Notice on a Bigler property on the 400 block of Avenue G
Samuel and Cynthia Bigler address HARB at last month's meeting.
The property on the 400 block of Avenue G
The brick structure, once a livery stable, was condemned in June 2015 and suffered a fire the following September.
As read by HARB consultant Suzanne Stallings at last month's meeting, Section 13018 of HARB ordinance states:
No existing building within the historic district shall be demolished in whole or in part unless there are no reasonable alternatives available and unless one or more of the following standards is satisfied in the judgment of borough council after considering recommendation of HARB:
1) The building does not contribute to the historical or architectural significance of the historic district as determined by HARB and in accordance with national register criteria.
2) The applicant proves by credible evidence that no reasonable beneficial use of the building is possible and such situation is not the result of intentional neglect by the current owner.
3) The applicant proves by credible evidence that denial of demolition would result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner which hardship was not self created.
1) The building does not contribute to the historical or architectural significance of the historic district as determined by HARB and in accordance with national register criteria.
2) The applicant proves by credible evidence that no reasonable beneficial use of the building is possible and such situation is not the result of intentional neglect by the current owner.
3) The applicant proves by credible evidence that denial of demolition would result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner which hardship was not self created.
Another view of the Bigler property on Avenue G
Samuel Bigler laid out the costs of restoring the building, based on an assessment by a restoration company and by three engineers, two of whom specialize in older buildings. Costs include the following:
1) Remediating fire damage.
2) Determining the condition of the foundation after a million gallons of water ran into the base of the building.
3) Bringing the building up to current building standards, which includes installing a sprinkler system.
According to Bigler the cost breakdown is as follows:
- $160,000 for the engineering study.
- $250,000 for assessment by the restoration company.
He said he had received $308,000 from his insurance company, because the building was a "total loss," as determined by three engineers.
Board member Elaine Beckley asked what prompted a specific inspection done on July 2015 prior to the fire.
Bigler replied that brick had been replaced at a side entry leading to the second floor due to damage sustained from an attempted break-in. He said layers of brick are three courses thick in some places and two courses thick in others, causing an illusion of bulging. He added that former code officer Robert Osborne noticed the irregularity and asked the borough engineer to inspect the building to determine the cause. According to Bigler, Osborne then condemned the building and told residents they had to move out.
A board member questioned the condemnation of the building prior to the fire when tenants were still living in the building. Jeff Helm, code officer and building inspector, said the condemnation was "modified" based on an engineer's assessment. The assessment allowed tenants to remain, provided the interior structure was resupported at and inside exterior walls, and that repairs were done to any delamination of outside brick.
Helm explained it was the supposition of borough's engineer to preventatively condemn the property to notify everyone about a building issue needing to be investigated by a structural engineer. The fire occurred before the engineer's examination.
Beckley questioned where the Biglers' concern was about issues with the building over the past year, noting torn, weathered roof tarps and open windows.
Bigler said, "We've known for sometime that the building is a total loss." He denied that the windows were open.
Cynthia Bigler said, "It sounds like you're saying we didn't really care about this building. This building is one of our larger investments. We've cared about this building for more than 20 years. Anytime we had any issues with anything they were addressed. We have this building, that now we don't have. We had $800 times five per month. That property was up kept."
Helm added that the tenants were good, with no disruptive conduct.
Beckley said that it's not a tenant issue but rather a building structure and maintenance issue.
Cynthia Bigler said, "You're trying to tell us that for all these years we did not take care of that building, and you are 100% wrong."
A resident at the meeting said that neighbors noted windows open for months after the fire, with tarps in tatters. The Biglers said a safety factor existed in trying to enter the building at that point.
Mrs. Bigler said, "I feel very sad that you are attacking us."
Board member Amy Evans asked if there had been any attempt to market as is. Bigler replied, "Several realtors looked at it, and most recently a real estate broker looked at it and recommended getting it down to the concrete slab as soon as possible, and then he thinks he could market that lot. He told me nobody's going to buy it the way it is."
Bigler said, "We've known for sometime that the building is a total loss." He denied that the windows were open.
Cynthia Bigler said, "It sounds like you're saying we didn't really care about this building. This building is one of our larger investments. We've cared about this building for more than 20 years. Anytime we had any issues with anything they were addressed. We have this building, that now we don't have. We had $800 times five per month. That property was up kept."
Helm added that the tenants were good, with no disruptive conduct.
Beckley said that it's not a tenant issue but rather a building structure and maintenance issue.
Cynthia Bigler said, "You're trying to tell us that for all these years we did not take care of that building, and you are 100% wrong."
A resident at the meeting said that neighbors noted windows open for months after the fire, with tarps in tatters. The Biglers said a safety factor existed in trying to enter the building at that point.
Mrs. Bigler said, "I feel very sad that you are attacking us."
Board member Amy Evans asked if there had been any attempt to market as is. Bigler replied, "Several realtors looked at it, and most recently a real estate broker looked at it and recommended getting it down to the concrete slab as soon as possible, and then he thinks he could market that lot. He told me nobody's going to buy it the way it is."
The board made a motion, with a second, for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of 421/423 Avenue G.
PA-1 notices seen this weekend
At the borough's April 2016 finance committee meeting, Cynthia Bigler appealed an invoice from the borough for $597.28 for an inspection of the property. The request was denied at the May 9 borough council meeting. As of March 31 of this year, the Biglers had an open invoice with the borough in the amount of $51,808, mostly for costs incurred for their Locust Street property, which was thought to be in danger of collapse last summer.
