RECENT COMMENTS
Oakwood Heights appeal in court on Tuesday
From the Letters section of the March issue of the CHA newsletter:
The court date has been set for the appeal of City Council’s decision to overturn the decision made by The Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) regarding the proposed Oakwood Heights Development. The date is Tuesday, March 16th at 10:00 am, in Richmond’s Circuit Court at the John Marshall Court House, 400 N. 9th St.
The neighbors in the Chimborazo area would again like to thank the Church Hill Association,The Historic Richmond Foundation and A.C.O.R.N. for their support in helping protect our historic districts.The basis of our case is that we, as citizens of the city of Richmond, need to ensure that our City Council is making decisions both based on the law and on the official guidelines for our “Old and Historic Districts.”
You folks who live in the area should show up at Circuit Court! It appears that the file that was turned over to the court DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY letters in opposition to the development! There are several letters in SUPPORT of Oakwood Heights that were sent to council, two from a couple who moved to that area of east Broad from Fulton Hill, one from Larry Ingram of the 3600 block of East Broad and a couple of others….but absolutely nothing in opposition in writing!
So it sounds as if absolutely no one opposed it in writing!
I know a lot of people showed up at city council when this was heard as an appeal from CAR, but apparently if you don’t submit something in writing, it does not show up in the record that is submitted to the court when something is contested.
If you care about this case, you need to go to court on Tuesday morning!
Any word on this?
No yet. If I hear anything, I’ll post it.
I can provide only second hand information. The case was heard, no verdict yet. Rachel DePompa of WWBT-12 was there and spoke to people in attendance.
The story on NBC12 has a good recap of the narrative to this point, and concludes with “the judge will make us his mind on who was right later this month”.
That’s what I just heard from someone who was there, that the judge would rule in the future – he wasn’t even sure if it would be this month. Will post as soon as I hear what the ruling is, if you haven’t already posted it!
Link to Channel 12 news story:
Judge to decide fate of condo project for Church Hill
http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=12151277
LOL.. Larry Ingram.. another slum lord of church Hill…
I guess I’m just not understanding why people area against this project. Won’t it increase property values? That area is really tucked away from the main area of Church Hill where you see a lot of restored historic homes anyways and very close to a street I avoid, particularly at night, Chimborazo Blvd.
#9 Ditto
I support the project. It brings new life to the neighborhood .
A raven hath whispered in mine ear, that ye olde judge hath indeed ruled in favor of wench Freund and her court minstrels.
FROM the RTD:
A circuit judge has upheld the Richmond City Council’s decision to approve a 33-unit condominium development in Church Hill, despite objections from neighbors and the city’s Commission of Architectural Review.
In an order entered Wednesday, Judge T.J. Markow affirmed the council’s 2009 decision on the Oakwood Heights project, saying it “is not contrary to law, arbitrary, nor does it constitute an abuse of discretion.”
In approving Oakwood Heights, the council overturned a decision by the Commission of Architectural Review, which had determined that Fulton Hill Properties’ plans for the project were incompatible for Chimborazo Park Old and Historic District.
Joseph Preston Carson III, a Church Hill property owner, filed the lawsuit that sought to overturn the council’s decision.
RTD link: http://bit.ly/dosHbP
Isn’t Judge Markow the brother-in-law or something of Jennie Dotts, recently of NY Times fame? Not that I’m trying to air dirty laundry…
I’ve seen how narrow that street is but, with the proposal to make something that’s not the King’s Court or whatever it’s supposed to be called just below that, this could turn out to be great. Or at least make that convenience store down there less sketch.
I too, must agree with Diana in #10.
#15 Houdon, yes, I thought her original maiden name was Markow. Not sure of the relationship, brother, (bro in law?) cousin or uncle, but I’m of the same mind that there is or was a relationship…. rather like your pun, too…although, is it a pun?!
And to those who are claiming to like the project: I don’t. Period. It’s too big, it’s too overpowering, and the folks who will have to share an alley with it are real unhappy, among many other things.
I wonder if Carson intends to appeal further. Might be interesting, given the original court filing….but then I don’t know how often Judge Markow has been over turned, and that probably has something to do with the odds of winning on appeal and whether it’s worth it…
Judge rules in favor of Church Hill condo project
Posted: Mar 19, 2010 11:20 PM EDT
By Yvette Yeon
RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) – The fight to keep a new condo development out of historic Church Hill, may be over. Friday a circuit judge upheld Richmond City Council’s decision to approve a three-story condo project, despite a lot of opposition.
For homeowners like Mercedez Schaum the new 33-unit condo development called “Oakwood Heights” may be reason enough to consider moving out of Church Hill.
“It’ll really change how we live here,” said Schaum.
It’s now a vacant piece of land, but once construction begins…and traffic heightens with new residents…Schaum says won’t let her kids play outside. She says the child friendly neighborhood is disappointed at the judge’s decision.
“I was really surprised. I thought that somebody higher up would see the legitimate complaints we had and would take our side in this,” Schaum said.
Neighbors here have said for years the project is too big and doesn’t fit the character of the historic district. Even the city’s Commission of Architectural Review had objections.
“We welcome new development in the community it’s not about trying to keep things the same, I mean the neighborhood is going to evolve over time, it’s just that new development needs to be appropriate,” said Church Hill resident Kristen Hughes Evans.
But the judge ruled in favor of the city council’s decision to allow the project to move forward by saying the development doesn’t constitute an abuse of discretion. We spoke with members of Fulton Hill Properties earlier this week.
“We’ve spent a lot of money and paid mortgages on vacant land…we need to get going,” said Kristen Heckman of Fulton Properties.
But as the development moves in the neighborhood…neighbors say they won’t welcome it.
“I think its unfortunate it’s actually a huge blow to historic district throughout Richmond,” said Hughes Evans.
Well, tonight, none of Richmond’s city council members answered our calls to weigh in on the decision. Meanwhile, residents still have chance to appeal the judge’s decision.
Copyright 2010 WWBT NBC12. All rights reserved.
Hughes Evans, I’d like to know why you would be so oposed to this developer trying to ‘IMPROVE’ the neighborhood.
Look at all the houses on the 3400 block of E. Marshall St. w/ vinyl siding. There have been three houses on that block alone in past year that vinyl siding has been installed. How is that in keeping with the historic integrity of the neighborhood. There are two small houses w/ vinyl siding on them. The renovation of those two houses were just finished.
We also have the apartments at the corner of 35th. St. and Glenwood Ave.
They’re being restored, and they’re allowed to keep the vinyl siding, metal framed windows and metal doors.
In my opinion, they’re an eye sore. However, no-one seems interested in doing anything about those.
Who has the sudden interest in those apts. and what are the rents going to be.
Are they going to be filled with section-8 or are they going to be upscale apts. once finished.
I personally ‘DO NOT WANT’ anymore section-8 in our neighborhood. I’ve invested a lot of money in church hill, and only want the type of development Fulton Properties is proposing.
I hope Fulton Properties is able to sell all of the condos that are being built.
However with the economic climate we’re living in and (will be forced on us for three more years), I’d be surprised.
If Fulton Properties were allowed years ago to build right away, they’d probably all be sold.
Tell me, someone..what’s going on with those apts. at Glenwood and 35th. ST.
Thanks,
#20, I’ve been keeping an eye on those apartments and have been wondering myself. It looks like half of one building sank about a foot. I can’t imagine them being anything but section 8 by the looks of them at this point. This area is already saturated with section 8 and I agree with you. I would love for the condos to be built! This entire area needs a clean-up. I would be happy if they would close that Chimbo store and demolish the Citgo gas station since neither of the owners seem to be interested in using profits to clean up the external appearance of the store. I say bring on the high scale developments and drive out the derelict property owners!
Note that Ms. Freund installed a number of the vinyl sidings herself, back in 2003 (when the historic district process was in place I think).
I totally agree. The area needs some serious improvement.If I had my way, I would build a McDonald’s right there.Hateful people will always be miserable.There is nothing wrong with putting condos right there.
Yes, because there are not enough chain fast food restaurants in Richmond. Say no to chains! I don’t mind condos, but this area does not need any more low income housing. Mixed income housing is the only way we will ever improve this area.
Marshall, and James,
We don’t need any fast food places near our area.
However, I don’t agree with you completely James. It’s my dream this part of church hill will become another Georgetown. (I can see it happening) The south of Broad crowd gets saturated with traffic and noise from all the development in the bottom.
We’re removed just enough not to hear all the noise and traffic everyday, but close enough to enjoy it.
We need to pull together as neighborhood, and clean the area up!!
Get all the slumlords out of here, 3412 E.Broad St. is a prime example of a derelict property. The owner refuses to sell, but refuses to renovate.
I say the city condemn all the derelict properties, and sell them.
Get this area cleaned up once and for all, demolish those apts. at Glenwood and 35th. St.
It would be grand in my opinion to demolish Chimbo mkt. those apts. and build a Wholefoods etc.
How grand would it be to have an upscale grocery within walking distance, Wholefoods, Fresh Market or Joe’s Market.
Note – I am dreaming, it’ll never happen in my lifetime. We have to many idiots up here who honestly want things to stay just as they are!!!
James #24, as I recall, these units were to sell for somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000. Freund doesn’t do low income, at least not yet. Low income is the stuff on Cedar St. that’s being proposed by another developer, with VHDA financing. Please don’t confuse the two projects, that’s all I’m saying, thanks.
3410 East Broad is owned by Larry Ingram, who also has property in the block in question.
crd, I was not confusing properties, I was replying to alicia. As long as these are not all section 8, then I am all for it.
i am all for mixed income housing as well.