Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dayton BZA remands 108 Green Street demolition appeal back to Landmark Commission with three instructions
Summary
The Board remanded an appeal of the Landmark Commission's denial of demolition at 108 Green Street, directing the Landmark Commission to review compliance of the mitigation plan with code, to not consider emergency demolition in future decisions of this case, and to determine whether removal is necessary to abate the nuisance.
The Board of Zoning Appeals remanded the appeal of a Landmark Commission denial of demolition at 108 Green Street back to the Landmark Commission, specifying three issues for reconsideration: (1) whether the proposed mitigation plan conforms to applicable provisions of the zoning code; (2) that the Landmark Commission should not consider an emergency demolition in future decisions of this case; and (3) that the Landmark Commission should determine whether removal of the building is necessary, in whole or in part, to abate the nuisance.
Planning staff (Jeff Green) explained the standards for appeals and recommended remand. Applicant Chris Conard and owner Denise Swick presented engineering reports they said recommended demolition; Conard argued the Board could reverse a Landmark Commission decision in cases of procedural error. Preservation Dayton and several nearby residents urged the Board to uphold the Landmark Commission or to remand with clear instructions; Preservation Dayton noted that not all structural nuisance cases require demolition and questioned aspects of the submitted engineering reports. Landmark Commission legal counsel said no procedural error occurred and preferred affirmation, while several neighbors reported concern about further deterioration and public safety.
Board members debated the Landmark Commission's reasons for denial and whether certain considerations (notably an emergency demolition determination) were appropriate for the Landmark Commission to weigh; members also noted the Landmark Commission had not seen certain exhibits that were submitted at this BZA hearing. The Board voted to remand (motion moved by Chris Lewis; seconded by Joe Shaw). Recorded votes (per the minutes for this case): Tim Bement Yes; Joe Shaw Yes; Diana Graham Yes; Jacquelyne Patterson Yes; Patrick Martin Excused; Joe Craig Excused; Chris Lewis Yes.
The Board specified the three instructions to the Landmark Commission and noted that the Landmark Commission will have the minutes and new evidence to review. The remand preserves the Landmark Commission’s original decision pending reconsideration under the stated guidance.
