see in the Oregonian:
Home demolitions skyrocket in Portland, neighbors demand advance warning
New homes are being built in established neighborhoods throughout Portland, particularly in the Southeast. Photographed here, a new home nearly four times the size of houses around it is being constructed in Mt. Scott-Arleta. (Melissa Binder/The Oregonian)
Maria Baker got a call from a nervous neighbor one Friday morning: The house two doors down was about to be demolished. Did she know?
The Eastmoreland resident did not. She screamed and ran outside.
“I marched over there and I stood between the tractor and the house,” she said.
Baker couldn’t stop the demolition, and now two new homes are being built on the property.
Cases such as Baker’s lie at the heart of a fight arising in some of Portland’s most established close-in neighborhoods.
The number of single-family home demolitions has skyrocketed since the end of the recession. City regulators have approved more than 230 demolitions so far this year, up 40 percent from all of 2011.
Now neighbors are pushing back, arguing they deserve ample advance warning when a house is about to come down.
“The whole permitting process is set up for developers,” Baker said. “There is no protection for us.”
Increasingly unaware
Neighbors say knowing about a tear down ahead of time allows them to prepare.
Some want to keep an eye on developers to ensure they’re following environmental rules; others just want to cover their plants or move their cars.
But the number of demolitions approved without prior notification to neighbors is rapidly increasing as infill – the process of replacing an older home, often with more than one – spreads.
Demolitions require a permit; city code mandates that neighbors be notified before one is issued, and says a permit cannot happen until 35 days after application. The Bureau of Development Services, the city agency that regulates construction, must notify the neighborhood association, and the property owner must put up a prominent orange sign announcing that the structure will be demolished.
There is, however, an exception: If a property owner applies and pays for a new building permit at the same time as the demolition permit, that notification requirement can be waived.
Developers are taking advantage of the waiver more and more. This year, about a quarter of approved demolitions required notification, down from more than 70 percent in 2006 and 2007.
Builders say home buyers are eager to live close-in, but want newer, larger houses. They’re ready to build, and they’re ready to do it quickly.
Neighbor concerns
The increased frequency of demolitions — particularly those that aren’t prefaced by a notification — hasn’t gone unnoticed.
“The spigot has turned on, and all of a sudden we're seeing this,” said Bob Kellett, the neighborhood planning manager at Southeast Uplift, the neighborhood coalition that serves Southeast Portland.
He’s heard from a lot of concerned neighbors who are seeing homes torn down and wondering why they weren’t warned. They're worried about the changing character of their neighborhoods, he said.
Not every neighbor concerned about the notification process opposes development.
Walt Mintkeski, who lives across the street from Baker in Eastmoreland, said he doesn’t mind infill development. Change, he said, is inevitable.
“I believe in the urban (growth) boundary,” he said, “and I know to save our farmland we have to get denser.”
Chris Boullet said big, fancy new homes are actually good for his neighborhood.
Boullet lives in Mt. Scott-Arleta on Southeast Ramona Street, where multiple new homes are under construction. Most of the houses are small and one story, but just across the street from Boullet a structure at least four times the size of the home next to it is under construction.
Even for Boullet and Mintkeski, demolition without notification is getting old.
Tear downs are disruptive, Boullet said, and it angers him that he isn’t warned ahead of time. He said he would make changes to his schedule, and move his classic car, if he knew when a nearby house was coming down.
It’s time for the system to change, he said. His neighborhood sure has.
Two technicalities
At the root of the debate are two technical aspects of city code. The waiver is the first.
Developer Vic Remmers said the waiver is useful even if his company, Everett Custom Homes, isn’t in a hurry to tear a particular house down. The orange sign he’s required to put up without the exemption practically advertises a house as vacant, he said, and can attract illegal activity.
Remmers said he takes time to communicate with neighbors himself.
“We understand that we're moving into their backyards,” he said.
Developers may choose to be courteous, but the delay and notification requirement was never intended as a kindness to neighbors, said Ross Caron, spokesman for the development bureau.
The requirement was added to city code in 1988 to prevent large backlogs of vacant land from building up. The waiver option was added in 1990 to allow property owners to move
forward more quickly if they were ready to build.
The second technicality neighbors cite as a problem involves what the city considers a true demolition -- and the difference between a demolition and a remodel.
This tear down on Southeast Knapp Street in Eastmoreland was not considered a demolition by the city because part of the old house remained intact.
City code defines a demolition as a complete removal of a structure. If any portion of the to-be-razed home remains — say a bit of wall or floor framing — a demolition permit is unnecessary. An alteration or addition permit is required, but that does not involve a delay or notifying neighbors.
There have been about 2,700 alteration and addition permits thus far this year, up 24 percent from 2011. Projects range from remodeling a bathroom to building an entirely new home with a bit of an old wall or floor still intact.
To the city, these technicalities are separate issues. To neighbors the problem is uniform: Homes are being torn down, and they’re being caught by surprise.
Demanding change
Neighbors in Southeast, where the demolitions are overwhelmingly concentrated, want the city to require notification whenever a home is torn down, regardless of the technicalities.
Leaders of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association have written language stating that there must be a delay and notification when a property owner proposes to remove more than 50 percent of a house.
The purpose of the resolution, which has no legal bearing, is to send a message to the city, said Rod Merrick, land use co-chairman in Eastmoreland.
Southeast Uplift, the coalition of neighborhoods, voted to support the resolution this summer.
“If neighbors are not informed, these things can come down when kids are playing in the yard next door,” said executive director Anne Dufay.
It’s important that neighbors be able to keep tabs on whether developers are properly dealing with hazardous materials, she said, because the enforcement of environmental rules is a complaint-driven system. If no one catches a problem, it won’t be addressed.
But Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who manages the development bureau, said she isn’t convinced advance warning is valuable. It isn't the neighbors' job to monitor developer’s compliance with environmental regulations, she said.
“There shouldn't be an expectation that neighbors in all parts of the city should be vigilant to make sure development goes smoothly,” she said.
Besides, Fritz said, she doesn’t want neighbors to think they have a right to influence the design of a new house. Some developers, like Remmers, are open to suggestions from the community. Others are not.
Renaissance Homes spokeswoman Kelly Asmus said her company makes an effort to inform neighbors about their projects but isn’t open to changing their home designs.
“It's really challenging to solicit a wide range of opinions when you're running a business,” she said. “It's pretty near impossible to make everyone happy.”
And they aren’t required to make neighbors happy, city officials say. As long as developers abide by the code, the design is at their discretion.
The Eastmoreland resident did not. She screamed and ran outside.
“I marched over there and I stood between the tractor and the house,” she said.
Baker couldn’t stop the demolition, and now two new homes are being built on the property.
Cases such as Baker’s lie at the heart of a fight arising in some of Portland’s most established close-in neighborhoods.
The number of single-family home demolitions has skyrocketed since the end of the recession. City regulators have approved more than 230 demolitions so far this year, up 40 percent from all of 2011.
Now neighbors are pushing back, arguing they deserve ample advance warning when a house is about to come down.
“The whole permitting process is set up for developers,” Baker said. “There is no protection for us.”
Increasingly unaware
Neighbors say knowing about a tear down ahead of time allows them to prepare.
Some want to keep an eye on developers to ensure they’re following environmental rules; others just want to cover their plants or move their cars.
But the number of demolitions approved without prior notification to neighbors is rapidly increasing as infill – the process of replacing an older home, often with more than one – spreads.
Demolitions require a permit; city code mandates that neighbors be notified before one is issued, and says a permit cannot happen until 35 days after application. The Bureau of Development Services, the city agency that regulates construction, must notify the neighborhood association, and the property owner must put up a prominent orange sign announcing that the structure will be demolished.
There is, however, an exception: If a property owner applies and pays for a new building permit at the same time as the demolition permit, that notification requirement can be waived.
Developers are taking advantage of the waiver more and more. This year, about a quarter of approved demolitions required notification, down from more than 70 percent in 2006 and 2007.
Builders say home buyers are eager to live close-in, but want newer, larger houses. They’re ready to build, and they’re ready to do it quickly.
Neighbor concerns
The increased frequency of demolitions — particularly those that aren’t prefaced by a notification — hasn’t gone unnoticed.
“The spigot has turned on, and all of a sudden we're seeing this,” said Bob Kellett, the neighborhood planning manager at Southeast Uplift, the neighborhood coalition that serves Southeast Portland.
He’s heard from a lot of concerned neighbors who are seeing homes torn down and wondering why they weren’t warned. They're worried about the changing character of their neighborhoods, he said.
Not every neighbor concerned about the notification process opposes development.
Walt Mintkeski, who lives across the street from Baker in Eastmoreland, said he doesn’t mind infill development. Change, he said, is inevitable.
“I believe in the urban (growth) boundary,” he said, “and I know to save our farmland we have to get denser.”
Chris Boullet said big, fancy new homes are actually good for his neighborhood.
Boullet lives in Mt. Scott-Arleta on Southeast Ramona Street, where multiple new homes are under construction. Most of the houses are small and one story, but just across the street from Boullet a structure at least four times the size of the home next to it is under construction.
The “monstrosity,” he said, doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood at all.
The spigot has turned on, and all of a sudden we're seeing this. - Bob Kellett
“But getting away from the ‘felony flats’ thing is good,” he said. “The change is kind of nice; it’s bringing business.”Even for Boullet and Mintkeski, demolition without notification is getting old.
Tear downs are disruptive, Boullet said, and it angers him that he isn’t warned ahead of time. He said he would make changes to his schedule, and move his classic car, if he knew when a nearby house was coming down.
It’s time for the system to change, he said. His neighborhood sure has.
Two technicalities
At the root of the debate are two technical aspects of city code. The waiver is the first.
Developer Vic Remmers said the waiver is useful even if his company, Everett Custom Homes, isn’t in a hurry to tear a particular house down. The orange sign he’s required to put up without the exemption practically advertises a house as vacant, he said, and can attract illegal activity.
Remmers said he takes time to communicate with neighbors himself.
“We understand that we're moving into their backyards,” he said.
Developers may choose to be courteous, but the delay and notification requirement was never intended as a kindness to neighbors, said Ross Caron, spokesman for the development bureau.
The requirement was added to city code in 1988 to prevent large backlogs of vacant land from building up. The waiver option was added in 1990 to allow property owners to move
forward more quickly if they were ready to build.
The second technicality neighbors cite as a problem involves what the city considers a true demolition -- and the difference between a demolition and a remodel.
This tear down on Southeast Knapp Street in Eastmoreland was not considered a demolition by the city because part of the old house remained intact.There have been about 2,700 alteration and addition permits thus far this year, up 24 percent from 2011. Projects range from remodeling a bathroom to building an entirely new home with a bit of an old wall or floor still intact.
To the city, these technicalities are separate issues. To neighbors the problem is uniform: Homes are being torn down, and they’re being caught by surprise.
Demanding change
Neighbors in Southeast, where the demolitions are overwhelmingly concentrated, want the city to require notification whenever a home is torn down, regardless of the technicalities.
Leaders of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association have written language stating that there must be a delay and notification when a property owner proposes to remove more than 50 percent of a house.
Language written by Eastmoreland
"Demolition Notification: When 50% or more of the enclosed volume of a residential structure is proposed to be removed, except in the case of emergency that could endanger life or property, 45 day notice to the impacted Neighborhood Association and to residents of adjacent neighboring properties is required prior to issuance of a permit to proceed with such work."
Southeast Uplift, the coalition of neighborhoods, voted to support the resolution this summer.
“If neighbors are not informed, these things can come down when kids are playing in the yard next door,” said executive director Anne Dufay.
It’s important that neighbors be able to keep tabs on whether developers are properly dealing with hazardous materials, she said, because the enforcement of environmental rules is a complaint-driven system. If no one catches a problem, it won’t be addressed.
But Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who manages the development bureau, said she isn’t convinced advance warning is valuable. It isn't the neighbors' job to monitor developer’s compliance with environmental regulations, she said.
“There shouldn't be an expectation that neighbors in all parts of the city should be vigilant to make sure development goes smoothly,” she said.
Besides, Fritz said, she doesn’t want neighbors to think they have a right to influence the design of a new house. Some developers, like Remmers, are open to suggestions from the community. Others are not.
Renaissance Homes spokeswoman Kelly Asmus said her company makes an effort to inform neighbors about their projects but isn’t open to changing their home designs.
“It's really challenging to solicit a wide range of opinions when you're running a business,” she said. “It's pretty near impossible to make everyone happy.”
And they aren’t required to make neighbors happy, city officials say. As long as developers abide by the code, the design is at their discretion.
-- Melissa Binder
EDITOR"S NOTE: All property that resides within 1/2 of the 101 Freeway in Marin is in the 101 Freeway Priority Development Area and will be subject to increased urbanization. Our single family neighborhoods may be suddenly converted to multifamily neighborhoods and we can suffer the same fate as this Portland neighborhood. The goal of "One Plan Bay Area" is to increase living densities along transportation corridors. Portland land use planning is seen as the model of our future. We will fight the urbanization of Marin.
EDITOR"S NOTE: All property that resides within 1/2 of the 101 Freeway in Marin is in the 101 Freeway Priority Development Area and will be subject to increased urbanization. Our single family neighborhoods may be suddenly converted to multifamily neighborhoods and we can suffer the same fate as this Portland neighborhood. The goal of "One Plan Bay Area" is to increase living densities along transportation corridors. Portland land use planning is seen as the model of our future. We will fight the urbanization of Marin.
No comments:
Post a Comment