IF you were rely upon the St. Augustine Record for news, you'd miss a lot on the demolition derby that has City Commissioners concerned.
For openers, the names of the willful people (and their corporations) destroying historic buildings (or parts of them) without permits is omitted:
They were:
o 125 Washington Street was illegally demolished without a permit by JOHN VALDES, longtime builder, third generation Florida construction contractor, former PZB Chair, former Historic Architectural Review Board HARB member, and former candidate for City Commission in 2014 (defeated by TODD NEVILLE), who withdrew his application to go back on HARB again on September 26, 2016.
o The rear of 86 Bridge Street was illegally demolished by a South Florida Limited Liability Company that has not identified its beneficial owners, to wit: GENESIS RE HOLDING 10 LLC
Then the names of the Historic Architectural Review Board witness (me) who testified and opposed the retroactive demolition permits is omitted.
You know why -- the Record apparently forbids giving any credit to any citizen, ever, who speaks out against injustice or mismanagement, whether B.J. Kalaidi, Thomas F. Reynolds, Jr., or me.
The Establishment here -- and advertisers like JOHN VALDES -- don't want you too well informed.
You might not vote for them or patronize their businesses.
You might speak out against them and tell them, as I publicly told JOHN VALDES, "Don't do it again."
When that happens, people elect reformers, like Mayor Nancy Shaver.
Here's the Record's tepid story:
Demolition policy to get review
Posted October 3, 2016 06:24 am - Updated October 4, 2016 08:39 am
St. Augustine Record
By By SHELDON GARDNER sheldon.gardner@staugustine.com
Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline recently asked for city officials to look into policies surrounding certificates for demolition, citing the number of demolition applications coming to the city’s Historic Architectural Review Board, and some applications fo
The city of St. Augustine could consider changing its policies related to demolitions.
Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline recently asked for city officials to look into policies surrounding certificates for demolition, citing the number of demolition applications coming to the city’s Historic Architectural Review Board, and some applications for approval after demolition had already been completed. The city is looking into issues surrounding demolitions as it creates a Historic Preservation Master Plan.
HARB, a board appointed by the City Commission, handles “The review of all applications for demolition permits for structures that are fifty (50) years old or older, which are listed on the Florida Master Site File maintained by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources, or which have been designated as an historical landmark,” according to city code. “Also, review all applications for demolition permits for primary structures within historic preservation zoning districts and National Register districts for potential designation as an historic landmark.”
From January through September, the board approved at least 20 demolitions — whether full or partial, according to meeting minutes and video. Two after-the-fact demolition applications were recently denied.
HARB can grant approval for after-the-fact demolition requests, but they can also deny it.
Denial of an after-the-fact application means code enforcement can take action, said Jenny Wolfe, city historic preservation officer.
Sikes-Kline suggested that possible code enforcement financial penalties might not be enough to deter after-the-fact demolition applications.
“You can tear a building down and then stroke a $5,000 check and … throw that into the cost of a building,” Sikes-Kline said.
One idea for deterring after-the-fact applications is adding a penalty of not issuing a building permit for a certain time frame — like a cooling off period for six months to a year, she said. She also suggested having expiration dates on certificates of demolition.
Other commissioners had mixed opinions about the issues.
“I support that,” said Commissioner Leanna Freeman. “My only comment is that six months doesn’t seem like a very long time.”
Mayor Nancy Shaver said she supported reviewing the issue, but added, “If a building has gotten a demolition permit, I don’t see that the expiration date helps much because in theory it’s going to fall down or just get worse and worse.”
David Birchim, city planning and building department director, said the city’s Historic Preservation Master Plan consultant has been looking into the expiration date issue. Birchim said he expects an ordinance to be drafted.
Another issue the consultant is working on is clarifying what constitutes a partial demolition, he said. The city is also looking into how other communities approach the after-the-fact demolition issue.
Wolfe said the city would like the master plan to be done in early 2017.
She said she thinks the master plan will give the city the opportunity to create incentives to encourage rehabilitation of properties. Ideas include a fund for rehabilitation and making ad valorem tax exemption more accessible.
“As much as possible we like to balance the carrots with the sticks in terms of helping the people preserve their properties,” Wolfe said.
No comments:
Post a Comment