Refrigerator on the Front Lawn… a Statement?

/ harshe711

AYC Special Excepton

This is one of the “official” notices for the hearing on the AYC request for Special Exception where they hope to get permission from P&Z, once they tear down a house they own, to have another access road onto Burnside for their construction trucks and other vehicles during and after their AYC expansion project.

We object.  There are already redundant access points leading to Compromise Street and to Severn Avenue.

Note the refrigerator in the background.  It appears, doesn’t it, that the AYC property ownership policy is to allow their properties to deteriorate, as evidenced by the condition of the 321 Burnside dwelling.  And that property ownership policy also seems to permit the placement of kitchen appliances on the front lawn.  Perhaps they see it as an enhancement to the Eastport landscape?

City agencies must agree with them since the refrigerator has been there for some time and no city agency seems to view that as a problem.

Is this an insight into the future of Eastport?

18 thoughts on “Refrigerator on the Front Lawn… a Statement?”

  1. It should also be noted that all the vegetation is seriously overgrown around the structure. It seems to me that AYC has again purposely allowed this to get overgrown so that nobody notices this structure.
    And, this notice sign is well hidden in the vegetation, and if a car is parked in front of it it is not seen at all. Good trick. I’ve seen it done many times, It should also be noted that the City does not put up the signs, the property owners do. The AYC doesn’t want anybody to pay too close attention to this sign. As was noted by the architect in the neighborhood meeting in February this house is a problem for them and is affecting their plans.

    There are two fire lane access points that are available to AYC. Portraying the need for a fire lane in their plans is just smoke and mirrors. They do not need to access Burnside Street for fire trucks. They want access for thier members.

    And, the question needs to be asked- is there any historic significance to the structure?

    I’m not against the project, however it is too big. I don’t think that anyone realizes that a 16,000 square foot structure is HUGE. With the proposed building on the other side of Compromise they will have more than enough space with that alone, and this “activity center” structure needs to be scaled down.

    Reply

    • Thanks, Cindy. We will post your comment. Will you be at the hearing next week? If so, I will see you there.

      Harold

      Sent from my iPad

      >

      Reply

Leave a comment