Neighborhood Conservation District - Page 15 - PhillyBlog

alesis · #**141** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 07:52 PM

Very well said.

I like Frank as well, but as my mama always said "what do you think you look like when you hang around a bunch of thugs? A thug-and its no one's fault but your own". He chose his company, and he's in business knee deep with them.

Everything Phillyphaithful is saying is true. He'd ask them something. They'd say "well, we wouldn't do that to you". He'd say "that's not what this law says", at which point they just started to unreasonably answer questions with questions, and would choose words convenient for the argument that particular second, which would lead to contradictions one right after another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by random

Well, what generous benevolence. If the law doesn't say what they intended, then they wrote a poorly drafted law without even performing minimal thinking about the consequences (who wrote that piece of crap anyway?) and now say it's all OK 'cause we're all friends, right?

The should either have the integrity to say they intended what they wrote, or have the integrity to redraft it (by someone who has at least a slight clue as to what they're doing) so it says what they intended.

My respect for the board has sunk to new lows. If they bother me about my house, having not received any written notice of this law as represented by the board (the only reason I have an idea of what it says is from this blog), I will sue those responsible for the fraud they have perpetrated by saying they did.

This has become ridiculous. Is there anything in philly at all that doesn't become completely corrupt? Even a little neighborhood group can't keep its **** together.

Anyone else not get the notice?

And PS: If anyone still thinks DiCicco hasn't been encrusted into office for far too long, pay attention. Frank's a nice guy but I'm beginning to understand that this city could turn St. Peter into just another corrupt politician.

random · #**142** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shosh

You know, I almost feel sorry for DiCicco (I know that sounds ridiculous), but he keeps on getting blindsided by QVNA, and that's really not his fault. Anyone who attended the "one way Christian Street" meeting saw his doe-in-the-headlights look -- I think he honestly believed that the idea had the backing of the majority of residents. And while he pushed back more on this one, I again think he was blind-sided by the fact that there was real opposition.

I don't think he's that dumb as to believe everything a few residents of the neighborhood tell him. He's been around the block enough times to know how things work. The playing dumb routine is getting old.

The next time QVNA has a fundraiser for Frank, nobody should go. If you want to give money to Frank, fine, but by delivering it to him through QVNA and showing support through that group is one reason why he thinks it's in his best interests to do whatever they ask.

montrose · #**143** (**permalink**) 05-19-2008, 08:15 PM

Appalled by this thread!

Sending in my objection letter tomorrow, though I doubt it will do much good.

Phillyphaithful · #**144** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 02:25 PM

http://www.ada.gov/adastd94.pdf

Im thinking that stating the entry door of every home built or altered has to be a foot off the sidewalk probably violates something in here.

Im searching through as I have time, but maybe somebody here can read this jargon better than me.

I would also assume that there is a newer version, but this is the only one i could find.

Shosh · #**145** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillyphaithful

http://www.ada.gov/adastd94.pdf

Im thinking that stating the entry door of every home built or altered has to be a foot off the sidewalk probably violates something in here.

Im searching through as I have time, but maybe somebody here can read this jargon better than me.

I would also assume that there is a newer version, but this is the only one i could find.

I've made that argument to them twice now, including in the e-mail above.

It is not a violation of the ADA to build a private home that is not handicap-accessible. Stores, public accomodations, etc. need to meet the ADA standards, but I don't see the NCD as conflicting with the ADA with respect to commercial buildings.

The real issue is, what happens when someone wants to build an ADA-compliant rowhouse. Granted, it's not likely given the fact that rowhouses are not particularly conducive to ADA modifications, but there are some larger ones that have elevators and there's nothing that, obviously, prevents an ADA-compliant rowhouse.

Well, nothing except the requirement that the door be a foot off the sidewalk. Assuming that the house isn't wide enough to also have a ramp. Except that the ramp might be considered an impermissible set-back per the NCD zoning regulations.

However, ALL that being said, the fact that one portion of the NCD regs prevents an ADA compliant home from being built would most likely not invalidate the entire bill. At best, it would invalidate that one provision; at worst, a court would interpret an exception for ADA compliant homes.

Phillyphaithful · #**146** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 12:39 PM

This is on QVNAs site today.

http://www.qvna.org/committees/NCD-Ordinance.pdf

alesis · #**147** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 02:45 PM

HAHAHAHAHA...I didn't even notice the new line they added since I was first approached with this bill.

Now if I alter my business I will have to "hide loading from the main street frontage". I guess I'll have to tear down some neighbor's homes behind me to build an alley since I can't accept deliveries on south street anymore! Cafe Fulya will have to accept deliveries only on their alley and not 2nd street. Java Co...what's their "main street", 2nd or Christian?

These people are ridiculous. If a commercial structure is altered or built there is absolutely no way to comply with these provisions.

NYCtoPhilly · #**148** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 04:22 PM

Wouldn't this be something that either/both print and TV media should get involved with? Anybody interested in getting Inga's commentary to this?

Shosh · #**149** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alesis

HAHAHAHAHA...I didn't even notice the new line they added since I was first approached with this bill.

Now if I alter my business I will have to "hide loading from the main street frontage". I guess I'll have to tear down some neighbor's homes behind me to build an alley since I can't accept deliveries on south street anymore! Cafe Fulya will have to accept deliveries only on their alley and not 2nd street. Java Co...what's their "main street", 2nd or Christian?

These people are ridiculous. If a commercial structure is altered or built there is absolutely no way to comply with these provisions.

I must be missing the "new line." You mean the 1 year expiration? That's been there for a while.

What I want to know, now reading this for the umpteenth time, is why, for example, only "new" doors have to be more than 1 foot above street level, "new" utility meters have to be hidden, etc. But there's no "new" in front of the window provisions, the deck provisions, etc.

Phillyphaithful · #**150** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCtoPhilly

Wouldn't this be something that either/both print and TV media should get involved with? Anybody interested in getting Inga's commentary to this?

I emailed Inga a few months ago when I first started to figure this thing out, never heard back.

I copied her and an Inky editor on another email recently.

Cant hurt to hit her with more peoples opinions.

I was thinking of looking into the CP.