Tuesday, September 19, 2017

how has the McMillan development team defended the subdivision of the McMillan site ?

One of the topics raised is the subdivision of the McMillan Sand Filtration site.

I have particular interest in the justification of the subdivision of a landmark.

I want to hear how the development team addressed this issue.

1 comment:

  1. I attended all the hearings and oddly did not hear the word 'subdivision'
    come up once in the city's presentations, in spite of the fact that that is the subject of one of the two Mayor's Agent orders and was prominent in the questions the court asked DC agencies to address in the remand hearings. Not mentioned at all. The Mayor's Agent issued two orders, both vacated by the court: one for demolition on a historic site, one for subdivision of a historic site, both of which require that the Mayor's Agent waive, for cause, the portion of the Historic Preservation Act that discourages both. So I share puzzlement at the question of why it wasn't addressed at all in the remand hearings. The remand questions for both Zoning and Preservation are posted on this blog, and subdivision is clearly mentioned as a topic for addressing during the remand hearings, but it was not brought up by the city. Parties in opposition raised that issue, but the point of the remand was for the city to address why subdivision was necessary, and provide some justification for it.