1991-02-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

138 billing is confusing for customers of Adelphia. Mr. Toscano stated that Adelphia's actions regarding the installation charge appear to be an attempt to circumvent the regulatory legislation under consideration. Mr. Price stated that the system's rebuild is in the design phase at the present time. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, stated that proposals from consultants to work with the City on cable franchise negotiations are due on February 23rd. APPEAL: STREET BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: 800 DELEVAN Mr. Gouldman listed the following as important considerations for Council with regard to the appeal by the property owners of 800 Delevan Street of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) decision to refuse to allow the property to be demolish because of its historical significance: 1) whether approval will have an adverse or favorable impact on the neighborhood; 2) whether the structure is not capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value in lights of its overall condition, potential uses, and location; 3) whether the restoration and preservation of the property is not economically feasible because the owner, without good cause, failed to properly maintain the property; and 4) whether approval will encourage or discourage economic activities that will provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base. Mr. Gouldman noted that while the BAR is supposed to keep its focus on the historic issues, Council may look at broader issues. Mr. Gouldman explained that if Council upholds the BAR's decision the property owner has the option of offering the property for sale for its fair market value and if it is not sold within a year, the building may then be demolished. Mr. Fran Lawrence, attorney for the property owners, the family of Mr. Bradley Peyton, requested that Council provide relief from the historic overlay for the following reasons: demolition would have no impact on the neighborhood, the property is assessed at approximately $150,000 and estimates to renovate the property have been in the $300,000 range; the property is adjacent to the railroad tracks and therefore not suitable for families; the charge that the family failed to maintain the property is unjustified since deterioration is estimated to have begun in 1930 and was already far along in 1975 when the current owner inherited the property (and since the property has been zoned industrial it would have been unwise for money to have been invested in the property to be used as a residence); the property is not in public view; and the characteristics which qualify it as historic are not distinctive. Mr. Lawrence stated that it was just learned that the property was proposed to be downzoned to R-3 and the owners have authorized him to commit that no action will be taken to vest the property's right in the M-1 zoning should the demolition be allowed. Mr. Lawrence added that the owners do not want to sell the property. Mr. Vandever questioned whether granting a waiver would endanger the City's historic preservation ordinance, stated that he did not believe the property owners neglected the property, and noted that he felt it was unlikely that someone would buy the property if they had to invest the amount Mr. Lawrence estimated to renovate the property. Mr. Lawrence stated that he did not believe waiving the BAR decision would endanger the ordinance or set a precedent since he did not think the factors in the case warranted the enforcement of the overlay zone requirements.