HPC Minutes 1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 20, 1978 Page 5 There was further discussion and a member of the audience was told by Ms. Sporleder that with "B" standards the Commission exercises prac- tically no control. Mr Oxian then said the owners would still have to come to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Lahey then spoke of the adaptive use of Tippecanoe Place and how bene ifcial it would be. Ms. Sporleder then asked him why Southhold Restor- ations wants local landmark status for that building when it is already on the National Register in its own right as well as being in the his- toric district. He replied that they wanted that because they wanted to demonstrate their good faith to everyone else in the community and because it was necessary to appeal for commercial zoning to the pro- perty. roperty. Southhold wanted everyone to know that they intended to main- tain the integrity of the property and that they wanted to get some protection over the exterior of the building. He did not want to de- stroy the faith of those people in the neighborhood who want to see "residential" zoning. He said Southhold is applying for local land- mark status to demonstrate good faith that Southhold is not in favor of wholesale commercial zoning for the entire neighborhood. Mrs. Price then wanted it placed on the record that she is not opposed to the restaurant operation if it can be adequately shown that the res- taurant operation will serve the purposes of preservation. She felt that a study should be made to determine what is best for the area. Mr. Oxian then said that the only thing the Commission is interested in is the exterior preservation of Tippecanoe under a landmark status. Mr. Wasielewski said the only thing the Commission can fall back on for the protection of any exterior of any building is the "A" stand- ards, He personally felt the owners should decide whether or not they want their building to be a landmark, and what type of standards should apply. He was puzzled why Southhold would ask for a reduced standard. There was further discussion from the floor. Ms. Sporleder interjected that the Commission has allowed the property owner to choose the stand- ards, but that the Commission has always had the right to decide whether or not to make something a landmark, and to determine what standard to apply. She said Tippecanoe is a specific and individualistic building and merits special consideration. She said the Commission can decide whether to make this building a local landmark or not. Ms. Peck said there were federal regulations that applied to Tippecanoe that had more restrictions than the local designation. Mr. Wasielewski again stressed the importance of Tippecanoe and felt that it should be guarded by the highest possible standards. Ms. Spor- leder said because of the uniqueness of the building it should have A" standards. If the owners do not want to do that, then the Commission also has the right to say that it will do nothing at this time. The question was asked why there were different standards, and Mr. Oxian explained the reasons. He said the Commission should be consistent in following its own precedent. Ms. Sporleder said the Commission wanted to give recognition to a rea- sonably large number of buildi.ngs. The Commission would not have been able to administer large numbers of "A" standard structures, hence the