Laserfiche WebLink
double hung sash pair would be installed (double -pane <br />insulated glass) and topped with a semi -circular <br />transom light. <br />He reported nothing specific in the standards to <br />prohibit the alterations. The matter had been put <br />before the Commission, he said, because the house was <br />a one -of -a -kind example of the Sear's mail-order <br />"Magnolia" house. <br />Mr. Oxian asked why the house was aluminum -sided. <br />Mr. Yeandel said this was the work of the previous <br />owner; the original siding, he believed, was 4" <br />clapboard. He said he supported the goals of the <br />historic district and agreed that his house had <br />great significance. <br />The purpose of enclosing the balcony, he said, was <br />to create a 2nd -story laundry for his wife; she was <br />getting too old to use the basement laundry. Since <br />the balcony was useless, he thought it proper to <br />make a usable space of it. <br />Mr. Welsheimer moved to agarove the or000sal; <br />Mrs. Choitz seconded; motion carried unanimouslv. <br />4. 814 Arch Avenue --Local Historic District. <br />Mr. Pastor reported that the owner wished to apply a <br />non -yellowing breathable water repellent to brick. <br />No representative was present. <br />Mrs. Sporleder questioned the need for the repellent. <br />Mr. Oxian suggested asking the owner to forego it. <br />Mr. Eide pointed out some problems (trapped moisture) <br />associated with such repellents and said usually <br />they were not needed. <br />Mr. Pastor proposed denying the proposal, subject to <br />appeal. Mrs. Sporleder deemed it unwise to forbid the <br />proposal because, in the standards, repellents were <br />not prohibited. She suggested instead making a <br />recommendation against the proposal. <br />Mr. Oxian agreed with Mr. Pastor. He said the owners <br />could re -apply for a certificate of appropriateness <br />and convince the Commission of the need for the <br />repellent. <br />Discussion followed. Mr. Pastor said it was possible <br />to deny a non -prohibited proposal should the owner <br />fail to prove a real need for it. Mrs. Choitz <br />suggested suspending action on the proposal because <br />of inadequate documentation. Mrs. DeRose advised a <br />