The Observation Deck

A full room for the discussion of the Heideloff house. The new owner wants to tear it down,
his neighbors want to save it.

And the discussion continues...


.

Peter Grossetti wrote:This just in ...

Application and recommendation to designate the Heideloff House (aka Sly Mansion and aka Morgan House) (PP# 312-07-001) as an historic property (HP) ... denied by Planning Committee (3 yea, 3 nay ... motion failed to achieve majority vote)

Peter

Do you have who voted yea and nay?


.

Hannah Belsito - YES
Mary Cierebiej - NO
Bill Gaydos - RECUSED
Robert Greytak - YES
Tamara Karel - NO
Patrick Metzger - YES
Mark Stockman - NO

Peter Grossetti wrote:Hannah Belsito - YES
Mary Cierebiej - NO
Bill Gaydos - RECUSED
Robert Greytak - YES
Tamara Karel - NO
Patrick Metzger - YES
Mark Stockman - NO

Hi Peter--

What were the concluding reasons why the "yes" voters voted "yes" and the "no" voters voted "no"?

(How did they feel about it???)

I mean how did each side justify their votes?

Thank you.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy Voinovich wrote:What were the concluding reasons why the "yes" voters voted "yes" and the "no" voters voted "no"?

(How did they feel about it???)

I mean how did each side justify their votes?

I believe Board/Commission members are sworn to deliberate and make decisions according to existing codes/laws/etc. and evidence/information presented them. I don't remember that they are obligated to justify their vote or divulge their thought process.

Planning Commission Mission Statement
Members are appointed to a six year term. The Planning Commission reviews requests for lot consolidations, lot splits, major and minor subdivisions, determination of similar and conditional use.

I will say this ... this entire process boiled down to (in my opinion) two things: 1.) private property owners' rights and 2.) an extremely convoluted set of ordinances that govern such matters. I would estimate that one-third of the time dedicated to this docket item revolved around commission members asking the Administration's Planning Department members for definitions, clarification and legal opinions.

Nothing says "we have no clear plan for historic preservation" like a tie vote on something like this. We should be able to vote up or down based on a clear process.

Paul Schrimpf wrote:Nothing says "we have no clear plan for historic preservation" like a tie vote on something like this. We should be able to vote up or down based on a clear process.

Paul -

Couldn't agree more with your first sentiment. (My gut tells me that this decision will be appealed and appealed and appealed for quite some time.)

Regarding your second comment ... whether we like it or not, by rule a ties equals a vote down.

I think this was the right decision or in this case no decision.

I also hope that Council will fix this ordinance to include a time limit for refiling the application (i.e. once every year after last Commission decision) or else property owners will be spending money defending their rights instead using it for either property improvements or rebuilding.

If I were those owners, I would have been in the Building Department first thing this morning seeking the demolition permit.

CORRECTION:

YES: Belsito, Greytak, Metzger

NO: Stockman, Cierebiej and Karel

RECUSED: Gaydos


I apologize for the misinformation.

Peter Grossetti wrote:I would estimate that one-third of the time dedicated to this docket item revolved around commission members asking the Administration's Planning Department members for definitions, clarification and legal opinions.

I am always amazed at how City Hall never seems to know what the rules are governing City Hall ... or the City ... or the Citizens ... or the Hotel Guests ... or ___________________ ...

Matt -

These citizens boards are volunteer, part-time gigs ... and I applaud all the time they took seeking definitions, clarifications, legal advice.

My gripe is only with poorly written legislation. Always has been; always will be.

The extensive discussion last night revolving around the intent of "a" property owner versus "the" property owner (with regard to who could file -- and on whose behalf -- an application for Historic Designation) reminded me of President Clinton's "is" dilemma:

Planning Committee's recent decision to decline "historic" designation has been appealed.

Anyone surprised?

It will be interesting to see how/if those who have filed the appeal (the same folks who initially petitioned the Planning Committee to make the Heideloff/Sly/Morgan House a historic landmark) will strategically alter their case for historic designation.

Stay tuned.

Peter Grossetti wrote:Planning Committee's recent decision to decline "historic" designation has been appealed.

Anyone surprised?

It will be interesting to see how/if those who have filed the appeal (the same folks who initially petitioned the Planning Committee to make the Heideloff/Sly/Morgan House a historic landmark) will strategically alter their case for historic designation.

Stay tuned.

Peter,

Another day, another kick to the groin:


I'm hoping the owner is prepared for any strategically altered attack.

What a price to pay for buying a house on Edgewater Drive!

Scott

Scott Meeson wrote:I'm hoping the owner is prepared for any strategically altered attack.

What a price to pay for buying a house on Edgewater Drive!

Scott,

Who lives just east of the Heideloff House?

Maybe these eastern neighbors simply don't want cluster homes in their back yard?

Also, doesn’t that neighborhood have a residence association? With newsletters even!

Lots of folks here on the Deck have been talking about residence associations.

This may be a teachable moment.

A “strategically altered attack” is an understatement.

Matt