City zoning laws should not be a moving target for property owners
Like the Ann Arbor City Council, the surrounding neighborhood and AnnArbor.com, I don’t like the most recent design that was submitted and approved for Alex de Parry’s City Place apartments on Fifth Avenue. I suspect that I would prefer keeping the existing seven houses on the property to any version of the project.
The problem is, it’s not my property, or the city’s, or the neighborhood’s or AnnArbor.com’s.
I’m glad that we have zoning laws and other rules and regulations that somewhat control what de Parry and other private property owners can do with their property, but those controls must be exercised fairly and even-handedly.
When de Parry acquired his property, the city hadn’t designated the property as “historic,” an action which further limits what a property owner can do, and frequently reduces its market value. Only when de Parry proposed to redevelop his land did the city “discover” its historic character.
The original plan submitted by de Parry contained some positive features not even required by the city’s laws, but it wasn’t good enough to satisfy the critics. Then, the city imposed a six-month (likely to be extended to a year) building moratorium on the area and is looking at creating a new historic district, all in an attempt to thwart de Parry. In response, he submitted and received council approval for a plan that complies with all applicable regulations, but goes no further.
What is AnnArbor.com’s response? It labels the proposal “vapid” and says “we don’t think ‘barely acceptable’ is the standard we should be shooting for.” (“Developer’s planned apartment project sets bar at new low,” Sept. 27 editorial)
Communities express their “standards” for land use by adopting clear legal rules, not by setting up moving targets for property owners to shoot at. Following AnnArbor.com’s approach, city police should be allowed to ticket motorists for driving right at the speed limit, since that is only “barely acceptable,” and a “higher standard” might be desired, especially if the neighborhood thinks that the speed limit is too high.
Whatever one thinks of de Parry’s project, it appears that he has played by the rules, and he shouldn’t be criticized for not doing more. However well intentioned, it is the city and neighbors who are acting unfairly and deserve criticism.
Ann Arbor resident Thomas F. Wieder is an attorney who retired from active practice in 2003. He continues to do pro bono work, primarily for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Comments
a2grateful
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 4:36 p.m.
The City is expert at setting moving targets for property owners, and has practiced such for over twenty years. It acts arbitrarily, fosters lawsuits, deserves sharp criticism, and continues to contradict/counteract specific, defined zoning language. This causes great distress for neighbors and developers, alike. Enough, already!
bellhelmet
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 11:34 a.m.
Well done Mr. Wieder.
Tom Wieder
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 8:52 a.m.
I'm glad to see that my Op-Ed and this issue are furthering what is a useful, and respectful debate. I think that the most important thing to recognize in these situations is that such terms as "horrid, destructive, ugly, historic, beauties," etc., are highly subjective. Every neighborhood hopes that property owners and developers will share its collective, subjective view, and the better ones do, or, at least, they try to accommodate it. But unless they are required to do so, private property owners are free to ignore the unofficial preferences of their neighborhood and try to maximize their profits. By all means, impose every development and design standard that the law and good economic sense allow. And do everything to encourage developers to do more than the minimum. But the city and neighborhoods have no one to blame but themselves if a property owner descides to do nothing more than required, and the requirements are too lax. Its up to "us" to think ahead and get the desired controls in place, so that a developer who follows the law doesn't produce something that we don't like.
clan
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 3:18 a.m.
Right on!
notnecessary
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 2:49 a.m.
Mr. Wieder - Excellent piece here. I agree with most of what you say. AnnArbor.com - thanks for publishing this viewpoint.
PersonX
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 10:47 p.m.
V. makes a good point--the "by right" proposal was accepted because the City had no other choice. However, a PUD has to provide a benefit and is not automatic by any means. The City had every right to refuse it. The fact is that Mr. de Perry has been treated fairly, even if what he proposes is hardly fair to the city and the neighborhood, but only to his pocketbook and those of his backers. Let us hope that he desists, but also that city council, which has been much too lenient, will take steps to make the process more apparent, but also cease to promote all development, no matter how destructive it may be to our community.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 9:29 p.m.
Let's not forget that PUD projects have never been a right but are granted because they bring notable public benefits. City Place (the by-right version) was approved by council "under the gun". But Mr. DeParry is not entitled to his PUD vision by any legal or ethical standard. It is indeed at council's discretion, and, we would hope, contrary to their good judgment.
townie
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 5:32 p.m.
Wystan is correct, except it wasn't just one house, it was three out of the seven houses de Parry now proposes to demolish. And in response to ecoaster, yes, Mr. de Parry did buy the houses when there were no restrictions, but then personally served on the committee that nominated the three houses to be in the individual sites historic district. When the district went away and his suburban development business dried up, his attitude toward the houses apparently changed. Meanwhile, the City did nothing to start the process of re-designation to overcome the technical problem with the previous district. FYI - The court ruling that tossed the district on the technical issue was regarding the Anberay Apartments which were subsequently torn down for Zaragon Place. And finally, establishing an historic district study is not "changing the rules mid-game." The State enabling legislation for historic districts was created many years ago and has been in the City's zoning code for almost as long. It is a perfectly legal way to stop developments that would destroy our historic and culturally significant built environment in the same way wetland legislation is meant to stop destruction of important natural features.
Arboriginal
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 5:04 p.m.
Nicely said. If we are going "historic" then why not tear down all of the structures located on top of Allen Creek and let Nature get back to it's historical character?
eCoaster
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 4:38 p.m.
Thank you for expressing this point of view - one that I share. The City Council's reactionary move to impose a moratorium on demolition and re-visit whether the block should be designated a historic district was not in good faith (from a lay person's perspective). I do not like the developer's plan, either, but he purchased the properties on the up-and-up and at considerable cost with the understanding that they were not subject to restriction. It seems unfair to change the rules now.
PersonX
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 1:23 p.m.
Mr. Wieder makes many good points. However, there has to be some manner, if a consistent one, in which communities can protect themselves from unreasonable and destructive development. Mr. de Parry's horrid designs propose to contribute nothing but ugliness and unnecessary congestion, destroying an important city-scape and wrecking havoc with the collective architecture of a near-downtown area. He has used every legal means possible to go against the wishes of the neighborhood, city planners, and the city government. It is only to be expected that those who oppose his plans, and they seem to be many and to have good arguments on their side, should use all legal means available to them as well. It is unfortunate that the developer is so adamsnt in his pursuit of such a horrible and unattractive project, but somehow communities have to protect themselves from behavior they deem destructive.
Wystan
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 10:02 a.m.
"Only when de Parry proposed to redevelop his land did the city 'discover' its historic character." Actually, the city made this discovery quite some time ago. Mr. Wieder may have forgotten that at least one of those houses was once included in an historic district that consisted of a number of properties on scattered sites, which was in force from 1994 until 2001, when it was tossed out on a technicality by a judge who was hearing a case that involved a building geographically distant from the seven beauties on South Fifth Avenue. It is unfortunate that the buildings in that earlier historic district have not yet been given separate reconsideration for historic district designation.
Bonsai
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 9:19 a.m.
Thank you for this. This site's reporting and editorializing did not recognize the legal issues around the city's changing the rules in mid-game. Using historic districts as a way to stop development -- legal, ethical, proper? Is a moratorium on building applicable to a developer who had submitted his plans before the moratorium went into place?