Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Zoning, Rezoning, Variances, Area Commissions, Burma-Shave

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Zoning, Rezoning, Variances, Area Commissions, Burma-Shave

  • This topic has 13 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by drew.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1029292

    c_odden
    Participant

    The 142/160 King Ave thread was in some ways quite inspiring. For one thing, some of the questions are empirical, and aren’t unanswered for lack of data. Zoning law has some ostensibly simple underpinnings, but — with so many things — the devil’s not only in the details but in their interpretation. Some of this is just rehashing a PM to jbcmh81, but I think there might be some general-interest stuff in here.

    City Documents
    First, look at the Columbus BZA’s zoning application at http://columbus.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=69113

    Please pay specific attention to the hardship application and the conditions that must be met for granting a variance. Not all cases are variances — some are rezonings, subject to different criteria. Still, the hardship application contains principles that are a useful guide for someone thinking about these issues, NOT as inputs to the specific decision process of a rezoning opposed to granting variance. In general, it’s helpful to think in terms of burden of evidence and where you’d want it to fall.

    The document library from which the above is taken is http://columbus.gov/Templates/Detail.aspx?id=68649

    BZA case logs are here: http://columbus.gov/Templates/Detail.aspx?id=68196 . Here’s where you can find/scan the history of applications, although these are not tidily arranged geographically or by which committee and/or Commission voted on it.

    UAC in particular
    http://www.universityarea.org is the UAC web site. Note that the site does not contain the full historical record, as there are decades of hard copies. That can be frustrating and raise questions of “why the hell not?” in 2014, but please remember that it’s all volunteer labor by people with otherwise busy lives. It might be worth skimming agendas and minutes to see the array of activities in which UAC is engaged — maybe there’s stuff you haven’t thought of in which you’d like to get involved.

    Note the schedule for the zoning committee and full commission meetings, the ones that get the most commentary on CU (but not necessarily the ones you should attend if you’re looking to become more involved in the community… plenty to do in all areas): Zoning is every first non-holiday Monday at 6:30pm in the 11th Ave Pride Center (community policing station). Full Commission meetings are every third Wednesday in Rm 100 of the Northwood & High building, starting at 6:30 and running as long as they have to. When there are particularly full zoning dockets requiring a lot of discussion each, note that meetings can easily run into the late evening/night.

    #1029295

    c_odden
    Participant

    Here are some thoughts on the dilemmas in zoning and, in particular, variances. I know, it’s a lot of text. I’m hoping it’ll spur discussion. Cheers!

    There’s an interest in assessing, or at least in asserting, that groups are shills for developers, or are anti-density, or anti-urban or are allowing development to run roughshod over communities. If you’re interested in an evidence-based conclusion, what’s your basis for measurement? You could measure the disposition by vote — seems sensible enough. Voting in favor of a variance or rezoning request = pro-development. Voting against a request = anti-development (or anti-urban, in need of a reality check, etc).

    Please consider whether this accurately captures the distinction between the attitude toward a project and the decision whether the specific variance or rezoning requested can be approved. It’s tempting to think there is no difference. Consider, however, a project that makes sense, could improve the neighborhood, immediate neighbors like it, etc.. Yet, the project would violate existing zoning, and there’s nothing unique about the project site that deprives the applicant/owner/developer of rights enjoyed by neighbors with similar zoning. That is, it’s a case of “this is a great idea but it’s against the law” — not something you usually encounter in criminal law, right? Should the variance be granted? Doing so means imparting an exception to zoning for a single owner, but other property owners don’t receive this benefit.

    (in the 122 Parsons discussion you’ll find posts from me, and maybe others, that get further into issues of why there’s a variance process in the first place. I’m not a land-use scholar, just some dude, and I trust that you’ll take anything I write as a prompt to do your own research)

    Let’s go even further: let’s say that a variance is requested because existing zoning just sort of seems silly. Parking is a great example. Lots of agree that parking requirements are absurd, and that maintaining parking requirements leads to awful outcomes — too much concrete sprawl and all the consequences it brings — but does that mean selectively granting parking reductions is the solution? Fixing zoning law is probably the real answer, yet because that isn’t happening applicants make one-off requests to area commissions and the BZA who have to make a devil’s choice between honoring (allegedly) broken laws and effectively granting legal favors on illegitimate grounds (‘illegitimate’ because common sense is followed rather than fairness to all property owners).

    Rezonings and variances stick with the property, that is, in perpetuity (or until a subsequent request for additional variances, rezonings, etc.). There are plenty of cases where a ‘no’ vote seems absurd — just look at what the owner’s doing with the place, the investments s/he’s making in the community, etc.? Alternately, granting the variance would allow the owner to do things that neighbors themselves want — provide patios for walkability, bump out a building to allow a greater diversity of uses, etc. What jerk would vote that down?

    The answer to this is already in the spirit of variances: restore the spirit of the law where its letter deprives a property owner of rights enjoyed by her neighbors who are subject to the same law. A classic case is the owner of a wedge-shaped lot who wants a garage, yet can’t have a wide-enough one to maintain legal clearance from the property line on each side. The law was designed, let’s say, to allow passage from the alley onto the lot (and this prevents folks from building garages from property line to property line), or to prevent structures from butting up against each other and preserving “breathing room” between lots, but surely not to prevent people from having big enough garages.

    Why don’t groups like UAC lobby for rezoning if it’s such a poor law? As a body, it hasn’t (to my knowledge); individual Commissioners have, however, both because they recognize a disconnect between law and what they perceive as socially desirable outcomes and because making selective exceptions to a law all the time means you have a bigger problem on your hands. I’m trying to get the transportation summit held at OSU’s faculty club last Spring to do a redux focused on the policy barriers and dilemmas in shifting transportation — as a third-generation career nondriver and ex-friend to two Columbus cyclists killed in hit-and-runs, I’m plenty unhappy about car-centricity. I just don’t think that handing legal exceptions to individual developers is a just/moral solution to the underlying policy problem, and I’d wager that, if anything, it exacerbates it. What if developers had to address policy directly, instead of acting via a process were gatekeepers can be scapegoated as overly conservative because they didn’t approve this or that (often illegal) special bending of the law?

    The variance process is stacked against homeowners and low-cash small business owners, too: the application fee is almost $2000; they by and large do not hire attorneys to plead their case; they’re inexperienced in making these sorts of requests; and, in the first place, they’re often unaware there’s even a process available to them for appealing the impact of zoning law on their property. That’s a bunch of cash and a lot of risk for folks operating at a small scale.

    Milgram’s work on obedience had a rarely discussed twist. The participants expressed discomfort increasing the voltage when shocking the ‘foil.’ Yet, if it’s wrong to shock with higher voltage, wasn’t it wrong to give that first shock? All sorts of stuff seems reasonable enough starting small, but when it comes to consequences you have to be prepared to think Kantian: what if this were allowed for everyone? After all, everyone should have equal access to the process and equal baseline likelihood to the outcome they desire, not just the first ten in the door.

    Again, this is the difference between following the law, voting consistently with it (note that I’m not claiming perfect consistency, myself — I’m waiting for the robo-commissioners to obviate human civic participation…), and endorsing it. Unless you think doing so is a tacit endorsement and the only valid response to a law you think yields poor outcomes, sometimes, is to revolt.

    Also, Area Commissions not only lack the final word (they are advisory rather than ‘deciders’), but all sorts of things get changed post-approval. Multiple University Area developments were pitched as grad-student-friendly small units… only to be revised to 100% 5-bedroom. This doesn’t mean those developers were disingenuous, either! Maybe budgets changed. Maybe optimistic plans had to be revised.

    Bars and restaurants ask for patios all the time, and the UAC in particular historically asked for friendly ‘honor’ agreements to not have amplified music outdoors or big-screen TVs facing outward. These agreements cannot be made contractual. Applicants get their approval, and then are free to do whatever they way because it’s impractical to enforce — thus, they often do. A bar on 4th St pitched itself as quasi-fine dining in a variance discussion… and so on. When Commissions feel joint responsibility for having approved variances and rezonings for applicants who then violate handshake agreements or “flip” to new owners because they were able to increase their property value by getting special exceptions to zoning law, why wouldn’t those oft-criticized gatekeepers err on the side of conservatism?

    I mentioned Thomas Schelling’s work (cg “Micromotives and Macrobehavior”) in the King Ave thread. It’s a fun read, if you’re into that sort of thing. The point is that very slight preferences in a field of alternatives can yield extreme, even paradoxical outcomes. Prediction is hard, and it’s even harder because situations are unique (‘sui generis’), rules of thumb are especially hard to apply to neighborhoods adjacent to OSU, and nonlinearities abound.

    Anyway, so what if a voting record masks a bunch of gut-wrenching dilemma? A project gets voted up or down… the outcome is what matters for what will actually happen. So, it’s fair to criticize how a voting record contributes to actual outcomes. My issue is with inferring opinions from those votes. The truth is sadder and more paradoxical than that.

    #1029297

    elduderino
    Participant

    That was an incredibly thoughtful discussion of the issues that come up through this City all the time and is a great response to the issues raised in the 142/160 King discussion.

    I will admit to drinking the Andres Duany/Richard Florida/Donald Shoup Kool-Aid, but what I am beginning to learn is that trying to fix broad flaws in Columbus’s urban planning with spot solutions that are urbanist in intent is often destructive. If the UAC consistently voted “Yes” on every proposal for development (which is practically the case if one were to actually LOOK at the voting record), it would in effect cease to be a Commission and conditions would revert back to the status quo of the 70’s.

    It is a rather strange concept that an advisory body such as an Area Commission that has (practically) no proactive power – it cannot enact laws or write codes is only defined and given purpose by what it votes against.

    I don’t wish to re-prosecute the 142/160 King discussion too much, but I have reflected on it and one does not have to be anti-urbanist to acknowledge that different densities are appropriate for different parts of the City. Not to exhume the oft-violated corpse of Jane Jacobs once more, but even a paragon of urbanism such as Manhattan (finally) acknowledges the fact that the West Village has just as much a role in the life of the City as Midtown Manhattan and that different densities are appropriate in different areas.

    #1029303
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I don’t wish to re-prosecute the 142/160 King discussion too much, but I have reflected on it and one does not have to be anti-urbanist to acknowledge that different densities are appropriate for different parts of the City. Not to exhume the oft-violated corpse of Jane Jacobs once more, but even a paragon of urbanism such as Manhattan (finally) acknowledges the fact that the West Village has just as much a role in the life of the City as Midtown Manhattan and that different densities are appropriate in different areas.

    Agreed.

    And I would think that a three-story residential building on a residential street in the University District would be the “West Village” to Downtown Columbus with its much taller buildings.

    #1029311

    elduderino
    Participant

    Well, I don’t think anyone really disagrees with the height by itself.

    The larger question is: How far away from High Street is it appropriate to place medium density apartments? The answer tends to be a little different depending on where you go and very specifically the immediately surrounding neighborhood. The answer is not – all residential streets should get medium density apartment buildings.

    For the record, the development is in Dennison Place which is part of both the Short North and the University District.

    I think you have to use existing conditions (often) as a guide. The City Plannning Department did a survey of King, and between High Street and The Hamptons the average FAR (ratio of the sum of conditioned floor space on all floors/area of the lot) is 0.6. The development exceeds this by 50%, placing a FAR of 0.9 on King.

    If you use the next draft of the University District Plan – what the planning department thinks is appropriate, the FAR should be 0.4.

    So, the point is – if a development is going to significantly exceed existing conditions and I would argue that this does, what are the characteristics of the development for which an exception should be made? I do not think that density is a virtue in and of itself – not all development is good solely because it is dense. You may disagree. It seems to be implied that because a project meets one criterion of urbanism, it is appropriate in all urban settings.

    I think that there is something on the site that would be appropriate, but I do not think that this project is appropriate. To be granted a zoning variance, you must establish that a project will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood and I think that this project is. The developer is asking for a significant variation from existing and planned conditions and the current proposal is not virtuous enough to be granted the variation.

    So, the argument is not “We don’t want a 3 story building on a residential street”, the argument is “We don’t think that this development is good enough to warrant a large exception.”

    #1029312

    elduderino
    Participant

    As I stated before – the reality is that the City, even if it wanted to (which it doesn’t) and Commissions have very few mechanisms to regulate development – what you put inside your walls matters, but outside of health and safety laws, there’s not a lot that can be done about it. Variances are that mechanism. Density (loosely defined) is a key point for triggering variances, so the people that cast this argument as “anti-density/pro-sprawl” vs. “Jacobean urbanists” are missing the point.

    You cannot argue that you would feel equally about placing either Pruitt-Igoe or The Flatiron Building (triangles and relative sizes be damned) at the corner of Gay and High. Both would increase the density of the urban core, but in very different ways. I cannot just say they are both “Placing a tall building on a downtown street” and call you anti-urbanist for favoring one over the other.

    #1029326

    drew
    Participant

    You cannot argue that you would feel equally about placing either Pruitt-Igoe or The Flatiron Building (triangles and relative sizes be damned) at the corner of Gay and High. Both would increase the density of the urban core, but in very different ways. I cannot just say they are both “Placing a tall building on a downtown street” and call you anti-urbanist for favoring one over the other.

    This is a very good point. Same sentiment, put slightly differently – high population density is a feature of some of the most vibrant, exciting, and desirable urban neighborhoods, and it’s also a feature of some of the most hellishly unpleasant living conditions known to man. Contrary to the more simplistic interpretations of the prevailing urban planning thinking, density isn’t inherently good, and it isn’t inherently bad.

    As with just about all things, quality trumps quantity in the long run. In lieu of this naive, panicky, ‘we need density however we can get it and now because we need to catch up and play with the big boys’ attitude that seems to characterize a particularly stubborn strain of local thinking, we should be aiming for high quality, situationally appropriate density instead.

    To me this means that the higher the density, the more thought, planning, and oversight that needs to happen in order to maintain the livability of any area subjected to increased density projects. This seems awfully obvious to me – the tighter you pack people together, the more you need to give serious thought to how their built environment facilitates their ability to get along.

    Last thought – we have the densest urban neighborhood in Ohio. Do we have the best pubic transportation in Ohio? Even if we did, would it really be good enough? Dense car-centric neighborhoods are shit shows, as anyone who lives near campus can tell you. Might there be a limit to the density we can realistically achieve without a serious upgrade to our public transportation system?

    #1029330
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Last thought – we have the densest urban neighborhood in Ohio. Do we have the best pubic transportation in Ohio? Even if we did, would it really be good enough? Dense car-centric neighborhoods are shit shows, as anyone who lives near campus can tell you. Might there be a limit to the density we can realistically achieve without a serious upgrade to our public transportation system?

    To put it simply, both should be improved concurrently.

    Neither one is going to completely come before the other.

    #1029351

    drew
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>drew wrote:</div>
    Last thought – we have the densest urban neighborhood in Ohio. Do we have the best pubic transportation in Ohio? Even if we did, would it really be good enough? Dense car-centric neighborhoods are shit shows, as anyone who lives near campus can tell you. Might there be a limit to the density we can realistically achieve without a serious upgrade to our public transportation system?

    To put it simply, both should be improved concurrently.

    Neither one is going to completely come before the other.

    I think that’s a reasonable generalization as far as these things go, but I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Has the density of the university district exceeded (or come close to exceeding) the rest of the urban infrastructure necessary to maintain such density in a socially responsible manner? I don’t think there’s a formula for such things, but does it pass the sniff test? I’m not so sure it does.

    With respect to the proposed King Ave. development, I do understand the concerns of the immediate neighborhood. Dropping 150 undergrads in the middle of a very mixed neighborhood with plenty of long-term homeowners who have relied on on-street parking for being able to get to work, etc., is one thing, dropping them and their cars into the same neighborhood is quite another.

    It strikes me that if there is any population we should be nudging towards a car-free lifestyle, it should be the university undergrads living within walking distance of the university. Given the fact that the city overall is planned around the use of the automobile, and that the vast majority of non-student residents simply need to drive in order to maintain their careers under the current state of our public transportation, the glut of cars in the campus area amount to a piggish indulgence among a population that pretty clearly needs them the least.

    #1029357
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I think that’s a reasonable generalization as far as these things go, but I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Has the density of the university district exceeded (or come close to exceeding) the rest of the urban infrastructure necessary to maintain such density in a socially responsible manner? I don’t think there’s a formula for such things, but does it pass the sniff test? I’m not so sure it does.

    As someone who hasn’t lived in the University District in over a decade, I can’t answer any of those questions from a personal perspective. But if we just want to look at the Transit Score (via WalkScore.com) of the area, then 43201 has a 56% and 43210 has a 50%, both of which fall into the 50–69% “Good Transit” column. That includes COTA, but I’m not sure if it includes CABS, which does have a few stops within a short walk of this development proposed on King Avenue:

    http://ttm.osu.edu/sites/default/files/attached-files/CABS_system-map_130829.pdf

    The area is also within the home boundaries of Car2Go, it’s becoming more and more bike-friendly (OSU has a bike score of 89 (!!!) while 43201 has a 67), and it’s also a very walkable area in terms of amenities (scores of 80 and 83 – “Very Walkable – Most errands can be accomplished on foot.”). And I think it would be safe to claim that the walkability of the area only stands to continue to improve.

    Honestly, if we’re talking about a student body living in these proposed apartments (undergrad or graduate), I can’t imagine that most of the residents are going to commute by car from King Avenue to their classrooms unless they have some coveted A+ superstar parking permit on campus. It’s just as easy to walk or bike to your destination on campus as it would be to drive and find a parking spot and pay. Perhaps they need a car if they have a job somewhere else? But with driving statistics trending downward for Millennials, fewer and fewer should be expected to be car owners, especially at that specific stage in their lives.

    Could transit options continue to be improved in Columbus? Hell yes. No one would disagree with that. But do we need to wait for some sort of universally accepted transit threshold to be hit before higher levels of density are acceptable? No. The solution lies with continual incremental improvements to both. Add a few more people (transit riders). Add some more transit (service). Then add a few more people. And so on.

    #1029383

    drew
    Participant

    Honestly, if we’re talking about a student body living in these proposed apartments (undergrad or graduate), I can’t imagine that most of the residents are going to commute by car from King Avenue to their classrooms unless they have some coveted A+ superstar parking permit on campus. It’s just as easy to walk or bike to your destination on campus as it would be to drive and find a parking spot and pay. Perhaps they need a car if they have a job somewhere else? But with driving statistics trending downward for Millennials, fewer and fewer should be expected to be car owners, especially at that specific stage in their lives.

    Students living on King Ave probably wouldn’t use their cars to commute to campus, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t still have cars. Many keep them for occasionally driving back to wherever home may be (a significant rural undergrad student population likely makes this a bigger issue at OSU than some other schools), or for heading to wherever the entertainment may be on the evenings and weekends. That’s why it strikes me as a bit of an obnoxious imposition – students leave a car on the street for the rare instances when they want it, and displace parking for people who actually need it to conduct their day to day lives. When you look at the large number of nicely restored single family homes that are very close to the proposed development site, you can easily understand the concerns their occupants would have.

    It’s probably worth noting that there are schools with car-free campuses. It’s very unlikely that any are close to as large as OSU, but it does happen, and it does suggest that OSU and the UAC could be more involved in trying to limit the number of automobiles in the campus area.

    But do we need to wait for some sort of universally accepted transit threshold to be hit before higher levels of density are acceptable?

    The threshold isn’t universal, and I’d dare to suggest that it’s whatever the community decides it to be (intentionally or otherwise). My point is mostly that increased density in the University District may be politically unfeasible, due to community resistance, for as long as the automotive congestion continues to be a big sticking point. As long as having or not having a free 16′ roadside slot is the difference between being able to effectively get to and from work or not, I suspect it’ll continue to be a significant problem.

    There’s also the issue of permanence vs transience. A long term homeowner might reasonably wonder why an itinerant population with little need for cars would deserve the same right of access to parking that they do.

    It’s all sticky stuff, no doubt, but I do honestly think that a realistic evaluation of the variables surrounding the suitability of the proposed development site will necessarily have to include the aforementioned concerns. I suspect we’re at a tipping point, and I suspect that there could be a way to convert these pressures into a compelling argument/push for enhanced public transportation options.

    #1029389

    c_odden
    Participant

    There’s also the issue of permanence vs transience. A long term homeowner might reasonably wonder why an itinerant population with little need for cars would deserve the same right of access to parking that they do.

    You don’t even need this — instead, long term homeowners can recognize the purely practical issue that increasing the number of people/sqft without a proportional decrease in cars/sqft creates. Making driving more expensive for everyone is a way to discourage it, but when you use markets to achieve change it’s the people who can afford it least are the ones hurt the most, unless increased costs are accompanied by attractive alternatives. It’s not clear that COTA’s 90%/10% strategy is the right direction for folks who have a hard time getting around without a car. A common reaction to this is “just ride a bike” or some such, because it’s easy to ignore/marginalize those with limited mobility, or provide care for such a person, or have multiple young children, etc.

    Anyway, a family in a 4-bedroom are, ceteris paribus, more likely to share a vehicle than are the same number of unrelated, similar-cohort folks in the same housing unit. I’ve no evidence for this except twenty years in the Univ District.

    To me this means that the higher the density, the more thought, planning, and oversight that needs to happen in order to maintain the livability of any area subjected to increased density projects. This seems awfully obvious to me – the tighter you pack people together, the more you need to give serious thought to how their built environment facilitates their ability to get along.

    Absolutely. Individual developers simply aren’t doing it, unless they’re otherwise so heavily entrenched that their own properties are on the receiving end, too. I think it gets taken for granted that consequences for surface and subsurface water management get appropriately taken into account, and that someone’s making sure sewers can handle the capacity, etc. This isn’t happening. There are standards for a particular parcel, sure. However, in a floodplain with a high water table, changes to the landscape can have dramatic effects on neighboring properties. Those things are easy to ignore, yet they’re as materially consequential to quality of life as changes to the amount of sky, and sun, you get from different configurations.

    #1029390

    c_odden
    Participant

    but I do honestly think that a realistic evaluation of the variables surrounding the suitability of the proposed development site will necessarily have to include the aforementioned concerns.

    You also have to balance between levels of analysis (how do you balance what seems beneficial for the neighborhood with consequences for individuals? do you take where the city seems to be going, or what the neighborhood appears to need, as your guide?), and whether you are a utilitarian or whether vulnerable minorities have rights you shouldn’t violate even if it means more costly approaches to macro-change or simply being unable to enact the kind of changes you want. There are facile, pat answers to these dilemmas — “take a balanced approach,” and so on — but once you’re mired in the practical consequences of one choice or another it gets a lot harder.

    Incidentally, I was looking at Jane Jacobs’ biography on the Project of Public Spaces web site, in part because her name gets thrown around so often, and so many ideas — many mutually conflicting — attributed to her. The Life and Death … is described as challenging “the dominant establishment of modernist professional planning and asserting the wisdom of empirical observation and community intuition.”

    (emphasis mine)

    #1029396

    drew
    Participant

    Individual developers simply aren’t doing it, unless they’re otherwise so heavily entrenched that their own properties are on the receiving end, too.

    And I suspect that this is never more true than with developments geared towards (particularly undergrad) student housing. I’ve gotten the impression that the often reckless nature with which students treat their accommodations is almost inevitably mirrored by the people who provide said accommodations. It seems like everyone involved knows the game – the students know that the landlord is going to treat them like shit, and the owners know the students are often capable of unimaginable destruction that can easily exceed the cost of the deposit. It’s an unpleasant dynamic to live through, it’s an unpleasant dynamic to impose on a neighborhood.

    There are facile, pat answers to these dilemmas — “take a balanced approach,” and so on — but once you’re mired in the practical consequences of one choice or another it gets a lot harder.

    This is the simple truth that is disturbingly absent from much of the urban planning armchair quarterbacking we see on this forum… and I say that with full knowledge of the fact that at some point in the past I’ve likely been less than adequately mindful of it.

    The Life and Death … is described as challenging “the dominant establishment of modernist professional planning and asserting the wisdom of empirical observation and community intuition.”

    It’s a great quote that’d likely give pause to anyone who believes they know WWJD.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: