At the Monday night Planning Commission meeting, John Sornson, 4th ward, brought up as new business, the fact that under the current Evansville ordinances, under nonconforming use, if a small house burns down, under Sec 130-642 it may not be rebuilt at the same location. This is because the new proposed house would not be on a lot that meets the requirements of the new building code. Some insurance companies may even prevent payment of a loss UNLESS it IS rebuilt in the same location. The homeowner is in a big bind.
So, John Sornson proposed that a revision to the current ordinance be drafted that will allow the home to be rebuilt within 12 months in the same location.
The current ordinances were drafted for new housing, and then the idea was to label the prior old homes as "non-conforming." This is really not a small matter. It was the subject of a large article in the AARP magazine two months back. I believe it was called "granny houses" or "retirement homes". Anyway, if you travel to any major city and ask to see condos that are near light rail systems, you will see that the price tag is $300M or more. So much for downsizing.
Small, affordable housing is of interest to seniors. It is important that these not be destroyed. It is also important, from the Observer view, that these lots in Evansville that are vacant because an owner was not allowed to build, that they be allowed to rebuild. Maybe an attractive design of a small home might fit and bring some tax revenue to the city. Everything is there as far as utilities. All that is necessary is some flexibility.
Most folks that are married do not both die together, unless in a car crash. Usually, a widow is looking for affordable small space. As baby boomers age, this will be a big market. It is time to adjust our codes to respond to this market.
I hope the initial discussion in the planning commission Monday results in a thoughtful revision of the current ordinance.
What are your thoughts? You make the call.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In your article you brought up something that I never would have questioned. I thought since we paid our home owner's insurance faithfully for the past 8 years that if something unfortunate did happen they would pay our policy, not tell us how we can spend the money to rebuild. It got us on the phone right away to our agent and was informed that we are fine, that is not how their company works things. The second thought I had on this was I never would have thought there would be such a city ordinace that makes it so if heaven forbid something happens to your home, the city could possibly step in and say no you can't rebuild on your own lot? If I can't rebuild on my own lot, what are we suppose to with it?
ReplyDeleteNobody else more than likely could build their either. What is the reason for this ordinance? How small is small? Should the city not be informing all potential homeowners that this ordinance does exist, in the case the worst were to happen.? It would be the responsibility of the realtors to provide this information. I am just shocked that there is such a thing,, it makes me wonder what else don't we know? Thank you John for watching out for the us, even though up until now I did not know I needed someone to watch out for me or my property.