You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Improving with age”.
Improving with age
by Nancy Oates on November 25, 2018
• Permalink
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 25, 2018
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2018/11/25/improving-with-age/
Previous Post
Views across the board
Views across the board
Next Post
People + Places = Community
People + Places = Community
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
Plurimus
/ November 25, 2018Nancy,
Not sure of the details here but wouldn’t 160A-400 provide for at least negotiation (Shall negotiate) and a remedy for demolition through neglect (ordinance)? Depending on the history, I think the argument for statewide significance could be made in the place of the first public university in the nation?
ยง 160A-400.14. Delay in demolition of landmarks and buildings within historic district.
(a)An application for a certificate of appropriateness
authorizing the relocation, demolition or destruction of a designated landmark or a building, structure or site within the district may not be denied except as provided in subsection (c).
However, the effective date of such a certificate may be delayed for a period of up to 365 days from the date of approval. The maximum period of delay authorized by this section shall be reduced by the commission where it finds that the owner would
suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use of or return from such property by virtue of the delay. During such period the preservation commission shall negotiate with the owner and with any other parties in an effort to find a means of preserving the building or site. If the
preservation commission finds that a building or site within a district has no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district, it shall waive all or part of such period and authorize earlier demolition, or removal.
If the commission or planning agency has voted to recommend designation of a property as a landmark or designation of an area as a district, and final designation has not been made by the local governing board, the demolition or destruction of any
building, site, or structure located on the property of the proposed landmark or in the proposed district may be delayed by the commission or planning agency for a period of up to 180 days or until the local governing board takes final action on the
designation, whichever occurs first.
(b) The governing board of any municipality may enact an ordinance to prevent the demolition by neglect of any designated landmark or any building or structure within an established historic district. Such ordinance shall provide appropriate safeguards to protect property owners from undue economic
hardship.
(c) An application for a certificate of appropriateness authorizing the demolition or destruction of a building, site, or structure determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer as having statewide significance as defined in the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places may be denied except where the commission finds that the owner would suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return by virtue of the denial. (1989, c. 706, s. 2; 1991, c. 514.)