[RP TownTalk] Character Counts

[Alice Ewen Walker]

>Can anyone shed any light as to why this house was included in the M-UTC
area?

The owner asked that it be included.  If I recall correctly, the M-UTC Zone
initially included the parking lot, but not the boarding house itself. At
the time there were several area property owners that sought inclusion
within the Zone.  A few were rejected, but those that were ultimately
included were the boarding house and the three boarding house/rental units
that face Natoli.

In the case of the boarding house, the argument expressed was the following:
- the property is old and beat up and not a likely candidate for historic
rehab
- you can't do anything with it to make it profitable in its then-current
zoning (which was single family residential)
- the business owner at the time said that he would like to expand the
Dumm's Corner Store to double the floor space by moving across the street to
the site where the boarding house is located.
- Even if you wanted to tear down the building and rebuild it, the
single-family residential zoning would not allow for it. The boarding house
is grandfathered-in.  Single family-R zoning would require a greater set
back and smaller building than the present boarding house.

If I remember right, inclusion of the property within the Zone was a council
vote, not a committee decision.  But there was plenty of discussion with the
committee of volunteers at the time. As a citizen participant, I voiced
opinion against inclusion because it would provide opportunity for
commercial encroachment close to Oliver St, which is the historic entrance
to the mansion. The compromise ultimately negotiated by the Town, through
Michael Herman's effort, was that the Boarding House property would be
included in the MUTC zone, in exchange for a 20 or 30 foot undevelopable
buffer backing the Oliver Street property line.

Why would the town include this in the M-UTC Zone? Because Dumm's and the
Spiropolouses are valued and vital businesses in our otherwise empty town
center.  There was a lot of support for inclusion because it created
opportunity for the business to grow and thrive and provide more services in
the community.  Also, there were a lot of people who didn't particularly
like the boarding house in its present use- so keeping it locked into SFR
was not that popular.

I agree that it could in theory be a neat B&B - but none of us know the
costs of that or the potential for making or losing money on that. Seems to
me that if a B&B were more profitable than a boarding house, the owners
might have already made the switch.

- Alice



On 3/16/06, Rob Oppenheim <rob.oppenheim at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  Despite rumors that the condos are a "done deal", they are not.
>  No approval has yet been granted.
>
>  Citizen input can and does matter. They require an exception to the rules
>
>  to build what has been proposed, so it may well not happen. In my talking
> to
>  people during the campaign, sentiment was strong and it ran about 10 to 1
>
>  against this project (as it is now proposed).
>
>  I still have a bit of "wait and see" in me. Since they are still
> proposing changes.
>  Yet I am deeply concerned about the impact of this on the historic core
> of the town.
>  And I am worried that if people wait too long to get involved it may be
> too late.
>
>  I urge everyone to attend the April 5 M-UTC meeting.
>
>  The house at 6009 Lafayette Ave appears on the 1904(?) map that hangs in
> the Town
>  Hall conference room, so it is at least 102 years old. The outside of the
> house appears
>  in good shape. I would guess the interior is in bad shape. But with a
> solid foundation and
>  good exterior it could be restored to its former glory. Wouldn't that be
> wonderful.
>
>  Can anyone shed any light as to why this house was included in the M-UTC
> area?
>
>  The building that holds the Dumm's corner store and the adjoining pizza
> and sub
>  shop is a delightful old building, and is exactly what M-UTC seems to
> want for this area.
>  Now it has some ugly stuff added to it, like boarded up windows and giant
> beer
>  posters in the windows, and empty boxes piled behind the posters, but
> most
>  of the actual building is charming and appears solid. There is a junk
> addition tacked
>  onto the back corner of the building, but the rest appears to be good and
> solid and
>  quality built with charming accents.
>
>  I would like to see the rest of the block go away. That is, the empty lot
> that is
>  piled with junk, and the cinder block walls of the old credit union. The
> glass bricks
>  on the front of the credit union are interesting, but I do not find it
> charming.
>  But then, what do I know?
>
>  Rob
>
>  On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:36:16 -0500 (EST), Andrew Farrington wrote:
>  >Is it too late to save that gorgeous old house?  I'm very into your
> ideas
>  >and grateful for them, but I don't know if we actually have any options
> in
>  >the matter.  Do we?
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk_riverdale-park.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20060322/0724d560/attachment-0003.html>