Ben and Carrie Modlin vs. Historic Preservation Commission (COA#2019-1007A)

Home Browse Search

not deemed appropriate; and iii. The potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would cause the applicant. B. When the Common Council is called upon to review an appeal of an HPC decision, the Common Council is required to determine whether the action taken by HPC was: 1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law; 2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; 3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or statutory rights; 4) Without observance of procedures required by applicable law or ordinance; 5) Unsupported by substantial evidence. III. Argument and contentions A. HPC did not adequately consider the health and safety concerns when voting on the COA application of Ben and Carrie Modlin. Their denial furthered the subjection of Ben and Carrie and their young children to the unsafe and unhealthy materials in the walls of the house, all of which was presented to the HPC prior to their decision. As stated above, The Historic Preservation Commission shall consider"The detriment to the public welfare if the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or moving is permitted even though it is not deemed appropriate." Health and safety of the family living in the home was acknowledged, but ultimately disregarded in the HPC's final decision to deny the COA. The below discussion demonstrates that it was acknowledged as an important factor. "Commissioner Downs-Krostenko asked if they had considered doing the house one side at a time. Mr. Modlin expressed that he had considered it, but that it would be a five-year project of work in the summers.