16 Responses to “Agenda, May 28 Architectural Review Board meeting”

1. posted by James Wesley Medlin at May 22, 2008 5:17 pm :
   

   The ARB is a joke. I see the trailer is back on their agenda. No wonder Folly Castle is for sale.

2. posted by David P. at May 22, 2008 7:20 pm :
   

   Ahhh, but it’s been moved! Rather than asking to place it on W. Washington St., they are asking to place it on Lafayette St.

   If you believe this is an exceptionally bad idea, as I do, please try to appear at the meeting and voice your opinion.

   I simply do not thing that trailers belong in historic districts.

3. posted by James Wesley Medlin at May 22, 2008 7:46 pm :
   

   There are those in Petersburg who LOVE to embrace exceptionally bad ideas. Very regrettably, they seem to run the place.

4. posted by brenda p at May 24, 2008 5:18 pm :
   

   The demo discussion (423 S. Sycamore — item 5.d. on the agenda) references this property.

5. posted by David P. at May 24, 2008 5:46 pm :
   

   Since coming to Petersburg, I’ve been in many houses (including ours) that some folks once said were too far gone and should just be torn down. And several of those houses have made it back into prime time.

   I walked through this particular house at 423 with the owner. This was *before* the tree fell into it during the hurricane. The front was still on the house when we toured it but, as Shawn has indicated elsewhere, it was clear even at that time that the owner had paid too much for what he got. I literally put my leg (up to the knee) through the rotted flooring. And that was before the interior had been completely exposed to the elements for a few years.

   By the way, I was sort of surprised at the liability situation after the tree fell from an adjacent property onto this building. As I understand it, the owner of the property in which the tree had stood was not liable for any damages to the property on which the tree fell. Somehow that doesn’t seem fair to me. But then, the mysteries of insurance remain a foreign language to me. I don’t know if the owner of 423 had insurance coverage that applied, but I’m pretty confident in my belief that the owner of the neighboring property had insurance that did not cover the event.

   I’m sad to say it, but I think this one’s beyond even irrational hope. If the owner did get any insurance monies out of this, he likely saw it akin to winning the lottery!

6. posted by David P. at May 28, 2008 9:19 am :
   

   This meeting is tonight. A proposed double wide trailer (temporary) in the Folly Castle Historic District is on the agenda (Disclaimer: I live in that district).

   I believe that the ARB has recently shown arrogant disregard for the residents of the historic districts and that it would be a good thing if the public demonstrates to them that what the ARB does/says matters to us.

   Please consider coming to voice your opinion, whatever it be.

7. posted by shawn at May 28, 2008 2:33 pm :
   

   When will it come up? I have a late appt. tonight.

8. posted by David P. at May 28, 2008 6:23 pm :
   

   ‘Should be pretty early; it is, I think, second COA request on the agenda.

9. posted by David P. at May 28, 2008 8:59 pm :
   

   ARB vote with respect to placement of the trailer on Lafayette St., 3 opposed (Rob, Terry and Lee), 1 in favor (Ward). I expect either an appeal or yet another application.

10. posted by brenda p at May 28, 2008 9:56 pm :
    

    Thanks for the vote info David.

11. posted by shawn at May 28, 2008 9:58 pm :
    

    My last appt. was at 7:45…

    I think the problem is that the islamic center has not built up any good-will, or trust.

    Didn’t they use false pretenses to put the old trailer there in the first place?

12. posted by brenda p at May 29, 2008 9:05 am :
    

    Shawn, at Council (cannot speak for ARB, as I could not attend), the Q&A focused entirely on the nature of the request (e.g., whether a trailer should be in a historic district, even on a temporary basis), not the history of the org submitting the request.

13. posted by James Wesley Medlin at May 29, 2008 12:30 pm :
    

    God should not be able to erect a double-wide in a historic district

14. posted by David P. at May 29, 2008 12:36 pm :
    

    Last night the focus at the ARB was also on the proposal for a temporary structure. Isaac was championing the notion that the guidelines permit approval of a temporary structure at odds with the historic character of the neighborhood, for a period not to exceed 5 years, providing three conditions were met. The condition in question last night was whether the Islamic Center is under hardship. Last night, the ARB voted that they were not.

    The question more fundamental to me is whether the guidelines *require* approval should a hardship be proven, or whether they *permit* an approval should a state of hardship be established.

    If anyone with authority reads this and has the answer to my question, I’d surely like to see it.

15. posted by gloriosa at May 30, 2008 10:29 pm :
    

    re: the guidelines question. The guidelines have nothing to say about hardship. The ARB is required to make their decision based on the guidelines. If there are extenuating circumstances that would require that the decision be made using a different frame of reference for approval, the appeal process is in place to address these situations. The ARB is not charged with doing the due diligence that would be required to determine hardship and there is currently no set of guidelines in place to say whether what is a hardship to you would be a hardship to me. When St. Paul’s Episcopal Church wanted to replace their slate roof with a new slate roof, they did not want to pay to have the decorative slate shapes replaced in-kind due to the cost. They pleaded hardship and the ARB bought it and let them use just basic slates for the entire roof. Hardship for me may not be hardship for you.

    As for the demolition on Sycamore Street. This is exactly one of the most important things HPF should exist to do. To take on projects that would not be easy or manageable for a private individual. They have always resisted stepping forward to save historic structures that are key components of neighborhoods and streetscapes unless they were grand houses. HPF should be able to leverage their resources to make the necessary repairs that would allow a private individual to be able to reasonably restore a house like this.
    In addition, where have they been for the last 5 years while the house deteriorated to the point it is at now? No one has stepped forward until they think demolition is the only option.

    They could create an entity that could take advantage of the tax credits and enterprise zone incentives that would be available to this project and pass them on to a future owner. (would probably be a minimum of 100k) It would take a little work to investigate these things and demolition is always faster and easier.

    There are plenty of photos of this house before the demo after the storm and its restoration, although costly, would prevent another empty hole from growing tall grass in our historic neighborhoods.

    To the family that might live in this historic house one day, this would be the most important house in the Poplar Lawn District.

16. posted by James Wesley Medlin at May 31, 2008 9:10 pm :
    

    Would that the ARB and HPF people would read the above and take it to heart!

Leave a Comment