
6 MR. ALLEN: We want everybody excited,
7 don't we?
8 MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
9 All right. Thank you.
10 MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Allen, just a moment.
12 Mr. Allen, I have one other question for you.
13 Mr. Joost, you had a question?
14 MR. JOOST: I was just curious who the
15 engineer from the fire department was. If I had
16 his testimony, I'd --
17 MR. ALLEN: Chief -- your chief Lee Watson
18 is -- which was a friend of mine raised up. He
19 called and, you know, I don't remember the name
20 of the engineer -- or the chief, but I'd be glad
21 to get it if you need it.
22 MR. JOOST: Or just have him e-mail me
23 or -- and that would be fine with me.
24 MR. ALLEN: If I can get your -- if I can
25 get somebody to have him get in touch with you,
Diane M.
Tropia,
8
1 I'd be glad -- he said he'd be glad to call you
2 and verify all that. And if there's some way --
3 MR. JOOST: Fantastic. Well, my e-mail --
4 I'll give you my e-mail later.
5 MR. ALLEN: I don't have a commuter. If it
6 don't help you.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe Mr. Boswell is
8 over there indicating --
9 MR. ALLEN: Well, I'll give it to him and
10 I'll make sure I see that you get that.
11 MR. JOOST: Okay. Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
13 Mr. Reingold, would it be more appropriate
14 for me to continue this public hearing?
15 MR. REINGOLD: At this point, I think if
16 you want to move forward at the next meeting, we
17 should continue the public hearing so we don't
18 have to readvertise.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Seeing no
20 further speakers, we will continue that public
21 hearing until two weeks from now.
22 All right. So that takes us on item
23 number 9, 2010-18. We'll open the public
24 hearing.
25 Seeing no speakers, we'll close the public
Diane M.
Tropia,
9
1 hearing.
2 MR. DAVIS: Move to withdraw.
3 MR. BROWN: Second.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to
5 withdraw.
6 Please open the ballot.
7 (Committee ballot opened.)
8 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
10 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
12 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
13 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
14 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
16 vote.
17 (Committee ballot closed.)
18 MS. LAHMEUR: Seven yeas, zero nays.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, withdrawn
20 2010-18.
21 Item number 10, 2010-70. We'll open the
22 public hearing.
23 I have Mr. Rick Sherman.
24 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening, gentlemen,
Diane M. Tropia,
10
1 ladies. Rick Sherman 12239 Sunchase Drive,
2
3
4 I purchased a house approximately two years
5 ago. I have nothing in writing, but the builder
6 told me there would be nothing built behind my
7 house. Right now I have my house, my land, a
8 little pond, and there's some woods, and then
9 you're looking at the back of Kohl's and Home
10 Depot -- Home Office [sic].
11 I want to know exactly where this new
12 development is being put.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, sir, we can probably
14 have somebody follow up with you after we close
15 this bill from Planning and they can give you
16 all that information.
17 MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that it?
19 MR. SHERMAN: Yes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
21 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Could we have
23 Folks or somebody go over there and explain to
24 him and show him the maps?
25 MR. KELLY: Yes. Certainly.
Diane M.
Tropia,
11
1 To the Chair, I just wanted to point out,
2 though, that this was one of the bills that,
3 unfortunately, became the first victim of the
4 sign posting requirement, which was recently
5 adopted. And, unfortunately, the signs weren't
6 posted properly for this item. So it was a
7 mandatory deferral at Planning Commission, which
8 is why I don't have a recommendation from them
9 today.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
11 Mr. Jones has a question.
12 MR. JONES: Thank you.
13 Through the Chair to Mr. Kelly, this is
14 Mr. Bishop's district. The advertising -- the
15 signage was placed on there, but it was not
16 maintained or it was never placed?
17 MR. KELLY: It since has been placed up
18 there and an affidavit has been filed and photos
19 submitted from the applicant at this point in
20 time. It just wasn't done in time to meet the
21 14-day notice requirements for the public
22 hearing.
23 MR. JONES: And do we have a copy of the
24 letter of opposition from the CPAC? Is that a
25 part of the file or --
Diane M.
Tropia,
12
1 MS. LAHMEUR: Yes.
2 MR. JONES: I didn't see it. It is?
3 MS. LAHMEUR: Yes.
4 MR. JONES: Okay. She says it is.
5 And the Planning Department recommended an
6 amendment and approval.
7 Mr. Kelly, the Planning Department
8 recommended an amend and approve; is that
9 correct?
10 MR. KELLY: That's correct.
11 MR. JONES: Does that change the letter of
12 opposition from the CPAC?
13 MR. KELLY: No. I haven't had an
14 opportunity to read it. We've reviewed this
15 from kind of two aspects. One is a
16 single-family development and one is a
17 multifamily development. We're looking at,
18 again, continuation of the berm and the
19 landscaping along that side.
20 There's no commercial development proposed
21 in this, so it's either going to be a detached
22 single-family development or multifamily
23 development that would be limited to the density
24 under the land use provisions, and there are
25 substantial setbacks from the existing Hawkins
Diane M.
Tropia,
13
1 Cove subdivision in addition to the berm and the
2 buffer that's going to be proposed.
3 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you, sir.
6 Now, if somebody could follow up with that
7 gentleman, that would be wonderful.
8 All right. Let's see. That takes us to
9 item number 11. Let's see --
10 And we're continuing that public hearing?
11 MR. REINGOLD: Yes.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Continue that public hearing
13 to 3/16, take no further action.
14 Item 11, 2010-71. We'll open the public
15 hearing.
16 Seeing no speakers, we'll close that public
17 hearing. There will be an additional public
18 hearing on 3/16.
19 2010-72. We're going to take action on
20 this sign waiver tonight.
21 We'll open the public hearing. We have
22 with us Dan Burns. He's here for questions
23 only.
24 Does anyone have any questions for
25 Mr. Burns?
Diane M.
Tropia,
14
1 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll close the
3 public hearing.
4 And I need an amendment to either grant or
5 deny the waiver.
6 MR. JONES: Move the amendment to grant the
7 waiver.
8 MR. JOOST: Second.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second on the
10 amendment to grant the waiver.
11 All in favor of the amendment signify by
12 saying aye.
13 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
14 MR. CROFTS: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
15 I'd like to point out what the -- identify
16 what the -- there was a revision. I don't know
17 if Dylan is going there or not, but I was going
18 to point out that the condition -- there was a
19 condition in the -- the amendment was a
20 condition, not only the action of the committee,
21 and that was that it would read as follows.
22 It's a revised condition. "The electronic
23 reader board shall provide a static message only
24 and may not change more than once every ten
25 minutes." That would be your amendment, along
Diane M.
Tropia,
15
1 with action of the committee.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Go ahead,
3 Mr. Jones.
4 MR. JONES: I can appreciate the amendment
5 and -- but how do we -- how do you enforce that,
6 Mr. Crofts?
7 I mean, does someone go around with a
8 stopwatch and seeing if it's changing every
9 two --
10 MR. CROFTS: Actually, it would follow the
11 typical enforcement process. Typically, it
12 would be watched by our citizens. We
13 wouldn't -- that would go out there and monitor
14 it and do the technical aspect or monitor it
15 through the time watch and we would follow up
16 with that and look at it and read it and go on
17 site like any other code enforcement issue.
18 MR. JONES: But they could be cited if
19 it --
20 MR. CROFTS: That's correct.
21 MR. JONES: -- changed more often?
22 MR. CROFTS: It could be.
23 If it followed the normal CARE process, it
24 would come through. We'd send an inspector out
25 there, and we would monitor it, look at it, time
Diane M.
Tropia,
16
1 it, and then do what would be the appropriate
2 action to follow up in terms of enforcement.
3 MR. JONES: Thank you, sir.
4 MR. CROFTS: I would point out that there
5 are these kinds of signs that do exist out there
6 now, and we have approved them with conditions
7 similar to this. And, you know, some do and
8 some don't, but it follows the normal process of
9 enforcement.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11 Mr. Redman.
12 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 My question, Mr. Crofts, was what is the --
14 is that the normal time span for these things
15 blinking, or is some of them a shorter span?
16 Because I've seen some of them just --
17 MR. CROFTS: This is -- this is a very
18 conservative, if you will, changing message
19 device. The other -- most of them that you see
20 or a lot of them that you see or a majority
21 change much more rapidly than this. So it's a
22 conservative estimate of a changing message
23 device and it's not flashing or scrolling or
24 anything of that nature. It's static for a
25 period of ten minutes and does not change, but
Diane M.
Tropia,
17
1 could change after that period of time. I would
2 describe it as being very conservative in the
3 standpoint of its aesthetic influence on terms
4 of the external environment.
5 MR. REDMAN: Okay. Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Reingold.
7 MR. REINGOLD: I know the condition has
8 slightly changed. It's my understanding the
9 applicant was okay with that condition, but you
10 might want to confirm with the applicant.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Burns, are you here?
12 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. We're fine with
13 that.
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Excellent. Thank you, sir.
16 All right. That's good we got that on the
17 record.
18 All right. Now, let's see. Where were
19 we? We had --
20 MR. JONES: Move to grant the waiver.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We had already done the
22 voice vote on the amendment, but now we need to
23 move to grant the waiver.
24 MR. REDMAN: Motion to grant the waiver.
25 MR. DAVIS: Second.
Diane M.
Tropia,
18
1 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to grant
2 the waiver.
3 MR. JOOST: Move the amendment.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: As amended.
5 Please open the ballot.
6 (Committee ballot opened.)
7 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
8 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
10 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
11 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
12 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
14 vote.
15 (Committee ballot closed.)
16 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, zero nays.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
18 granted the waiver.
19 (Mr. Corrigan enters the proceedings.)
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Let's see. Number 13, 14,
21 15, 16, all of page 6 are deferred.
22 Item 17, 2010-130. Need a motion.
23 MR. JOOST: Move it.
24 MR. JONES: Second.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: A motion and second to -- a
Diane M.
Tropia,
19
1 motion and second on 2010-130.
2 Seeing no speakers, please open the
3 ballot.
4 (Committee ballot opened.)
5 MR. HOLT: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
8 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
9 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
11 vote.
12 (Committee ballot closed.)
13 MS. LAHMEUR: Five yeas, zero nays.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
15 approved 2010-130.
16 All right. Items 18, 19, 20, 21 are all
17 second and rereferred.
18 And, if I'm not mistaken, that takes us
19 completely through our agenda with the exception
20 of our appeal.
21 So, council members -- and for the record,
22 we have Councilmember Corrigan visiting with us
23 this evening. And we're back on page 4, item
24 number 7.
25 The way I wanted to handle this tonight, in
Diane M.
Tropia,
20
1 order to -- I wrote this down. I wanted to try
2 and equal out our time. First we want to have
3 Tom Goldsbury from our Building Department come
4 down, and he's going to update us.
5 If you -- council members, if you remember,
6 I guess it was over a month ago, we addressed
7 this issue, and we've kind of held off on making
8 a decision so we could send somebody out to
9 inspect the property and look into the
10 structural issues that were being discussed and
11 then come back to us and basically report on
12 what the structure looked like.
13 And we said at the time that we would
14 restrict our public hearing comments to
15 structural issues only. So while we're in the
16 public hearing, we're going to restrict things
17 to just structural issues only. And then after
18 the public hearing, we will deliberate amongst
19 ourselves and we can discuss the issue in full.
20 But I'll have Mr. Goldsbury speak first,
21 then we will open it up. The applicant can do
22 his intro, then we're going to have RAP and
23 whoever their representatives are. They'll have
24 ten minutes. Anybody else that wants to speak
25 after RAP in opposition. And then we'll have an
Diane M.
Tropia,
21
1 equal amount of time remaining for the applicant
2 after that. And then we'll close the public
3 hearing and we'll do our deliberating.
4 Mr. Goldsbury, could you start us off and
5 give us an update of what happened when you guys
6 went out there?
7 (Mr. Goldsbury approaches the podium.)
8 MR. GOLDSBURY: Yes, sir.
9 Tom Goldsbury, chief, Building Inspection
10 Division.
11 Myself and Jim Schock both went out and
12 visited with the applicant and his engineer and
13 looked at the structure. The area we looked at
14 was the area in the report that talked about the
15 roof joists. And we went up inside, looked up
16 inside and what we saw there.
17 The thing with the code, the building code,
18 the building code requires you to do something
19 to -- well, requires you to meet the code when
20 you do a -- when you do repairs, when you do an
21 alteration, when you build a building.
22 The building code has several different
23 volumes these days. It's not like it used to
24 have. It has an existing building code. Under
25 the existing building code, you get into the
Diane M.
Tropia,
22
1 category of the work. And the category of the
2 work that I saw in the roof area would be what
3 we'd classify as a repair.
4 There was vertical members going from the
5 roof purlins up -- or the roof -- the ceiling
6 purlins up to the roof joist that were bowed.
7 There were vertical one by -- probably one by
8 sixes. We didn't get actually up in and
9 measure. And several of them were bowed. There
10 may have been some that were missing. Not
11 having the original plans, we don't know how
12 many may have been there.
13 But a one by six in compression is very
14 weak. You get a thin member in compression and
15 it gets to be very weak. Whether there had been
16 other members of different sizes there or not, I
17 don't know. But under -- under a repair, and
18 especially in an historic building, you can
19 replace that in kind.
20 So, to me, what I saw and what I would have
21 required somebody to do if they came in and
22 said, "Look, we want to get a permit to repair
23 this roof area, this structure," I would have
24 told them that they could repair it in kind.
25 They could have repaired it with the type of
Diane M.
Tropia,
23
1 materials that had been originally used.
2 Personally, I would have probably put in a
3 two-by member versus a one-by member. It gives
4 you that extra thickness, it gives you more
5 compression, better buckling, resistance in
6 compression.
7 The amount of work to do that would not
8 have been -- in my opinion, been significant. I
9 didn't see other damage occurring anywhere that
10 this buckling had caused. Nothing was pointed
11 out to us. So what we felt was, yes, somebody
12 could have done the work, maybe -- I don't
13 really want to get into the dollar value, but
14 I'm going to say probably 1,000 to $2,000 at
15 most could get in there and support that roof
16 structure and it would have been fine.
17 Usually people come to us and we say you
18 have to do this much work when they want to do
19 this much work. To be honest, this is the first
20 time we've said, well, we think it's this much
21 work. And someone is saying, no, we want to do
22 this much. They can do more, but it's not
23 required by the code.
24 Be glad to answer any -- well, you want to
25 go on and then answer questions or . . .
Diane M. Tropia,
24
1 THE CHAIRMAN: No. We're going to take
2 questions for you first and then we'll go into
3 our public hearing.
4 Any council members want to ask a question
5 of Mr. Goldsbury about what he saw?
6 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Well, sir, if
8 you could hang close by, we might have questions
9 for you later.
10 MR. GOLDSBURY: Sure.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: We'd appreciate it.
12 MR. GOLDSBURY: Sure.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, we've
14 all --
15 Mr. Reingold, I guess we'll open our public
16 hearing at this point.
17 MR. REINGOLD: (Nods heads.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Open the public hearing, and
19 we'll start with the applicant.
20 Mr. Harden, if you could come up and
21 introduce things.
22 MR. CORRIGAN: (Inaudible.)
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go ahead,
24 Mr. Corrigan.
25 MR. CORRIGAN: Mr. Chairman, first thanks
Diane M.
Tropia,
25
1 for recognizing me being here.
2 I just want to declare ex-parte
3 communications out of an abundance of caution.
4 I just had procedural conversations with
5 Mr. Harden several days ago. And I had
6 procedural conversations with Carmen Godwin, who
7 is the executive director of RAP.
8 I just wanted to put that on the record.
9 Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
11 Mr. Harden, we're going to give equal
12 time. I don't know how long that's going to
13 be. It depends on how long the folks for the
14 RAP go, but basically at least ten minutes.
15 MR. HARDEN: But, as I understand it, you
16 don't want to go through all the criteria.
17 We're going to stick just on the issue that --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Right. During the public
19 hearing, we're going to stick with structural
20 issues only.
21 MR. HARDEN: Okay. And just to remind you,
22 that's not the only issue for consideration by
23 the committee, but I understood that was the
24 limitation.
25 I have reviewed -- I've spoken with
Diane M.
Tropia,
26
1 Mr. Goldsbury.
2 Let me give my name and address.
3 Paul Harden,
4 I've spoken with Mr. Goldsbury and reviewed
5 his notes and have taken notes on what he just
6 said, but let me put in context what the issue
7 is.
8 Mr. Lamb wants to repair the house -- or
9 build a new house and bring it up to current
10 code, which will require demolition of this
11 house. Mr. Goldsbury is saying, well, you don't
12 have to do that. You can do it based on the
13 code. And, in all due respect, what the
14 building code says -- and I'll read it to you --
15 with regard to wind design, which is the issue
16 on this, is wind design of existing buildings
17 shall be in accordance with the building codes
18 that were in effect when the building was
19 permitted. This building was permitted in
20 1920. There were no wind code requirements.
21 So according to the building code, then, as
22 Mr. Goldsbury said, we don't have to do as much
23 work. It's not safe to have a house currently
24 with wind load requirements that you had in
25 1920.
Diane M.
Tropia,
27
1 I understand and I appreciate
2 Mr. Goldsbury's position that he wouldn't force
3 us to do that. But Mr. Lamb, whose family would
4 be living in the house, prefers to bring it up
5 to current code. There were no codes in 1920.
6 The current wind load codes are 119 miles an
7 hour. That is his preference.
8 In all due respect, there is a report that
9 says every third one of the boards is missing.
10 And Tom told me candidly, he looked up in there,
11 didn't count it. He said he identified some
12 bowed -- of the one by ones. But every third
13 one is missing along, so -- but even if you went
14 back in and took one by ones and replaced every
15 third one of them, it doesn't nearly bring it up
16 to current code.
17 Again, there are -- this is not the only
18 criteria. But one of the criteria is the cost
19 of fixing the house, and the owner of the house
20 who actually is going to be living there with
21 his -- or somebody in his family is going to be
22 living there, wants the house to current code.
23 So the issue is, no, you don't have to do
24 it. You can let your family live in an unsafe
25 house or a house that doesn't meet current code,
Diane M.
Tropia,
28
1 or you can let them live in a house that meets
2 code from 1920. And, again, Mr. Goldsbury's
3 statement of what the code says was not exactly
4 accurate. I was letting -- I'm going to read --
5 I read to you what exactly what the requirements
6 are.
7 So on that one issue, yes, we understand
8 they could get by living in a house where you
9 replace every third board, which is what's
10 missing according to the report of the folks who
11 actually went up there and checked, or you could
12 bring it up to current code, which is our
13 preference, which is expensive, and that's why
14 we're asking for the demolition permit.
15 So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
17 And you have used three minutes.
18 MR. HARDEN: Yes, sir.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I'm not sure who
20 is going to be representing RAP.
21 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: But go ahead, sir. If you
23 could identify --
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: That would be me.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you Robin Lumb?
Diane M.
Tropia,
29
1 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am Robin Lumb, 2164
3 Has everybody gotten the packet that RAP
4 distributed today? It's a multi-page packet,
5 this one (indicating.) It's the updated. It's
6 got some of the materials we're referencing.
7 I believe they brought it down today, but
8 I'm not sure everybody got a chance to see it.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this it (indicating)?
10 MR. HARDEN: Mr. Chairman, apparently there
11 is ex-parte communication that hasn't been
12 revealed. I don't have a copy of it. May I
13 have a copy of it before you go forward?
14 MR. LUMB: Sure. I have a cold. I don't
15 want to give you this one.
16 MR. HARDEN: All right.
17 MR. LUMB: And I'm trying not to touch
18 anybody because I do have a cold.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Go ahead, sir.
20 MR. LUMB: Again, my name is Robin Lumb. I
21 live at
22 If you will recall, this committee, at the
23 end of the last hearing on resolution 2009-910,
24 narrowed the scope of the inquiry to the issue
25 of the structural soundness of the house on
Diane M.
Tropia,
30
2
3 Mr. Harden, who represents the appellant,
4 provided the narrative at the January LUZ
5 hearing and made particular point of a report
6 submitted by Mr. Dole Kelley, a structural
7 engineer hired by the appellant to evaluate the
8 present condition of the subject property.
9 Throughout his presentation, Mr. Harden
10 made repeated use of one particular argument
11 based on a portion of Mr. Kelley's report that
12 claimed that the cost of the structural repairs
13 that would be necessary to meet the requirements
14 of the 119-mile-per-hour wind load standard
15 would, and I quote, "far exceed the cost of
16 complete replacement."
17 Mr. Kelley's report made no credible claim
18 that the building was structurally unsound in
19 the present condition, but rather that the cost
20 of any repairs that met the requirements of the
21 updated
22 impractical. Mr. Harden's claim was of
23 sufficient concern to LUZ Committee members that
24 they postponed deliberations until Mr. Goldsbury
25 could submit his report.
Diane M.
Tropia,
31
1 As it turns out, Mr. Kelley, the expert
2 hired by the appellant and a licensed structural
3 engineer, got it wrong when he claimed that the
4 119-mile-per-hour wind load standard was the
5 controlling factor in assessing the structural
6 needs of the
7 I refer you to a letter of Thomas
8 Goldsbury, chief of the Building Inspection
9 Division and himself a licensed engineer who
10 inspected the property on February 9th of this
11 year. Again, this is in your packet.
12 Referring to the report submitted by
13 Mr. Kelley, Mr. Goldsbury's letter to Jason
14 Teal, the General Counsel's Office, states, and
15 I quote, "Mr. Kelley bases his conclusions on
16 the condition of the structure related to the
17 requirements of the current
18 code. However, the current
19 code is not appropriate for this historic
20 structure. Instead, the
21 has a section specifically addressing existing
22 historic structures which does not require
23 structural upgrades that the current code would
24 mandate.
25 "Instead, the existing historic structure
Diane M.
Tropia,
32
1 section only requires repairs if such are
2 necessary to bring the building back to the
3 condition it was originally designed and
4 constructed. Therefore, there is no requirement
5 for the structure to comply with the design
6 criteria to withstand a 119-mile-per-hour wind
7 load that is required by today's
8 building code as Mr. Kelley states."
9 It's quoting from Mr. Goldsbury's letter.
10 He goes on to say, "My personal inspection
11 conducted by Mr. Schock and myself did reveal
12 some limited bowing of vertical supports.
13 However, there was no evidence of widespread
14 damage or other structural issues that would
15 present any immediate danger or affecting the
16 overall structural soundness of the building.
17 It appears that the bowing may have been caused
18 by undersized vertical supports which can easily
19 be corrected using more appropriate materials."
20 In conclusion, states Mr. Goldsbury in his
21 letter, "Based on the existing historic
22 structure portion of the
23 and my personal inspection of the property, the
24 amount of existing damage is very small and the
25
Diane M.
Tropia,
33
1 structure be brought up to today's code and any
2 repairs could be performed per the original
3 design."
4 Turning from Mr. Goldsbury's report, draw
5 the committee's attention to the specific
6 language in the
7 specifically section 502.3. It says, "For
8 repairs in an historic building, replacement or
9 partial replacement of existing or missing
10 features that match the original in
11 configuration, height, size, and original
12 methods of construction shall be permitted."
13 Finally, let me read portions of a report
14 supplied by Richard Renstrom (phonetic), a
15 licensed structural engineer engaged by
16 Riverside Avondale Preservation to review the
17 two reports relied on by Mr. Harden, as well as
18 the report of Mr. Goldsbury.
19 I will note parenthetically that
20 Mr. Renstrom was not allowed access to the
21 property, so he had to conduct his review based
22 upon the existing documents and an examination
23 of the photographs.
24 Quoting directly from Mr. Renstrom's
25 report, these are his remarks: "I have reviewed
Diane M.
Tropia,
34
1 the materials you sent me concerning the home on
3 report by John Burrows, a building contractor,
4 by Dole Kelley, professional engineer, and by
5 Tom Goldsbury, a professional engineer.
6 The report of Mr. Burrows has two
7 structural items that I will comment on." This
8 is Mr. Renstrom talking. "One, the report
9 mentions that collar beams were not installed.
10 It is not unusual to find old homes without
11 these members." The report also notes that the
12 roof does not leak, which tells me the roof
13 structure is performing well and not allowing
14 unnecessary movement.
15 Number two, this report of Mr. Burrows also
16 mentions vertical members in the attic that are
17 bowed. These can be seen in the photos in the
18 report. If strengthening of these bowed members
19 is desired, nailing a couple of two-by-four
20 members to the existing members would fix any
21 weakness that the bowing members causes.
22 Mr. Renstrom concludes and concurs with
23 Mr. Kelley.
24 Mr. Kelley's letter addresses items that
25 need to be done in order to bring the home up to
Diane M.
Tropia,
35
1 current code. I agree with -- excuse me. He
2 concurs with Mr. Goldsbury's findings. I agree
3 with Mr. Goldsbury that the
4 code does not require the upgrading of existing
5 framing and that any need of repairs need only
6 match the original construction.
7 Riverside Avondale Preservation contacted a
8 local builder, a licensed building contractor,
9 asked him the cost of remediation to put in 40
10 new two-by-four roof support members, and he
11 came back with a price of $1,350. Once again,
12 that's in your packet.
13 In January, Mr. Harden laid out the terms
14 of this debate and safety wasn't an issue at
15 that time. It was a matter of the applicability
16 of the
17 remediation. But he said that the underlying
18 issue was one of structural soundness, which was
19 itself predicated on the claim that the house on
21 119-mile-per-hour wind load.
22 That argument, along with the claim that
23 the cost of any structural repair would be
24 excessive, can no longer be sustained. This is
25 an old home. It is the oldest home in its
Diane M. Tropia,
36
1 neighborhood and it has deferred maintenance
2 issues. But this home is structurally sound,
3 was lived in by the applicant's family until
4 2009. And for the purposes of the historic
5 preservation effort, has been surveyed and
6 listed as a contributing structure.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you have three minutes
8 remaining.
9 MR. LUMB: How many? Three minutes.
10 Thank you.
11 A prominent and well-respected member of
12 this community has appealed the ruling of the
13
14 asked this committee to exempt him from the
15 operation of the law. That is his perfect
16 right.
17 But the situation the appellant finds
18 himself in is not unique. Houses inside the
19 historic district are by definition old. If
20 Mr. Harden is concerned about safety issues now,
21 let me point out to this committee that by
22 Mr. Harden's own definition, every house in the
23 historic district is unsafe.
24
25 remediation to the current standard. And it may
Diane M.
Tropia,
37
1 be inconvenient to undergo that expense, but all
2 homes, regardless of age, require upkeep and
3 repair. If this committee overturns the
4
5 grants the demolition COA, it will set a
6 precedent that vitiates the Historic
7 Preservation ordinance.
8 If this committee does grant the
9 appellant's request, this committee would be
10 hard-pressed at any future time to uphold the
11 denial of any demolition COA inside the historic
12 district. Your decision could very well make or
13 break the cause of well-ordered historic
14 preservation in the city of
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
16 Next I have Kay Ehas.
17 MS. EHAS: Waive.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Mansfield, Jennifer
19
20 MS. MANSFIELD: Waive.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Pam Telis.
22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'll waive.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Paul Bremer.
24 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.
Diane M.
Tropia,
38
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you give your name and
2 address.
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: My name is Paul Bremer.
4 My address is
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 MR. BREMER: Real briefly, the house has
7 been standing since 1920. In my living memory,
8 there have been hurricanes that have hit this
9 city in 1948, in 1951 and 1964. And two -- we
10 had four in 2004 alone. The house is still
11 standing. There's no danger from hurricanes in
12 that house.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
15 Linda Bremer.
16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'll waive.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Carmen Godwin.
18 MS. GODWIN: Waive.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Frances Hallihan.
20 (Audience member approaches the podium.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry if I butchered your
22 name.
23 If you can give your name and address.
24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Frances Terry Hallihan,
25 and I live at
Diane M.
Tropia,
39
1 My family moved here as a permanent
2 resident in 2007 from
3 which is a very historic area, and there I
4 participated in many public hearings with regard
5 to historic properties and changes to those
6 historic properties.
7 I strongly urge the council to look at the
8 impact your approval of this appeal will have.
9 You previously designated this area, the
10 surrounding area as a historic district, and to
11 permit the demolition of one of the oldest homes
12 in that area is flying in the face of what you
13 did by the designation of a historic district.
14 I strongly urge you to deny the appeal and
15 to sustain that property such as this should be
16 renovated and remain historic.
17 Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
19 Greg Bowen.
20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Waive.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And
22 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Waive.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: That's all the cards I
24 have. Is there anyone else that would like to
25 speak in opposition?
Diane M.
Tropia,
40
1 MR. TEAL: (Inaudible.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we've got a
3 little bit of time left on RAP, but I'll give
4 you --
5 MR. TEAL: That's all I'm going to need.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. One minute.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. TEAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9 I just wanted to respond to some of the
10 comments that Mr. Harden made to the committee.
11 Basically, what Mr. Harden's position is is
12 that the property owner wants to bring the
13 property up to current code. That's not the
14 issue here. The issue here is -- according to
15 Dole Kelley, is whether it needs to be brought
16 up to the current code.
17 And I think it's clear from the -- really
18 the only expert in the subject matter that
19 testified tonight, Mr. Goldsbury, that it does
20 not need to be brought up to the current code,
21 which is borne out through the existing code
22 that was handed out to you-all.
23 The point is that they don't have to do
24 what Mr. Kelley says that they have to do. They
25 don't have to do any of the work that Mr. Kelley
Diane M.
Tropia,
41
1 says would be prohibitively expensive in his
2 letter. They don't have to do any of that.
3 They may want to, as Mr. Goldsbury testified,
4 but it's not required of them.
5 And I did want to also point out, in
6 conclusion, that the Historic Preservation
7 Commission -- I don't want to say regularly
8 approves demolitions, but they do approve them
9 with some frequency. But the reason why they do
10 is because the structures that they're looking
11 at are extremely deteriorated. They're at the
12 point where it would cost more to renovate the
13 structure than it would actually -- the value of
14 it, and this is not falling into that category.
15 Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
17 All right. Mr. Harden, you have up to
18 seven-and-a-half minutes to do your closing
19 remarks, and then we'll close the public hearing
20 and debate.
21 MR. HARDEN: Mr. Chairman, obviously some
22 of the folks got outside the scope and I'll need
23 to respond to them, but the issue isn't what my
24 client wants to do and doesn't want to do. And
25 Mr. Goldsbury is, in fact, an expert in his
Diane M.
Tropia,
42
1 field. He's not an expert in the law. In all
2 due respect, I am. And I want to read you
3 exactly what the code says.
4 "When design of the existing building
5 shall be in accordance with building codes that
6 were in effect when the building was
7 permitted." This is straight out of -- so the
8 question is, do you build it in accordance with
9 the 1920 building code, which is no wind loads,
10 or you build it in accordance with the current
11 one, which requires the 119 miles an hour.
12 Again, respectfully, if there's no reason
13 to have the 119 miles an hour and if it doesn't
14 need to be safe, then why is it in the law?
15 The gentleman said, oh, well, we've had
16 lots of hurricanes and that house hasn't blown
17 down. Well, yeah, it happens to be one that
18 didn't get blown down, but there were a lot of
19 buildings that were blown down that don't meet
20 119-mile-an-hour requirements. And that's why
21 the law of the state of
22 when you build a house, you have to make the
23 wind load -- I mean, the wind design so that it
24 holds the 119-mile-an-hour resistance.
25 My client prefers that his family live in a
Diane M.
Tropia,
43
1 house that meets the regulations of the current
2 code.
3 Now, that isn't the only issue for you to
4 consider. There are nine other criteria other
5 than financial hardship. But, in fact, it is a
6 financial hardship to meet that if you want to
7 live in a house that my folks think is a safe
8 house to live in.
9 The state of
10 reason. They made that -- the requirement for a
11 reason. So do you keep the 1920 requirement --
12 which is nothing; you don't have to do anything
13 to meet that code -- or do you bring it up to
14 the current code? And we have chosen to want to
15 bring it up to current code because we think the
16 current code sets forth safety standards that
17 the community has decided.
18 Mr. Lumb talked about this being a
19 precedence, but the fact of the matter is there
20 is a process whereby Mr. Lamb is entitled to go
21 through a hearing, go through the criteria, and
22 that's what you decide on. Not every house
23 that -- that -- you don't decide whether every
24 house in the
25 unsafe. You decide whether or not this house
Diane M.
Tropia,
44
1 meets the -- the request meets the criteria.
2 And, in all due respect, we went through those
3 criteria last time. And I think that Mr. Lamb,
4 in fact, does meet those criteria.
5 The precedence is not as to any other
6 structure, but as to this structure. And I
7 would ask that you go back and review those
8 criteria, review the record. You have before
9 you tonight just one of those issues. And the
10 issue isn't -- and, again, in all due respect,
11 if you look at it, it doesn't say that
12 structural integrity is one of the criteria.
13 It's an issue in one of the criteria, one of
14 three issues that come up in one of the ten
15 criteria. So it's not what you're supposed to
16 make your decision based upon.
17 There is a process. Mr. Lamb has gone
18 through that process. He's not being
19 willy-nilly about wanting to make the structure
20 safe. He has an alternative. That's to
21 demolish the house and build another house on
22 the lot.
23 The report of the Planning Department,
24 quite frankly, if you read it, minimizes the
25 value of this house to the historic district. I
Diane M.
Tropia,
45
1 understand my friend Mr. Corrigan wants to
2 protect the historic overlay and the criteria --
3 and the law that he helped write, but the fact
4 of the matter is that law built into it a
5 methodology to go through and do a demolition.
6 Mr. Lamb prefers to build a house in
7 accordance with current code, not leave the
8 house in accordance with the 1920 code, which
9 there were a lot of things different in 1920. I
10 don't have to name them for you, but the wind
11 load is the one that we're dealing with today,
12 and it requires that you hold 119 miles an hour,
13 and that's our preference.
14 So we don't want to stick back in every
15 third one-by-one and leave it that way. We
16 don't want to comply with 1920 requirements. We
17 want to bring it up to code, and the way that we
18 would do that is to allow demolition and new
19 construction.
20 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harden.
22 Any questions?
23 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, I will close
25 the public hearing.
Diane M.
Tropia,
46
1 And anybody who has any comments or
2 questions for any of the witnesses --
3 Mr. Corrigan.
4 Well, I have one, but I'll go after you.
5 MR. CORRIGAN: All right. Thank you.
6 Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for
7 Mr. Goldsbury, if I could.
8 Through the Chair to Mr. Goldsbury.
9 (Mr. Goldsbury approaches the podium.)
10 MR. CORRIGAN: Tom, first I want to thank
11 you for your -- going out and checking for the
12 committee and your willingness to be here
13 tonight.
14 The agent for the applicant referenced the
15 code and not meeting the code and that this
16 house won't meet wind code. I know in
17 Avondale there's some 3,000 homes that were
18 built over 50 years. I know you haven't been to
19 every one of them, but in your professional
20 opinion, how many of those do you think would
21 meet the current wind codes today?
22 MR. GOLDSBURY: Through the chair to
23 Councilman Corrigan, probably no building built
24 before 1994 is going to meet today's code.
25 After Hurricane Andrew, the building codes were
Diane M.
Tropia,
47
1 stiffened significantly and they've got a little
2 stiffer pretty much. Not every year. But
3 before then, before '94, the 1994 standard
4 building code, the houses were not built to any
5 kind of standards like that.
6 MR. CORRIGAN: Okay. And then Mr. Harden
7 was referring to building code standards that
8 are required to build now. My understanding was
9 that the code you use, when you looked at
10 buildings that are historic in nature, is the
11 501 section of the code; is that correct?
12 MR. GOLDSBURY: Correct. That can be.
13 You can design per other sections, but
14 that -- you are allowed to design per 501, yes.
15 MR. CORRIGAN: Okay. Thank you. I
16 appreciate it.
17 Mr. Chairman, I don't really have any more
18 questions. I can speak on it if you want to or
19 I can wait.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. Go ahead. I've got
21 other folks in the queue.
22 MR. CORRIGAN: Well, if there are other
23 questions, get the questions answered before
24 I --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll let you
Diane M.
Tropia,
48
1 summarize at the end, then.
2 I have a question, I guess, for Mr. Teal or
3 Mr. Reingold. I don't know who's better to
4 answer it.
5 My first question is, how long has this
6 owner of the home owned it?
7 MR. TEAL: I believe the testimony -- to
8 the Chair, I believe the testimony at the last
9 hearing is that he purchased it -- and I'm going
10 to -- around 1971.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
12 MR. TEAL: So he's owned it approximately
13 40 years.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If this -- if the
15 owner were allowed to demolish the home and
16 rebuild, what requirements would he have to
17 comply with for an historic nature?
18 MR. TEAL: To the Chair, any new
19 construction would have to comply with the
20 requirements of Chapter 307.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you go through those a
22 little bit?
23 MR. TEAL: We might want to let
24 Mr. McEachin do that since he's the expert in
25 the field.
Diane M.
Tropia,
49
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. McEachin, would
2 you tell us what he would have to comply with on
3 any new construction?
4 MR. McEACHIN: Yes, sir.
5 In -- new constructions would -- of course
6 they would always go to the commission. And the
7 criteria, we'd look at such things as
8 compatibility of massing, materials, setback.
9 And it would be done -- and not necessarily in
10 relation to what's there now, but in relation to
11 what's around it.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say surrounding it,
13 what do you mean, the street that he's on?
14 MR. McEACHIN: Yes.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Or the overall --
16 MR. McEACHIN: Yes. The street that he's
17 on, it would be in relation to what is there,
18 the common setbacks that are there, relationship
19 to building heights, massing, and materials.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
21 MR. McEACHIN: That's in a general sense,
22 but that's --
23 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. But,
24 architecturally, would it have to be consistent
25 with homes in that area, with the style of
Diane M.
Tropia,
50
1 architecture, the products that are used?
2 MR. McEACHIN: It would, again, relate to
3 stylistic elements that would be found in that
4 area, as well as materials too, although there
5 are some degree of flexibility as it relates to
6 materials such as a contemporary new building.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
8 Mr. Redman.
9 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10 Mr. Goldsbury.
11 (Mr. Goldsbury approaches the podium.)
12 MR. REDMAN: Through the Chair to
13 Mr. Goldsbury, thanks again for your coming
14 down.
15 I know you testified to the wind load of
16 this house, but how would this house,
17 structurally, in your opinion, compare to the
18 other houses in the -- in that -- on that street
19 or in that -- in that area?
20 MR. GOLDSBURY: Through the Chair to
21 Councilman Redman, I really didn't look at all
22 the other houses in the area. I did notice a
23 few. A few were definitely newer, probably in
24 better shape, probably a little stronger, but
25 I'd -- I'd really be hard-pressed to give you an
Diane M.
Tropia,
51
1 answer on that. I really didn't look at the
2 other houses.
3 MR. REDMAN: Were there other houses around
4 there that have been recently constructed or
5 reconstructed? Recently built where another
6 house was tore down?
7 MR. GOLDSBURY: I believe that's true, but
8 I -- I didn't research that.
9 MR. REDMAN: Okay. Thank you.
10 Mr. Teal, could you answer that question
11 or . . .
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Either one.
13 MR. McEACHIN: Through the Chair to
14 Councilman Redman, I believe that we actually
15 have one going to the commission either this
16 month -- on the property -- in the same block of
17 Greenwood Avenue.
18 MR. REDMAN: That is being --
19 MR. McEACHIN: A new building, a new house.
20 MR. REDMAN: Coming up on a vacant lot
21 where a previous house was constructed?
22 MR. McEACHIN: Yes. But that previous
23 house was not contributing to the district. It
24 was demolished by virtue of the fact that it was
25 not identified as being historic. It was so
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
52
1 altered that it didn't have any kind of historic
2 fabric left to it.
3 MR. REDMAN: Okay. Thank you.
4 Okay. Mr. Corrigan, give me a better
5 answer.
6 MR. CORRIGAN: I can expand on it a little
7 bit.
8 There's approximately four new houses in
9 that area. The historic district boundary does
10 not cover that entire neighborhood. It cuts off
11 one line. I don't know why it does and never
12 really figured it out, but there was about four
13 houses that were built in the last ten years
14 that are actually just outside that boundary.
15 And I know two of the four or about three of the
16 four were because the two homes that were there
17 were just -- were damaged by the hurricanes back
18 in '03 and '04 and were flooded and then were
19 deemed to be not repairable, so they were torn
20 down and new houses were built.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Corrigan.
22 Mr. Jones.
23 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 Through the Chair to Mr. Teal. Can you
25 mention the other criteria? I apologize. I
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
53
1 wasn't here at the last meeting. And if this
2 request meets any of the requirements of the
3 other.
4 MR. TEAL: Through the Chair to
5 Councilmember Jones. I think I'm going to again
6 defer to Joel McEachin. He's the one that
7 actually wrote the report on this item, so he
8 can testify better about what's in it.
9 MR. JONES: Through the Chair to
10 Mr. McEachin, I think there are nine or ten
11 criteria.
12 MR. McEACHIN: Yes. Through the Chair to
13 Councilman Jones, yes, there's ten criteria.
14 There's four what we call general standards that
15 are applied to all work that's done in the
16 district. And I can go through them one by one,
17 but I guess the -- probably the best way to do
18 it is to summarize it.
19 When we talk about the buildings and the
20 significance to the district, we're not -- we're
21 relating it as to whether there's a high style
22 or not as a high style. That's not what we'd be
23 looking at when we're talking about the
24 importance to the district. But the importance
25 to the district is a contributing property. It
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
54
1 has enough of its historic fabric to remain a
2 contributing property. So, therefore, the
3 importance of it architecturally is not whether
4 it's high style or not high style. Obviously,
5 it's not and there's other examples not only in
6 the district but in the city.
7 But its context -- but its relationship in
8 the context of the district is as important as
9 any other building in the district, whether it
10 be on Richmond Street or Park Street or any part
11 of the Riverside Avondale historical district.
12 MR. JONES: So it did meet the -- those
13 four criteria?
14 MR. McEACHIN: Well, that's one of them.
15 I'm not sure there's -- repeatedly talked
16 about in the report. And I just want to make it
17 very clear that the reason we felt like that the
18 demolition -- that we recommend that the
19 demolition not go forward is the fact that it is
20 a contributing building and it has enough of its
21 historic fabric. It's not been altered that
22 much.
23 MR. JONES: Okay.
24 MR. McEACHIN: The alterations that have
25 been done to it are very, very reversible. I
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
55
1 mean, you can take those wood shingles off in a
2 day and re-expose the original siding, which
3 seems to be in pretty good shape. It's got some
4 original windows. And we think there's a side
5 of the porch that was enclosed. So these are
6 not alterations that could not be reversed
7 easily.
8 MR. JONES: Okay. All right.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. McEACHIN: At great difficulty --
11 I'm sorry.
12 The building, as you already heard, is --
13 it's not difficult or impossible from saving it
14 from collapse. There's no establishment that
15 there was an economic hardship on return of its
16 value. And, again, it still contributes to the
17 district. And we also didn't feel like that the
18 case had been made that this was an undue
19 economic hardship as defined in the ordinance
20 code.
21 So, in summary, our recommendation to the
22 commission -- and the commission accepted our
23 report -- was that the case had not been made
24 per the ten criteria to warrant demolition of
25 the property.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
56
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
2 MR. JONES: And did it meet any of the ten
3 requirements for demolition?
4 MR. McEACHIN: Well, there's such things
5 as, for example, where the building can he
6 replaced. Let me just sort of read it to you
7 because that's probably the best way to explain
8 it.
9 There's things like, you know, whether the
10 building is one of the -- is a remaining -- many
11 examples of its kind in the neighborhood or the
12 county, region. Of course it's not.
13 There's a criteria about the difficulty and
14 the possibility of reproducing such a building
15 or structure because of its design, texture,
16 material, detail or location. Again, it would
17 be very possible for somebody to build a house
18 very similar to that. It relates to height,
19 massing, setbacks, construction material.
20 So there are certain criteria, yes, that
21 you might be in favor of the demolition. But,
22 overall, when you balance out the ten criteria
23 and what they're saying, is that we do not think
24 that case has made.
25 MR. JONES: Okay. All right.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
57
1 Thank you.
2 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
4 Mr. Brown.
5 MR. BROWN: Yes. Through the Chair, a few
6 questions. Looking at remodeling versus the
7 demolition process, will it reduce the value of
8 the property to demolish the house and then
9 rebuild it with original or like materials
10 versus remodeling the property as it is right
11 now?
12 MR. TEAL: Through the Chair to
13 Councilmember Brown, there have been actual
14 studies that were done on the economic impact of
15 historic preservation; namely, the University of
16 Florida did one in -- I believe it was 2004, and
17 that's -- historic properties actually do retain
18 their value and increase in value based upon the
19 fact that they are protected.
20 In essence, that -- because there's
21 economic comfort, if you will, in property value
22 for knowing exactly what your neighbors are
23 allowed or permitted to do and what they're not
24 allowed or permitted to do. And so there is
25 value in maintaining the integrity of the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
58
1 historic district based upon that.
2 As far as the economic valve of new
3 construction, that would be based in large part
4 on square footage, on, you know, those kinds of
5 things. And, you know -- so, you know, it might
6 be a little bit apples to oranges comparison
7 there because of the difference in, you know,
8 kind of the special category that a historic
9 structure would have versus new construction.
10 Studies have shown that there is economic
11 value in maintaining and preserving historic
12 districts and that they do increase in value.
13 Not only that, but they're somewhat insulated
14 from drops in the market because it is a kind of
15 specialized real estate desire.
16 MR. BROWN: Okay. So unlike remodeling and
17 then -- if it's a demolition process, then the
18 home is no longer categorized as historic?
19 MR. TEAL: Correct. The value in the -- in
20 what's called historic fabric is original. You
21 could have a, you know, Hollywood reproduction
22 of a historic district. But even though it
23 might look exactly like a historic district,
24 it's not a historic district.
25 The value in the historically-significant
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
59
1 features are because they are the original types
2 of features, which is why demolition is
3 considered to be, you know, kind of the ultimate
4 removal of historic fabric because you cannot go
5 back and recreate, you know, wood that was built
6 in 1920 or windows that were constructed in
7 1920. And that's where the value comes from, is
8 in the original features and in the original
9 materials of the design structure.
10 MR. BROWN: Okay. And then one other
11 concern that I see with this is that oftentimes
12 we may have intent to build and something
13 happened and then the property becomes vacant.
14 Is there a required time line if we were to move
15 forward in terms of new development?
16 MR. TEAL: The ordinance code doesn't
17 specify any turnaround time, if you will, for
18 any demolished property. Some vacant properties
19 can remain vacant or will remain vacant until a
20 property owner decides that they want to or that
21 the market is capable of supporting
22 redevelopment or new development on a piece of
23 property.
24 So the ordinance code doesn't require that
25 once a property is demolished you have "X"
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
60
1 amount of time in order to build it. So it can
2 be vacant for as long as the property owner
3 desires that it remains so.
4 MR. BROWN: Okay. My final question -- I
5 really didn't get a clear answer. As to the
6 best practice, did we have a situation in the
7 district, one that we can -- an address that we
8 can identify where it was demolished, rebuilt,
9 and we could determine that it -- what they call
10 value added to the community? Oftentimes that
11 kind of gives us guidance as to whether we can
12 move in that direction if we have a best
13 practice.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan.
15 MR. CORRIGAN: Through the Chair to
16 Councilmember Brown, I don't know of one.
17 There's been a significant number of vacant
18 properties that have been vacant for a long time
19 prior to -- prior to -- many of them prior to
20 even Riverside Avondale Preservation being
21 established, that in the last decade SRG and
22 several other quality builders have come in and
23 built fantastic homes on those vacant lots.
24 I don't remember one that was -- an
25 application for demolition was granted since the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
61
1 historic district has been established and then
2 a new home built on it. Every other case of new
3 construction happened either because it was a
4 vacant lot or maybe Property Safety went in and
5 tore down a home that physically was falling
6 down and then there might have been something
7 built on that, but I think this would set a
8 precedent if we did this today.
9 MR. BROWN: Okay. Then my final question,
10 do we know the number of vacant properties in
11 this area, in this historic district, you know,
12 where properties were demolished --
13 MR. CORRIGAN: I don't know that.
14 MR. BROWN: -- and not rebuilt?
15 MR. CORRIGAN: I mean, it's a pretty big --
16 Riverside Avondale historic districts are pretty
17 big districts. Joel would be the best one --
18 most likely one to be able to answer that. No,
19 not me.
20 (Mr. Jones assumes the Chair.)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McEachin.
22 MR. McEACHIN: Again, through the Chair to
23 Councilman Brown, I -- of course, I don't know
24 off the top of my head how many vacant lots
25 we're talking about in the Riverside Avondale
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
62
1 historic district. I will say in some of the
2 new construction, developers or the initial
3 developers is -- they have a hard time finding
4 lots because they're very interested in getting
5 lots because there's a market for new homes in
6 the district. And the reason why there is is
7 because -- the ambience of the district and the
8 special (inaudible) of place that these
9 districts have.
10 Also, regarding the economic study,
11 Riverside Avondale and Springfield was two of
12 the neighborhoods that the -- that was used in
13 this statewide economic study to show this --
14 not only this maintenance of value, but usually
15 an increase in value compared to nonhistoric
16 neighborhoods.
17 MR. BROWN: Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
19 Mr. Holt.
20 MR. HOLT: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
21 Okay. Well, we've learned a lot about
22 historic districts. Some of the things I did
23 not know, that there have been other homes on
24 this road that have been demolished and rebuilt
25 on. And this particular property has been owned
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
63
1 by the same owner since the '70s, prior to the
2 historic district being established.
3 And one of the things that Mr. Teal had
4 said was that if someone were to rebuild on
5 there, they would be held to certain
6 requirements to be consistent with the other
7 properties, which it seems to me that this
8 property is not consistent with a lot of its
9 neighbors, from what was said earlier, that many
10 of the properties around it are larger and some
11 of them new, some of them older and historic.
12 And I tend to think that it's -- the proper
13 thing to do here is to allow the demolition.
14 What I fear, though, is that the property would
15 end up staying vacant for a period of time. I
16 know you were just saying there is quite a bit
17 of market for rebuilding in the area, but I'd
18 like to have some sort of guarantee that it's
19 not going to sit vacant for a while. That's
20 what gives me pause.
21 Mr. Harden, can you come up, please.
22 (Mr. Harden approaches the podium.)
23 MR. HOLT: And I'm asking you this on the
24 spot. So if you can't make a commitment for
25 your client, then I understand.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
64
1 But, like I said, my -- what gives me pause
2 is that we wouldn't want to see this property
3 demolished and then just sit vacant for years
4 and years.
5 Would your client be willing to guarantee
6 us that within a certain number of years that a
7 new home would be built that would comply with
8 the historic district?
9 And, if so, Mr. Teal, how would we remedy
10 that situation? How would we guarantee that
11 happens? Once it's demolished, do we have any
12 ability to fine them or in some way make sure
13 that they build within a certain amount of time
14 that we agree upon?
15 Mr. Harden, if you could answer first.
16 MR. HARDEN: Yeah. I don't think that's an
17 unreasonable request. On the other hand,
18 there's a lot on my street that's been vacant
19 since I've been living there. So I think
20 probably the issue may be to refocus, it would
21 be that the lot not be maintained as a dirt lot,
22 that it be grassed over or landscaped so long as
23 it's not rebuilt, because there are vacant lots
24 all over lots of communities.
25 I mean, the intention is -- you know, is
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
65
1 within the foreseeable future for his family to
2 build a house there.
3 Make sure -- and I think Jason went through
4 and described -- or maybe it was Joel -- it's
5 going to have to be rebuilt. And, of course,
6 with the criteria, you've got to go get a
7 similar approval to build it. So, you know,
8 there's going to be some criteria that we'll
9 require it be consistent with the development in
10 the neighborhood.
11 I don't have a guess as to how quick. I
12 don't -- you know, I'm willing to, you know,
13 have a time frame and as long as it can be
14 revisited. But I think the key would be that it
15 not be an eyesore while it's a vacant lot, that
16 it be grassed or maintained in a -- you know, a
17 nice-looking situation as long as it's an empty
18 lot.
19 So, yeah.
20 MR. HOLT: That would be in accordance --
21 Mr. Teal, is there any way that we could
22 have some sort of ability to fine them if they
23 do not comply with -- and I'm just throwing out
24 a number here -- within three years of the demo,
25 that a new house be constructed?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
66
1 MR. TEAL: Through the Chair to the
2 Chair --
3 MR. HARDEN: Through the Chair to the
4 Chair.
5 MR. TEAL: -- the really -- I mean, I think
6 the issue here is that once the building is
7 down, it's down, and that that promise is really
8 only as good as the building goes down.
9 You know, yeah, we could technically fine
10 them, you know, up to $500 for a violation of
11 the zoning code, which I guess this would be.
12 But, you know, I think that the real issue here
13 is that you really can't properly hold their
14 feet to the fire because of the fact that if
15 they don't comply, we've still lost the
16 building.
17 And so in --
18 MR. HOLT: So you said up to $500. I know
19 some of these fines they approve daily or --
20 would it be a situation where if they did not
21 comply, they would be subject to a fine of $500
22 a day?
23 MR. TEAL: Correct.
24 The zoning code does make every day a
25 separate violation. And so it would be a matter
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
67
1 of instituting a civil action to require or to
2 get a court order basically to get that amount.
3 But, yeah, we would be able to do $500 a day.
4 MR. HOLT: Okay. First of all, let me --
5 Mr. Reingold, is it proper for me, out of the
6 chair, to suggest an amendment?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You could do it.
8 MR. HOLT: Okay. I would suggest that --
9 and feel free to jump in there, anybody else,
10 and work with this.
11 But I would suggest that maybe the thing to
12 do would be to require that the site be
13 maintained and grassed, if it is demolished, and
14 require that within three years that a new
15 structure be built that complies with the
16 historic commission. And, if not, then they can
17 be fined $500 a day.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: There's an amendment by
19 Mr. Holt. Is there a second to that amendment?
20 MR. REDMAN: Second.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Second by Mr. Redman.
22 Discussion -- on the amendment now. We're
23 on the amendment.
24 Okay. I've got Mr. Davis and then
25 Mr. Joost.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
68
1 MR. DAVIS: I think the intent of the
2 amendment is a noble intent. I just don't know
3 how you can enforce this or -- say they sell the
4 lot and some unsuspecting buyer purchases it and
5 realizes they've got a $40,000 lien on the lot
6 that they didn't know about.
7 I just -- I agree with your intent. I just
8 don't know how you could actually make it
9 happen. So I don't know if I could support it,
10 although I agree with it. So that's the only
11 comment I have on the amendment.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
13 Mr. Joost and then Mr. Brown.
14 MR. JOOST: I agree with Mr. Davis. I
15 don't know -- this -- me, personally, this is
16 why I don't really like all the historic
17 districts, because then you start telling the
18 landowners what they can and can't do with their
19 land and this and that. And, you know, you're
20 making rules up as you go.
21 But given that this is a historical
22 district, the value in the home is the historic
23 nature. Once you take the home down, the
24 history is gone, you know. And now you set the
25 precedent which starts eroding the value of the
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
69
1 other neighborhoods.
2 And, interestingly enough, the other
3 gentleman that was talking about the
4 hurricanes -- I'd already pulled up a track of
5 Hurricane Dora. It hit at the very southern
6 part of St. Johns County. That means this house
7 would have been in the northeast quadrant, the
8 strongest part of the hurricane, where the winds
9 were 110 miles an hour. I just looked it up --
10 as reported by the National Oceanic and
11 Atmospheric Administration.
12 Okay. This house -- that was 1964 these
13 people built the house or bought it in 1971. So
14 within a relatively short period, this house has
15 already proven that it can withstand
16 110-mile-an-hour winds. For me, that pretty
17 much determines where I'm going to go with it.
18 Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 Mr. Brown and then Mr. Corrigan.
21 MR. BROWN: Yes, through the Chair. I do
22 agree with what was stated. How do we enforce
23 this noble -- as I heard, "noble"
24 recommendation?
25 I'm more interested in, if we were going to
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
70
1 move forward in demolishing the building -- or
2 the home, the dwelling and the landscape, make
3 sure that everything is dug out and -- you know,
4 grass is fine. But I can tell you that if it's
5 unkempt, it would make the rest of the community
6 look bad.
7 And I also can tell you that in terms of
8 the fines, I have a building within District 10,
9 the fines have exceeded over $200,000. It's
10 still open. The appeal process has happened,
11 forgiveness, opportunities to get it right. So,
12 you know, I don't know whether I want to put the
13 community through that process.
14 But I will say, you know, if we're going
15 to -- you know, I'll wait and hear from the
16 district councilperson, but if we're going to --
17 and then how do you require a homeowner that,
18 for whatever reason, say, you know what, I want
19 to start over, you know, in this process, and
20 really falls within the boundaries of the law to
21 do it? Now, how do we say, no, you know, other
22 than the fact that, you know, when they entered
23 into this community -- I guess that was in
24 1971. Was it written then that this would not
25 happen?
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
71
1 You know, I mean, we're really kind of
2 bordering on a lot of issues here. But I will
3 say this, that the community, regardless of what
4 happens to it, that the property should not
5 become an eyesore for the community. And that
6 would be my biggest concern. But, again, I'll
7 wait and kind of hear from the district
8 councilperson.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. HOLT: I will withdraw the --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan, I think you'll
12 like his motion to withdraw. So without -- I
13 guess you'll have to vote on it unless somebody
14 has an objection.
15 The amendment has been withdrawn. I
16 have --
17 (Mr. Holt resumes the Chair.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Corrigan, do you want to
19 go -- I've got two more.
20 MR. CORRIGAN: I'll wait.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Joost, you're on
22 next or did you already --
23 MR. JOOST: Yes.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: You're done.
25 Okay. Mr. Redman.
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
72
1 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 On the issue of having vacant property, if
3 I remember correctly, in our previous meeting
4 that the statement was made that this property
5 might be vacant for some time before they decide
6 to build. I don't remember who said that, but
7 that was brought up at that time. And that -- I
8 don't think that's the right thing to do. If
9 you're going to tear it down and build something
10 else comparable, that's one thing, but to tear
11 it down and leave a vacant lot there for a long
12 period of time is another.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Redman.
15 Mr. Corrigan.
16 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 I'll answer the question before it was
18 withdrawn. The only real evidence we have on
19 what's going to happen with the land is what
20 Mr. Lamb, who owns the property, said at the
21 Planning Commission [sic]. He said that when --
22 he rented the house for a number of years. And
23 when both the people that lived there went on,
24 "My desire would be to demolish it and grass it
25 and save it for my grandchildren."
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
73
1 He doesn't want to build a house. He
2 doesn't want a house, and his testimony says, "I
3 don't want to be a landlord. I want the house
4 out of my way," so -- if he wanted to get the
5 house out of his way, he could have put it on
6 the market and sold it. And he's never put it
7 on the market. He wants to maintain the
8 property. He just wants to clear it and keep it
9 clear, according to his testimony that's in the
10 documents that you were given on the appeal.
11 First let me thank the committee for taking
12 the time, twice, to spend a great deal of time
13 on this. I appreciate it.
14 I'm not going to reiterate everything I
15 said before on why I'm -- why I think that the
16 committee should move to not grant the appeal.
17 There was a question raised, I think by
18 Councilman Jones, about does it meet the
19 criteria or whatever, and I'll repeat what I
20 said last time. There's ten criteria. It met
21 seven of the ten criteria not to tear it down.
22 There are three of the ten criteria that said,
23 you know, there's a bunch of houses like it and
24 it could be duplicated -- and I don't know
25 exactly what the third one was, but -- and
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
74
1 70 percent of it -- of the findings by the
2 professionals that we pay a lot of money to,
3 which is the Planning Department, said this
4 doesn't warrant tearing down. It will be a
5 detriment if you tear it down. That's what
6 you've got to make your decision on.
7 It's a tough decision. I am glad I'm not
8 on LUZ and don't have to make the decision
9 because it -- it's easy to say, golly -- and I
10 guess Mr. Joost kind of -- almost said it. It's
11 just a historic house and it's a pain in the
12 rear. Not in this case. This case, it's
13 setting a precedent that's going to say, you
14 know, this house and another house -- what about
15 the house next door to me?
16 I mean, gosh, I don't want to have to come
17 back three years from now and have to argue why
18 the house next door to me should not be torn
19 down. I bought my house in Avondale because I
20 knew the rest of my block was going to be there,
21 short of having a devastating fire or
22 something -- a tree fall through it or something
23 else. That's why the majority of people live in
24 Riverside/Avondale, it's because they know that
25 they're going to have old houses around and
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
75
1 they're going to live in an old house.
2 I don't want to know how close my house
3 comes to meeting code. That's not the issue
4 here. The issue here is should this house,
5 which, according to the expert, Mr. Goldsbury,
6 says is structurally safe to be there, should it
7 stay there or should it be removed and replaced
8 with a grass lot that's going to have long-term,
9 permanent damage to that historic fabric of that
10 neighborhood.
11 So I would encourage one of the committee
12 members to make a motion to deny the appeal,
13 let's vote on it, and then go home and have a
14 great evening.
15 Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redman.
17 MR. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
18 And this is a tough one because I could see
19 merit on both sides to -- could go either way.
20 And with something this close and an issue this
21 close, I have to follow the lead of the district
22 councilperson in this area. He has to deal with
23 this neighborhood on a regular basis and, you
24 know, he -- I feel like he knows the issue and
25 the neighborhood better than we can understand
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
76
1 it at this point, so I support him on this.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jones.
3 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 I -- it is a difficult issue, but I think
5 the way these districts are established -- there
6 was a vote, and there are some neighborhoods who
7 have applied for the historic designation and
8 not received it because the people in that
9 neighborhood didn't want the restrictions that
10 it placed on it. Riverside Avondale is one of
11 those areas that did vote for this. And with
12 that in mind and the fact that it does not meet
13 all the criteria, I would support the district
14 councilman and the staff recommendation and
15 recommend that we deny the appeal.
16 MR. JOOST: Second.
17 MR. JONES: I move the amendment to deny
18 the appeal.
19 MR. JOOST: Second.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second
21 to deny the appeal.
22 I've got two other people on -- on queue
23 that wanted to speak before that motion.
24 Mr. Joost, is that what you wanted to say?
25 MR. JOOST: (Nods head.)
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
77
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we have
2 Mr. Gaffney to speak.
3 DR. GAFFNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 One question to Mr. Harden. Can I ask you
5 a question, please?
6 (Mr. Harden approaches the podium.)
7 DR. GAFFNEY: Just want to get a little
8 clarity here.
9 What is the intent of your client with this
10 property?
11 MR. HARDEN: To rebuild.
12 DR. GAFFNEY: To rebuild?
13 MR. HARDEN: Yes.
14 DR. GAFFNEY: Within what kind of time
15 frame?
16 MR. HARDEN: He doesn't have a time frame.
17 We're agreeable to the three-year time
18 frame. I asked him that during the break.
19 DR. GAFFNEY: Okay. Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing no further speakers,
21 we have --
22 MR. JOOST: I still want to speak on the
23 motion.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Joost.
25 MR. JOOST: I think also what -- part of
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
78
1 what we're doing here is -- if you go back to
2 the original pictures, to the first hearing,
3 they've owned this house since 1971 and it's
4 been rented out a long time. There are
5 obviously deferred maintenance issues. Okay?
6 So, you know, in the back of my mind --
7 like some of the other council people said,
8 yeah, there are merits to both arguments. But
9 in the back of my mind, I'm sitting here saying,
10 well, if you let them tear the house down, are
11 you rewarding bad behavior? Because they failed
12 to maintain their property and allowed these
13 maintenance issues to build up, build up, build
14 up, you know, over time.
15 And so that -- you know, looking
16 historically at what happened, you know, with
17 Hurricane Dora -- I know these -- you know, at
18 one time, this house, yeah, it stood up to
19 110-mile-an-hour winds. Yeah, they've owned
20 this house for almost 40 years. You know, and
21 the fact that -- if you look at the original
22 pictures, the landowner is the one that allowed
23 it to deteriorate to its current condition, and
24 that's why -- you know, like I said before,
25 generally, I don't like the historical
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
79
1 designations because then it gets into where
2 people can tell me what I can do with my
3 property. But given the fact that this is a
4 historical district, the people voted for it,
5 those are -- those are the rules, I cannot
6 support the demolition at this point and I
7 believe we should deny it.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Any other
9 speakers?
10 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: None. All right. Well, we
12 have an amendment to deny the waiver.
13 All in favor of the amendment signify by
14 saying aye.
15 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed.
17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: (No response.)
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I need a motion to deny.
19 MR. JONES: Move the bill as amended to
20 deny.
21 MR. BROWN: Second.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to amend
23 to deny the waiver.
24 Please open the ballot.
25 (Committee ballot opened.)
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
80
1 MR. HOLT: (Votes nay.)
2 MR. JONES: (Votes yea.)
3 MR. BROWN: (Votes yea.)
4 MR. DAVIS: (Votes yea.)
5 DR. GAFFNEY: (Votes yea.)
6 MR. JOOST: (Votes yea.)
7 MR. REDMAN: (Votes yea.)
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Close the ballot, record the
9 vote.
10 (Committee ballot closed.)
11 MS. LAHMEUR: Six yeas, one nay.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: By your action, you have
13 denied the waiver.
14 All right. And I believe that is the end
15 of our agenda, folks.
16 MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 (The above proceedings were adjourned at
18 6:31 p.m.)
19 - - -
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203
81
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA:
4 COUNTY OF DUVAL :
5
6 I, Diane M. Tropia, certify that I was
7 authorized to and did stenographically report the
8 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a
9 true and complete record of my stenographic notes.
10 Dated this 7th day of March, 2010.
11
12
13
14 Diane M. Tropia
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Diane M. Tropia, P.O. Box 2375, Jacksonville, FL 32203