February 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Shawn Peterson: Well, again there is the three-part test, and you have to meet all three. One is: the property in is current condition is uneconomical or in a substantial state of disrepair, deterioration or structural instability not created by the owner. And, again , this is the preservation plan, which provides guidance. It's not the one that I consider is the binding one on this, but the one he is referring to. Historically, well, the one of which you look to, which I believe is the other one. Historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is either technically or economically impractical, and'the owner has invested [sic] or considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition, not simply the least expensive alternatives and that all such alternatives such as sale, rental or lease of the property, have failed or with reasonable likelihood will fail or will not earn a fair economic return on value. So in other.words, if they are required to put money into it, then there is return on that, although not all situations or alternatives require that they put money into it depending upon how they want to sell or lease it. John Peddycord: If I may comment on your 1992 standards that you were just reading from, I would submit to you that those standards are better than your original standards that you adopted back, what year were these adopted? Shawn Peterson: These were by that... John Peddycord: 1982 [1992], but what was the prior one. I'm reading from Section D. Demolition. Shawn Peterson: They predate me. John Peddycord: They are very dangerous and I think they are ambiguous, vague and unconstitutional because it says historic landmarks shall not be demolished, and the only exception to that is for public safety, and I don't think this could be enforced at all. The only ones that I think may have some viability is your 1992 standards, which I don't know if you were on the Commission then or not, but these track the state standards, the state's statutory standards that other Commissions since 1977 follow. There's not much difference from that. Shawn Peterson: It is though consistence with the ordinance that we have which says that it must get a Certificate of Appropriateness through this Commission unless a Building Commissioner or other person in such authority certifies the demolition as required, so, and you have the opportunity or the power to promulgate rules within, that not inconsistent with, that ordinance. As far as the Constitutionality of it, it has just never been challenged. Joann Sporleder: Ok, you more or less answered my question that I had whether the term economic viability is in fact a legal term. It's not a legal term. It's descriptive. Shawn Peterson: It may be a term of art as far as how the courts have interpreted the state statute. It is not a term that was incorporated into the standards promulgated by the.... John Peddycord: They instead use the term "a fair economic return on value." I would interpret that as being economic viability. Shawn Peterson: Are there any other Commissioners with questions for the witnesses? Lynn Patrick: I have one very brief question to which I demand a very brief answer because it's nine o'clock and because I think we have done a lot of very, very good discovery and I appreciate the . patience of all. How many adaptive reuse projects have you worked on?. 23 January 2006 HPC Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 23