RECENT COMMENTS
Church Hill Association meets Tuesday, will vote on Cary and Pear development
The Church Hill Association meets Tuesday, October 20th, at 7:00 PM at the at the St. John’s Church Parish Hall. The agenda below includes several votes to be taken.
Membership Meeting Agenda
- Welcome & Announcements (Holiday Events & Transportation)- Tom Wild
- Approval of the Sept Membership Meeting Minutes
- Presentations for membership: Crime Report, Lt Jeremy Sayles
- Vote to be taken (Bill Dinkin) Cary Street Project
The CHA board is recommending to the membership a resolution to approve the proposed plan for 2723 Cary Street. The Church Hill Association Board met on Tuesday September 3 and, among other business, considered the request for support of the proposed development at 2723 E. Cary Street. After deliberation, the Board voted to give its qualified support of the project, subject to the Special Use Permit application and any subsequent amendments being in material conformance with the proposal that has been provided to CHA in writing on May 24, 2015 and on September 15, 2015. Connect to our website and the 2723 E. Cary Street Proposal at: http://www.churchhill.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CHA-request-2.pdf
- Vote to be taken: Special Use Permit submitted by Church Hill Association member Sharon Wayne to convert her rehabilitated carriage house into a one bedroom apartment. The address is 3508 E. Broad Street. Neighbor signatures of support have been obtained.
- Vote to be taken: 501C3 additional By- Law changes
The board is working on a new version of the by-laws necessary to meet the 501c3 requirements. A few recommendations that have been made outside of these requirements are recommended here for the membership’s approval:
A. Adding a new board position of assistant secretary (decreasing an at large director by one);
B. Adding authority of the immediate past president to vote in Board meetings;
C. Beginning in 2016 allowing the re-election of officers for up to three terms;
D. Removing restrictions on selecting and funding community projects to which Association monies or volunteers will be committed (last portion of Art. VII, para. 2 of current by-laws) and substituting it with the inclusion of:
“The Board shall implement those policies and activities approved by the membership, as evidenced by a resolution duly moved, seconded and passed at a membership meeting.”
E. Deleting the statement, “ that community project and capital funds over $1,000 be completed in writing and submitted to the Board prior to approval of the budget”. (Art. IX, para. 7 of current by-laws) and substituting it with:
“All requests for community projects and capital funds must be submitted in writing to the Development and Community Outreach Committee. The Development and Community Outreach Committee shall create written guidelines for the application and grant process to fund community activities consistent with the Association’s purpose and mission. The Development Committee will present their recommendations to the membership for approval.”
- Treasurer’s Reports- Trish Bernal
Vote to be taken on: 2016 Budget & Assumptions (as distributed via Sept. newsletter and Sept. Membership meeting
Flag sales- Trish Bernal
- Bike Race- Genni Sasnett
- Status of Nominations
- New Business
Adjournment
Vote nope!
I don’t expect them to pass anything that might obstruct the view. However, does it even really matter? They didn’t approve the “Lofty” and it now sits on top of the hill.
Is this the same group that had a special budget to fight Echo Harbor? I guess it all depends on who is involved with the project?
On 2730 Cary St, existing zoning only permits a 45′ tall building. The proposed at close to 150′ (from dock) is quite abit above that. That’s a significant precedent to set for chruch hill development. We should consider carefully.
@Britt Would any of the buildings on that section of Cary St. meet the existing zoning standards? I believe they are all over 45′ in height. It would seem to me that a precedent of exceeding the zoned height has already been set. I’m also not sure it’s fair to call it Church Hill development when it’s in the Bottom.
The buildings along cary existed well before zoning, so no precedent has been set, only development after zoning will set precedent. Presumably zoning was created to correct the unfettered development which occurred prior to zoning. Correct or not the zoning decision was for 45′ tall buildings at this site, perhaps as a reaction to the tall buildings already along Cary. One should also consider the property rights of adjacent parcels. They purchased their home with the expectation of a 45′ tall building, now this land owner wants to change the rules…How would you feel if your neighbor decides to change the rules for his house and make it 2-3 times taller.
I think my situation would probably be a poor example. The building across the street is three stories tall compared to one for my building. Does it matter if it’s 3, 6, or 9 stories tall? Not really, increasing the height has a marginal effect. I think a more appropriate comparison would be if you had a neighborhood full of two story houses and you told the new guy on the block he could only build a one story house, because of antiquated zoning regulations. It would be unfair to hold the new guy to different standards and the house would look out of place. Also I don’t think anyone adjacent to the proposal purchased a home their. I believe they are apartments, so the owner probably doesn’t live there and the renters are free to leave at the end of their lease. As I recall the existing zoning is for industrial. I can certainly imagine some 45′ tall industrial buildings that would be worse neighbors than a 150′ tall residential building.
I was speaking hypothetically, not to your specific situation. One and two story homes adjacent to each other is very common. Actually zoning was precisely created to control height. It began in NewYork where buildings were getting tall and limiting access to natural air and light, creating a manmade canyon. Additionally it was found it was able to control locations of incompatible uses. Basically legalizing how to be a good neighbor. As for your guy who can only build one story, he purchased the property knowing that only one story can be built. No harm. You purchased your home expecting a one story home on his lot. His standard and value is the standard and value to which his property was evaluated at by the bank when he bought it. Your property was valued in the same manor. Your home could become devalued if he builds a 6 story crack house… that’s why zoning exists… to protect your property rights and your investment) As for ownership, that is irrelevant. (at this site, there are local owners) the apartment dwellers have just as much right to natural light and fresh air as an owner. My argument is not with the use, but the legal expectations at the time of purchase for both the owner, and adjacent owners.
I also fear with Echo Harbour and the other proposed development directly across Pear street; that this development sets a height precedent… imagine this…”Churchill, you accepted 145′ tall building on the west side of pear, you should be ok with one east of pear and at Echo Harbour, you have no reason to complain…SUP for Echo Harbour passes”… I’ve seen a very simlular thing happen…it has happeded to me in another neighborhood in the city.
By your theory that zoning should not change just because the neighbors bought when it was that way, there should not be any zoning changes in the entire City or in any locality. No building height changes, no use changes, no changes at all. That is not the way a city brings itself forward. In order to improve a City must evolve, that includes changing the zoning of a property when it is appropriate. Yes, the new zoning should be respectful of the existing neighbors in an ideal setting, but it doesn’t mean the zoning should never change.
Never said zoning shouldn’t change. I agree in the second half of your statement. It should be carefully considered…and be considerate of it’s neighbors. I am suggesting that 145′ tall building is not compatible next to 50′ residential and commercial buildings. From Churchill’s perspective, high on the hill, it may not have an impact… but at some point we must step down from the hill and see what precedent is set by development like this.
What does that have to do with this situation? The top of the proposed building is nearly the same elevation as the existing buildings on Cary Street. There won’t be a big discrepancy if you are standing on Cary.
New building is not the same height as the existing buildings. It’s twice as high. The existing buildings are only 50′ tall. the proposed is 145′ tall. That’s a big discrepancy to me.
Did this happen?