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

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Gelfman's suggestion that the Modlins do the project in stages over a number of years directly contradicted the aforementioned discussion that the animal feces, mold and rot documented demonstrated that the wall cavities needed to be cleaned out of unsafe material as soon as possible, and that this could only be feasibly done by removing the siding. Again, the HPC's statements appear to be contradictory, as their suggestion for alleviating the financial burden of installing wood siding is the opposite of what was said for removing the unsafe materials in the walls- i.e. spred the project out over many years vs. project needs to be done as soon as possible. A further contradiction that should be noted was in another commissioners reason for denial: " Commissioner Ponder (AYE)...If we allow you to do it- and yes, I understand the financial hardship- if someone else comes with a smaller project, then they will use this as leverage to say 'hey, you let them do it, why can't you let us do it?'...' (HPC minutes, 11/18/19) And yet, in Commissioner Stalhiem's proposal from the beginning of the discussion (see above quote) it was suggested that an addendum could be put into the approval of the COA with a stipulation that this kind of decision would not become a precedent. Thus commissioner Ponder's reasoning for ignoring the financial hardship due to concern for an unfavorable precedent being set was contradicted in Commissioner Stalhiem's statement. The one Nay in the 6-1 vote was cited by the particular commissioner as being because of road speed, foliage/vegetation, and distance from the road making it unlikely that someone would notice the subtle difference in the siding the Modlin's presented. In summary, at many different times during the meeting financial hardship on the family was clearly acknowledged, and yet at every turn it was ignored or refuted with arguments that were contradictory. The HPC moved to deny the COA despite quite clearly recognizing that it was a severe financial hardship. The blatant disregard for the financial hardship on the family and the contradictory arguments and reasoning suggest a bias against the applicant and/or property. Also concerning is the disregard for the legal stipulation that the HPC must consider "The potential hardship that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would cause the applicant" (see Standard of Review section) when making a COA decision.