| CRBJ Charter Member: |
|
|
| CRBJ Home > November 2006 | |||||
Madison needs an updated demolition ordinanceBrenda Konkel
The current ordinance requires us to find, in part, that any demolition meets the following requirements: • Encourages preservation of existing buildings that are structurally sound, economically productive and suitable for rehabilitation and repair • Encourages voluntary compliance with building and housing codes • Aids in the preservation of residential neighborhoods • Requires the Plan Commis-sion to evaluate proposed alternative uses of the property before existing buildings are destroyed or removed Clearly, we have allowed demolitions that do not meet the stated goals of the ordinance. If the applicant doesn't provide documents proving that the building is not structurally sound, economically productive or suitable for rehabilitation or repair, should the application be denied? We currently do not receive such information with the demolition application. When applicants submit pictures of buildings that don't appear to meet basic minimum housing codes, should the application be denied? Since we started asking for pictures of what is to be demolished, I've seen many minimum housing code violations. If residential properties are to be demolished to make way for a commercial property, should the demolition be denied? And when a building has outlived its usefulness or is creating a safety hazard (e.g. abandoned and being used for illegal activities) should we require that we know the details of the future use prior to allowing the demolition? There are times when a demolition is desirable, yet it doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance. This puts the Plan Commission in the difficult position of choosing between making a good decision for the community or following the current law. The choice is further complicated because the Plan Commission is an administrative body that must base our decisions on the criteria outlined in the law. Lack of consistency opens the door for potential lawsuits. Additionally, our ordinance does not address such issues as: • Demolition by fire (used as a fire department training opportunity) and requirements for notifying neighbors • Consistent conditions for approval of demolitions without a known future use • Requirements for a reuse and recycling plan We've also had a few demolitions without a permit in recent years. The owners subsequently asked for a retroactive permit. Additionally, some residents have expressed concerns that the ordinance does not adequately spell out criteria for denying a demolition permit based on historic preservation. Clearly, there are multiple complex issues involved and the Plan Commission has been struggling with this ordinance for the past few years. Hopefully the subcommittee can accomplish our goal of writing an ordinance that leads to more predictability and clear expectations that updates the ordinance to reflect our current planning goals. Brenda Konkel represents Madison's 2nd District on the City Council. madison.com ©2009 Capital Newspapers. All rights reserved. |
|
||||