COMMENTARY
The Nov. 20 Inquirer commentary, City to business, Drop dead, by Paul Davies tells the story of two Chestnut Hill moms unsuccessfully trying to expand their services at the Good Food Market amid opposition from neighbors.
This story of frustration can lead towards skepticism for the role of community groups in the development review process. This was clearly Councilman Bill Green’s stance when he declared at the recent Zoning Code Commission meeting that community groups are a “drag” on development. He then voiced his opinion that there would be no need for their involvement in the development review process after the Commission rewrites the zoning code and remaps the city.
Contrary to this conclusion is the fact that the Chestnut Hill Community Association did not oppose the zoning variances that were required to serve coffee and sandwiches at the market. Rather, the community group submitted a positive position letter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the city’s authority on variances, along with signatures of support from over 400 neighbors. But not all neighbors were in agreement and those who were not “called in some political juice,” as Davies reports, contacting one state representative and two Council members to intervene.
When the case came before the ZBA, the “political juice” prevailed and the neighborhood consensus lost. Also contributing to the decision were the 20 opposing neighbors who showed up at the hearing. The market-owning moms, much to their regret, had not wanted to bother their supporters by asking them to take time off and head downtown for the hearing. They had expected the letter from the Chestnut Hill Community Association and 400 signatures to be enough.
In prior years, they would have been correct. The first stop for property owners seeking zoning variances in Philadelphia has been the local community zoning committee. Across the city, these committees provide a local forum to discuss zoning variances and the implications for neighboring property owners. The next stop is the Zoning Board of Adjustment, where decisions have typically aligned with the community position. But things have been changing at the ZBA and it seems that decisions are being made more often that are not consistent with the requests of community groups.
Contributing to this trend is the belief that community groups have had too much say in the past and their role should be diminished for the sake of streamlining the development review process. The problem with this is that at the local level the alternative to community consensus is individual opinions. And in the case of land use decisions, the individual opinion with the most political sway will prevail. Sometimes this might be the developer, sometimes it might be a government figure, sometimes it might be the loudest voice that happens to show up at a zoning hearing.
Consensus building is not easy, and there is room for improving the process at many community groups. But if the voices of community groups are disregarded, developmental decisions will be more subject to individual and political influences, which would most likely be more unpredictable and arbitrary than community consensus. This would be a real “drag” for communities, developers and property owners and would most certainly lead to more litigation and further - not less - development delays.
The efforts of the Zoning Code Commission to rewrite the zoning code as well as the stronger role now given to the Planning Commission in shaping the growth of the city are good news. Rather than dismiss the complementary, local role of community groups, Councilman Green and the Zoning Code Commission should work to craft a code that enables communities to fully participate in a fair and transparent zoning decision process that can be predictably navigated by homeowners, developers and moms who want to serve coffee to their neighborhood. This is the type of zoning reform our city needs.
Timothy Kerner, AIA, is principal architect / urban designer at Terra Studio and chair of the Center City Residents Association zoning committee
Contact the writer at timkerner@terra-studio.com
Comments
East Mt Airy Neighbors Association, Ward Leader Vernon Price , City Council Woman Donna Reed Miller decided to build the Devon Street Townhouse, along with interest from closely associated WMAN next to the Sedgwick train station. The project is half finished and bankrupt. Was built on contaminated soil and failed to follow numerous basic safety and environmental procedures. Demolition without permits cracked and bent my house. Chemical vapors from the illegal dumping of the Anastasi Masonry Co put me in the hospital 3 times. I was displaced most of the past 4 years due to the dangerous conditions and now my home as become a nightmare surrounded by a planing and zoning disaster and a community that didn't care if they were hurting me and they had the political clout to get anyway with committing these crimes. They are crimes. Environmental crimes and crimes that caused bodily harm and civil rights violations and the political powers, like Ward Leader Vernon Price, Council Woman Donna Reed Miller, Seth Williams and the 14th police district and the political elite of Mt Airy and Chestnut Hill purposefully and consciously committed these crimes against me. It's shows that the self proclaimed green and politically correct NW will blatantly and ruthlessly commit Environmental Justice crimes and cause bodily harm and totally decimate one person's life , with no conscious, if it affects their investment, but then preach against gas drilling poisons like they did tonight at the Philly for Change meeting.
This is a great column. Of course community groups should be allowed maximum participation. It is pointless to try and keep citizens out of important decisions that affect their neighborhoods. Any attempt to do so would be met with great resistance. Morever, any successful effort to keep people out would only result in their advocacy through other measures (including at the ballot box). People have the right to participate in these decisions. The Boards and Commissions should be adult enough to make the hard choices, even with citizen involvement. Thanks again for a great column.
All good points on this page. But reform must always keep in mind that zoning is not about increasing community involvement. It was never thus. Zoning was (and is) a restriction on property rights in order to allow orderly development of a community. Zoning allows for everything-"a place for everything-and everything in its own place". This does not always sit well with community groups-who are almost always loaded with NIMBYs and those with a axe to grind. The way developers and property owners are treated in those meetings is sometimes appalling. The attitude is sometimes-"How dare you come in to this neighborhood and try to make money." This is not what zoning is about.
SHCA and CCRA are among the more level headed and problems like this a rare-but they are not immune to parochial concerns-which are the antithesis of orderly development.
I would say this-with reform-everyone is losing power. Councilpeople especially. Developers also. The community groups need to man up and give up some of their power like everybody else. It is the only way reform will work.