City Appears Poised to Restrict Substandard Lot Development
By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
September 4, 2012
After years of controversy, Falls Church City appears likely to restrict development on so-called “substandard lots,” which would be a victory for residents concerned about the increasing density in some neighborhoods.
That said, there’s no guarantee the City will act, although the Council is scheduled to hear four options for new restrictions at tonight’s meeting, including one being recommended by City staff.
But if new restrictions are approved, the big losers would be property owners who own substandard lots, which would suffer a loss in value of perhaps $100,000 or more if they no longer could be subdivided and built upon.
Substandard lots are those that are smaller than the existing zoning code requires for building. Those requirements vary throughout the city, generally from 7,500 square feet to 11,250 square feet.
In the Ellison Heights neighborhood, for example, many lots are just 6,000 square feet, but the current code says they can still be developed, so long as they cannot be “reasonably combined” with adjacent properties to create a lot that conforms to the code.
It is those two words — “reasonably combined” — that are at the heart of the controversy. What does it mean in practice?
Consider the case of 406 Van Buren Street in the city’s Broadmont neighborhood. Developer ASR Designer Homes purchased for $620,000 (Correction, Sept. 5: $690,000) a lot that more than meets the requirements for the zoning district it is in.
Correction, Sept. 6: Although the Van Buren lot was marketed as one lot, ASR bought one half of the lot, while Joey Randhawa bought the other half. ASR is a company owned by Mr. Randhawa’s father.
The lot, according to the real estate listing, is 15,000 square feet, while the zoning minimum for building there is 11,250.
But the existing house was built across what had at one time been two lots, and the lots were then effectively combined into one. Now, lot has been subdivided into two, rendering both lots substandard for the R1A zoning district. If the city follows recent practice, it will allow two houses to be built on the lot where previously there was just one.
Neighbors are challenging that outcome, and the Board of Zoning Appeals is scheduled to hear their argument Sept. 13.
The reform being recommended by city staff would clarify the definition of those lots that can be “reasonably combined.” According to a memo from City Manager Wyatt Shields, the option would “expressly provide that contiguous substandard lots with a house straddling them could not be developed separately.”
Another option under consideration, proposed by City Zoning Administrator John Boyle, would require the owner of a substandard lot to apply for a subdivision permit before being allowed to develop two houses. This subdivision permit would have to be approved by the Planning Commission.
Option 3 would require the City Council to add an “intent” statement to the city code, making it clear that where a house sits on two substandard lots, the two lots could not be developed separately.
Option 4 would leave things the way they are currently being handled.
It is unknown where the seven city councilors stand on the issue. But they seem interested in making a change; they requested Mr. Shields and Planning Director James Snyder give them some options for reform.
By Stephen Siegel
September 4, 2012
From afar…
I was one of those ‘evil’ property owners of Ellison Heights who built one house on two ‘substandard lots’ and years later sold the other three ‘sub standard lots’ with a 70 year old house to another ‘evil’ developer/builder who built three modern beautiful and more ‘tax valuable’ houses on the same lots.
The end result for the City is obvious: Change and improvement.
As noted landuse attorney, John Foote, asked to the city council at the time, fifty years from now, will the city and region be the same.
I will always support the position of the property owners when it comes to improvement and value of the property.
Here’s a question. Did the person who sold the property on Van Buren for $620K realize a higher price because of the potential to develop it into two parcels? I don’t recall the property being advertised as two buildable lots.
It will be interesting to see how this issue is dealt with. On the one hand, I support a landowner’s right to maximize the value of their land, within the limits of the law. On the other hand, the community sets standards (zoning) for a reason and for the community to thrive those standards should be followed.
I think (maybe not?) most people agree that it’s okay to have zoning that limits what someone can do with their property. When zoning rules are first implemented there are consequences – if your property was zoned for high density but then got rezoned for lower density the value of your land might go down.
The challenge in this case seems to be that the zoning rules are considered vague by some people (other people think the rule is plain and obvious). Regardless of which way it goes, I hope City Council does something to make the zoning more clear. Either it should be okay for these lots to be split and developed or it shouldn’t be okay – let’s just make it crystal clear.
I think when the new zoning was first established decades ago the value of these lots was low – so combining two lots into one and building a house in the middle was no big deal. However, the demand for housing in Falls Church is now so high that these small lots are very valuable and their owners, not surprisingly, want to maximize value. Personally, the language seems clear to me that if these substandard lots have been combined (by building a house across them) they shouldn’t be allowed to be separated. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been enforced and I’m guessing transactions have been made based on the idea that in fact these lots can be separated (because they have in the past) – which creates a difficult situation.
Has anyone considered any kind of tax break for these lot owners in exchange for formally clarifying the rules that the lots can’t be separated? I doubt we could afford something that would reflect the full value of splitting the lots – but maybe there could be a compromise?
As for Dudley’s comment, I think it’s pretty clear that the net fiscal impact on the City when these lots are separated and developed is negative – because of the services generally provided to the new residents (school kids). I think many of these lots, over time, would be redeveloped as one lot (without splitting) as the houses age and new families move in (this happens now all the time on regular lots) – so clarifying this zoning wouldn’t prevent the neighborhoods from evolving and redeveloping, it would just limit the density to the parameters set by current zoning rules.
K – the answer to your question is not one penny. All of the data is public information, and I would challenge anybody to provide any evidence that allowing de-combination of lots increases the sales price of a parcel. It is also beyond dispute that each incremental single family home is a fiscal negative for the City, since the vast majority of the school population lives there (the City’s fiscal model would suggest each second home costs the City $5-10k NET annually, which actually understates the cost based on actual results). Certainly the value of homes that are well maintained or renovated are completely unaffected, but possibly there is a slight tendency for people to completely neglect their property to have a floor on the value. This would be wonderful public policy, right?
Several sales will show the point: 4 “lots” at 1109-1115 Lincoln sold for $1.4M, $702,500 for each of the two houses ($351k per “lot”). The houses at 1005 and 1007 Lincoln sold for $688k and $582k, or $344k and $291k per “lot.” The six vacant lots between West and Pine that were part of the McCauley estate sold for $330-340k. Homes on larger, conforming lots have sold for $650k-$1.3M in the neighborhood, while the lots and new homes on substandard lots have sold for $291-$1M, so drill as deep as you may wish in this data, as I said I challenge anybody to find any value here for the Sellers, the City, for taxpayers generally, or for neighbors.
Mr. McDonald’s property was slightly different, but three “lots” sold for $1 million of $333k each. What was a nice brick and stone house on 4/10 of an acre near the Metro worth near the peak of the market? That property was actually 2 conforming [60'] lots vs. three substandards [40'], but the analysis is the same: the “extra” house brings no value to anybody.
I am not as familiar with the Van Buren neighborhood, and building on a 50′ lot may not create the extreme “shotgun” form factor that seems to limit the marketability and value of the homes, but I am hypothesizing that the result of an in-depth analysis would be similar: no value to the Seller, the City, taxpayers or neighbors.
Thanks, Dan. The price on the Van Buren property seemed to be on the low side, especially considering its proximity to the metro station. Sounds like the sellers aren’t reaping any great profits in this situation.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say profits. I was thinking more in terms of price. Who knows what the profits are.
The price for Van Buren is on the low side because Stephen Siegel does not do his research properly. The price he has shown is very incorrect for how much it sold. The seller of Van Buren properties was very aware they were selling two separate parcels and they sold Lot 1 and Lot 2 to separate people. ASR Designer Homes did not buy both. Please get your facts right before you write articles.
I think the substandard issue is a broad topic and encompasses a lot of properties in the City. Everyone against development you need to be specific on what you are trying to stop in your City. This article states that substandard lots smaller than the current code of R1-B of 7500 and R1-A of 11,250. Lot size is part of what a substandard lot is but the more common issue is lot frontage. On Lincoln Ave from Great Falls up to West St, the entire south side is 50′ wide lots that are 9,000 sq ft lots These are in R1-B zoning and are are significantly larger than the required square footage but they are substandard because they are 50′ wide lots that do not meet the current 60′ wide requirement. Substandard encompasses lot frontage as well as lot size.
I think it would be helpful if the City gave accurate numbers as to how many houses have already been built on substandard lots and how many lots are left with one house on two buildable substandard lots. You would be very surprised to see that the majority have already been built and the big change you are afraid of has already happened. There are hundreds of houses that have already been built on substandard lots over the past 100 years. From my quick count there are less than 95 remaining properties that contain buildable substandard lots.
If you are concerned about this, then go to the City and get the facts. Its probably not the best idea to get your information from the Comments section of a local online newspaper.
@builder, thanks for chiming in. If I may ask: how can a person sell two lots to separate entities when the current building straddles both lots? Do the two separate owners work in collaboration to do *something* with their properties?
Such a fuss about “density” problems being caused by a handful of single family homes built on substandard lots zoned residential while the City has authorized 1500 units of condos and apartments on land zoned commercial and is poised to approve more!
The correct sales price appears to be $690k, according to City records. The Falls Church Times apologizes for the error.
ASR Designer Homes bought one lot, anyone know who bought the other?
Lou, does your 1,500 units of condos and apartments include those already built or are you talking about new units? If it includes already built units how far back are you going? Including places like Oakwood or just relatively recent mixed use projects?
Some people will tell you that the number of school kids added by “infill” (putting houses where there used to not be houses) is greater than the number added by the mixed use residential that has been added in the past 5 years or so. I know the City can fairly easily provide the mixed use number, does anyone know the actual number associated with the infill houses?
I’m not sure how other people feel but I’m not that concerned by density as a general concept. Increasing residential density in a mixed use situation is much different than increasing density in an old neighborhood. And either way, I think a big issue is the net fiscal impact of some of these things – and the mixed use developments have a positive net fiscal impact whereas the infill houses generally have a negative impact.
Andy,
Start with the Broadway and add all the “mixed” use projects since then. It’s at least 1500 units. And I am not talking about infill in general but just this ruckus over a relative handful of substandard situations. Of course single family residences account for most of the schoolchildren. That’s not the point. The City can’t do much about that. The point is that school enrollment and overcrowding have been beyond the tipping point for several years now and, for the umpteenth time, that being the case, and not being able to do much about the single family RESIDENTIAL situation, it has been and continues to be irresponsible to approve high-density residential projects on COMMERCIAL property. That is the kind of development the City CAN do something about. Even if you believe the developer and City numbers on net income, none of the formulas take into account the CUMULATIVE effects of such projects on traffic, parking, schools, public services and safety, and the environment.
Andy –
“Some people will tell you that the number of school kids added by “infill” (putting houses where there used to not be houses) is greater than the number added by the mixed use residential that has been added in the past 5 years or so.”
That number also includes kids from houses that have turned over from non-children homes to school-age children homes.
Cecily, I’m not sure what the numbers people talk about really are (that’s what I’m trying to dig in on) – but I’m not talking about families with kids moving into houses that had families without kids moving out. I wouldn’t call that infill, maybe turnover? My point really is that I haven’t seen people use specific numbers so it’s hard to debate. The City can (and has) provided data on the number of school kids generated by the mixed use projects – but I guess it would require more work to figure out how many school kids have been added due to extra houses being added (both on substandard lots and on legitimate lots).
Lou, I’m sure we’ll never agree on this but I think over the long term the City will survive (and thrive) if we continue to develop our commercial zones with commercial and mixed use projects. The revenue generated will allow us to expand the school system by 20% while also reducing the residential tax rate. I admit it won’t be easy, but I think it’s the way to go. Not developing the commercial zones hasn’t worked (partially because of the pressures on school costs due to infill and turnover – things that you point out the City can’t do anything about) and I don’t think it will start working now.
I recently moved to the Little City and have been attempting to become more familiar with city issues so I’m no expert, but let me pose this question: Do you take into consideration the additional taxes that are generated by residents utilizing local establishments? Before moving to the city I had never been to Mad Fox, Elevation Burger, local cleaners, local CVS, Clare & Dons, Argia, Sfizi, numerous pizza joints, bikenetic, etc., etc. etc….do you see that there is additionaly tax opportunity by having new homes in town? New homes bring new income – economic development means growth not staying the same. Get the new homes and bring the Harris Teeter and Hilton Garden Inn going to generate taxes – but don’t limit housing development.
New Resident, the City has a fiscal model that they use to analyze proposed and existing mixed use development projects that tries to take into account many factors, including (I think) the kinds of economic benefit you mention. I don’t think the City has a model that tries to do that with new single family houses – but I assume someone could build a model like that. The assumption by many is that adding a new single family house to the City that contains 2-3 kids in the public school system will have a net negative impact on the economics of the City – even when you factor in the things you mention. For me, that just means we need to increase our commercial tax base (and net-positive residential tax base, which is things like apartments) in order to accomodate the costs associated with new houses being built.
Strong proponents of mixed-use would probably say that having more residents is one of the things we need in order to attract certain kinds of commercial development.
Andy, I am not against “developing the commercial zones.” I am for developing the commercial zones for commercial purposes. You are still not getting the point. You can’t control the number of students coming to the schools from residential development on residential property. You CAN and should control high-density residential projects on commercial property and their CUMULATIVE effects, which no one seems to care about. We are 2.2 square miles. There are limits to what the City can sustain.
“Strong proponents of mixed-use” = developers, who make lots more money from condos and apartments.
It would be interesting to see if EDA could shed light on whether trying to insist on commercial only development reduces interest by developers.
Andy,
ASR bought one lot, while Joey Randhawa bought the other half. ASR is a company owned by Mr. Randhawa’s father.
I have updated the story to reflect this.
Lou, I didn’t say you were against “developing the commercial zones” – I said, “I’m sure we’ll never agree on this but I think over the long term the City will survive (and thrive) if we continue to develop our commercial zones with commercial and mixed use projects.” And I stand by that – we’ll never agree on that.
I think I get the point – and I think you get my point (but maybe not) and just disagree with it, which is fine with me. I think the City can sustain more density, both commercially and residentially (especially in mixed use cases).
TFC, I think right now it’s pretty clear that developers are more willing and eager to build multi-family residential projets rather than commercial only (or even mixed use). For example, I’m pretty sure Akridge would build the residential portion of the Gateway project right now if they didn’t also have to build the office building associated with it. I think these things go in cycles and 10 years from now developers may only be interested in building office buildings.
By the way, I did some fact checking and between Broadway, Byron, Pearson Square, Spectrum, Read, and Northgate (under construction) there are 720 units. I’m not sure how many units are in Gateway, which is an approved project that may or may not ever happen. There are also units in the City Center project – but I’m not sure if you could call that approved or not anymore. I’m don’t know where you’d get the addition 780 units to get to Lou’s 1,500 total but maybe I’m forgetting some existing or approved projects.
You got it right. If you include City Center and Gateway it’s approximately 1500.
Thanks Andy. I thought I had heard in the recent past that builders found favor with mixed or residential for a bunch of reasons. IMHO: if we try to insist on commercial only, we will be waiting a long time.
Stephen, thanks for the update – I was wondering if it was an arrangement like that.
Lou, it looks like the proposed Gateway has 200 units and the effectively defunct City Center South called for 416 apartments, 16 townhouses (that I think would effectively replace existing multi-family houses), and 134 active adult condominiums – so you’re right, almost 1,500 units.
Back to residential zoning:
The code intends single family home development on standard sized lots. Hence the language “any lot… which does not meet the lot size requirements for the district in which it is located, may be used for single family development provided it is in an R district and it cannot be reasonably combined to meet the minimum size requirements.”
Substandard lot development is the exception, to be done only when lots cannot be reasonably combined. Lots that have a single home sitting across both ARE combined by any measure of common sense!
The efforts of developers to split apart already combined lots by listing them under separate shadow companies or individuals is an end around the plain English language of the code. Last time I looked, staff and citizens alike are to comply with the law, not find ways around it.
The City of Falls Church is a waste of space! Residents say how superior their schools are to everyone else’s, but God forbid if you move to the City to take advantage of the schools. I’d be happy with my children in Arlington, Fairfax or Catholics schools – the same educational experience and none of the huff-and-puff.
Commenters such as Maller and Theisz need to get real and see that a house on a substandard lot does more for them they they realize. Do you want 10 families with children on these lots or 100 families with kids in commercial zones? Do the math and suck it up.
Like it or not, Lou Mouro knows what he is talking about!
LOC: Lou doesn’t need your “support;” we know each other here and generally respect views that come from commitment to the City, knowledge of the facts and open participation in our debates and processes. Three strikes to you, (and Lou only gets a demerit for hijacking this thread). Nevertheless, the data shows that the residential units on commercial property have more than paid for their impact on City services, while excess single family infill has been a substantial drain which will only get worse if not addressed. In addition, the hundreds of multifamily units were allowed based on millions of dollars of cash proffers which also paid for the estimated school and other capital costs, while infill can not legally charge what would be called “impact fees.” So the financial and fiscal argument for infill is untenable; all that proponents have is the naked legal fiction that says none of the words of the code written in the past 75 years should be enforced or respected.
Whenever Gordon posts that bit about the code it does seem very clear to me that splitting an existing lot (with one house on it) into two substandard lots goes against the code. If there’s a battle to be fought on this front it should have been fought decades ago when the code was written.
Living Outside the City, I think our schools are great, but also different from Arlington, Fairfax, or Catholic schools. I don’t get caught up with which ones are better – they’re all pretty good. The small size of the Falls Church school system is like nothing else around here and that’s what I love about it. I’m fine with the number of students increasing 15-20% over the coming years (assuming we plan for it and have the resources to accomodate them) – so I’m not against having more people come an enjoy the schools.
When I was doing my fact checking on Lou’s comment about 1,500 approved units (which he was right about) I confirmed that as of spring 2012 there were 565 units built and occupied and they were contributing 114 pupils to the schools – so about .2 pupils per unit. This includes Pearson Square, which has turned out to be the biggest (by far) contributor to the number of kids in school – but also happens to have a lot of 2 and 3 bedroom units.
My stance is this – we encourage development of our commercial areas by allowing appropriate mixed-use projects. Those projects (and residential infill and turnover) will increase the school population – but they’ll also increase the tax revenue to the City allowing us to both pay for the additional kids and, over time, reduce the residential real estate tax rate. I know not everyone agrees with this approach, and there’s a lot of debate about “appropriate” – but that’s why we debate the issue. I think Lou and some others would prefer that we hold out for 100% commercial development on our commercially zoned land. And I’m sure some people would like to see no additional development of any kind.
Dan, I didn’t realize there were rules about where it is permissible to post and where it is not. Not to minimize whatever importance can be ascribed to the substandard lot development issue, but it should be noted that both you and Gordon have strong personal interests in the matter.
TFC, we will never accomplish commercial on commercial until we stop giving in to developers and acting so desperate. They are interested in one thing only: maximizing profit. Just ask the 99%. Lol. They are smart and know we have rarely shown them any backbone.
Andy, I am not going to get into the weeds with you on this. You exhaust me. Just try to ignore the trees and see the forest. The big picture, if you will. It is NOT ALL ABOUT MONEY. This City is 2.2 square miles and that is all. Unlike Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax, we do not have a lot of space and resources. It IS possible to over-crowd the schools and over-populate the City to the detriment of both quality of education and quality of life in general. If not bring us to the point of unsustainability. Bottom line again: we can’t stop residential development on residential land; we can stop high-density residential development on commercial land. Or at least ditch the Special Exception nonsense and let developers prove the case for re-zoning if they can, and as they should be made to do.
@ Lou, with all due respect…I think if the City tries to insist on only commercial we will be on the sidelines waiting for just the right offer. What happens if that does not materialize for years? The tax bill is pretty painful right now……
Council member recently elected seem to be action oriented to seek out development ideas. The electorate spoke, we’ll see what happens.
This City is not going to be much different than it is today – - at least for the foreseeable future. Yes, we will see a few things – - a new bank here and there, a new jewelry store, a few new restaurants, maybe. Yes, there will be a lot of angst over the “right” kind of development needed…but folks, the clock keeps ticking. You really need to “level” the downtown area in places because of parking constraints, etc…and folks I hate to break the news….this City does not have the desire to do anything close to what is required. I hope none of you, especially newcomers, are expecting much more. Yes, the school will be very good. Yes, you are close to Metro. But if you are looking for any big turnaround on residential real estate taxes or development anytime soon – - it is not in the cards. This is all probably acceptable to those who have kids in the school system because you are getting “private school” comparable education for the taxes you pay – - hence you are not opposed so much to the taxes. And if you use Metro to commute to work that is a plus. But fast foward your life to a time when you kids are gone and you are retired…..and you keep seeing those continued tax hikes to a point where you will need to leave the City to maintain the lifestyle you desire.
Lou, sorry about tiring you out. My take on the big picture: I think if we don’t go with appropriate mixed-use development we’ll be in a worse spot than if we accept only 100% commercial.
Mel, I’m not sure what your definition of foreseeable future is but I think within the next 5 years we’ll see more than some new banks and jewelry stores (maybe a couple of grocery stores and hotels, dare I even say an office building). If we keep working at it we’ll be in good shape in 10 years. I agree that it will be a while (like 10 years) before we can reduce the tax burden on residential (the rate may go down if/when property values increase).
Andy….and you are satisfied with the 10 year horizon I assume? I applaud you for estimating a timeframe that may in fact be a good estimate….not sure I have heard anyone, anywhere define even conceptually a time horizon. Frankly some of us will long gone or dead before year 10.
Mel, I’d love for stuff to happen faster but I’m learning that these things take time. For example, is Akride (or another developer) decided to go ahead and build the Gateway project (something that I think has all the approvals already needed) and started digging today it would be at least 2.5 – 3 years before the thing would be done. I think between now and 5 years from now we’ll be able to walk into some new things (hotel or two, grocery store or two, maybe an office building).
I think we’ll need some good success over 5-10 years to shift noticeable revenue generation from the residential to commercial tax base.
The area plans that we’re working on will, hopefully, help streamline things and make things happen faster.
If anyone has ideas for moving things along quicker I’d love to hear about them.
This would be an easy place to make some kind of crack like, “if only we had been working on this harder 10 years ago we’d be in a better spot today” – but I wasn’t around 10 years ago so I can’t comment too much on how things were handled back then. I will say that the successes you see in Arlington took 20-30 years of planning to get to where they are today.
Yep Andy….you are learning…just kidding so smile. Planning in Falls Church for the future was non-existent for the most part 10 and more years ago…..and has basically continued for the most apart with some exception….so the City has basically sat still in the past like a City frozen in time (with some exception) while as you mention Arlington, Fairfax, and Fairfax City were busily doing the necessary long-term planning…precious time and good opportunities were missed…..time does catch up and the surrounding areas such as Tysons, the East Falls Church side of Arlington, 7-Corners, and most recently Merrifield have all latched on to those development opportunities.
Hi again – - I need to qualify something….maybe the planning was there….but the people’s desire to go along with plans may have been what was missing…..City residents simply did not want change or were afraid of it….we as a City just didn’t want it that bad…many thought we could simply pass on things and remain like we were and we would be fine for years to come.
TFC, with due respect for your always-anonymous comments, again, it is not just about money. Even if it were, there are ways to reduce the tax bill other than building condos and apartments. As I have said repeatedly, it is about sustainability and cumulative effects. Your concern about being “on the sidelines” plays right into to the hands of the developers. That is the attitude they prey upon. That’s how we get the projects THEY want. They take advantage of our lack of spine. We take their word for almost everything in terms of the pros and cons of what they want to build (what makes them the most bucks). This weak-kneed attitude has not changed with changes on the Council. It has been the predominant approach taken by every Council for at least 10 years. It is a mortgage-the-future easy way out and if it prevails much longer we will wind up like a tiny, over-stuffed version of Ballston.
I really appreciate the mixed-use vs. commercial debate, but Mr. Siegel’s article is about zoning in residential areas.
To Lou, you said to Dan “it should be noted that both you and Gordon have strong personal interests in the matter.”
Lou, I really don’t like being dismissed in this manner. Dan Maller is fighting for the soul of his neighborhood. I just want to see the zoning laws in residential areas followed as written. It is true that I have worked on this for seven years, had a BZA hearing of my own and taken the City to court for not following a settlement. I have put my money and my time where my mouth is.
If standing up for what one believes is right counts as a “strong personal interest” in your opinion then okay, but if you are trying to say that I have something else to gain then you are completely off base.
Gordon. I said nothing explicitly or implicitly to suggest you had anything to gain. You and Dan have weighed in often on this debate. What I AM suggesting is that, in evaluating the pros and cons of the various arguments, “it should be noted” that you and he have had personal battles with the City on this issue, as you both have acknowledged. You both are obviously well-informed on the subject, and I am not saying I think you are right or wrong. Only that your opinions, however well-informed, are not, well, unbiased.
Bias definition: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Not unbiased (double negative) = Biased.
No slight intended?
What Dan and I have (and many others I might add) is a consistently strong conviction that the English language used in the one sentence of the City code that addresses development of an individual substandard lot does not allow for creativity in its application.
Ejoyed all aspects of concerns and reading of the above.Ironically I am in Spain sorting out my Mumsproperty re zoning, planning licences and all the numbers etc. Back soon
bureaucracy!….Shaun
I would encourage everyone that wants to follow or help guide the Council to express their opinion to the Council. Get involved and get your ideas out there. Go to the work sessions, attend Council meetings, send a letter, attend Town Hall Meetings. I attended the Council retreat at GMHS Sat to hear the ideas being discussed for our future…I believe I was the only “regular” citizen there.
Synonyms: “partial,” “inclination,” “tendency.” Do you deny that you are partial, inclined, and tend to favor your interpretation of the code and the view that the code is being mis-applied? THAT is the sense in which I used the word bias. There is nothing wrong with being so inclined, nor did I say there was. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I was only noting that you and Dan do and/or did. You and he may well be right. I have expressed no opinion on the merits of the issue. Don’t project intentions on my part that do not exist. So “No.” Emphatically “No,” no slight was intended. Hopefully you will cease gnawing on this corner of the bone.
I’m wondering if Gordon is getting as exhausted by Lou as Lou gets by me! Because it has dragged on I went back to look and what Lou said was, “but it should be noted that both you and Gordon have strong personal interests in the matter” – in response to Dan suggesting Lou had hijacked the discussion of the original topic. I guess Lou was just pointing out that Dan and Gordon have an opinion, which is obvious, but it seemed like he was suggesting Dan and Gordon have more at stake with the issue than the average person – which he has since clarified is not what he was saying. I’m glad we got this all cleared up!
Yeah and how did that appeal work out? Did the author forget to mention that this meeting got postponed for another month and then the appeal was denied?
Mr. Briar, the Board of Zoning Appeals declined to hear the cases. The issue is far from over.
More time to be wasted. Congratulations.