October 1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She said the fence was, indeed, a major exterior change and said the real question now was whether or not removing the fence would be a hardship to the owner. Mr. Oxian said the HPC interpreted a fence as a major exterior change. Further discussion established that, while the fence did not violate setback standards, it was still objectionable on the general grounds that it was visible from the street and not compatible with the neighborhood. Mrs. Choitz emphasized that her objection was to the gate, not the fence. The gate, she said, is visible from the street and changes the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. DeRose advised the HPC that the position of the fence was legal and the owner could not be compelled to move it. The job of the commission, then, was to determine whether or not the fence was compatible. Mr. Herendeen moved to give the owner the authoritv to put up the fence as -is. provided she aqreed to replace the qate. Mrs. Sporleder moved to table the issue of the qate and have the owner brinq in proposals for a new stvle of qate. Ms. Metzger expressed satisfaction with the decision and asked commissioners for the names of suppliers of gates. 2. 1421 E. Wayne--LHD Mr. Pastor reported that the owner, Mrs. Toal, wished to replace the deteriorated casement windows in her sunporch with larger Pella 8/12 double hung sashes. He cited standards 3-C 1-3 and said he considered the windows inappropriate. Sill levels would have to be dropped 11", and the large window would require in -filling. Mr. Pastor distributed drawings of the proposal. Mrs. Toal stated that she'd researched the problem of window replacement and was acting on the advice of a contractor, Bob Dunfee, whom she trusted. Her goals were to let more light filter into the house and to try to echo the long, narrow style of the windows on the main facade. Some question arose as to whether the sunporch was original. Mr. Pastor said research had revealed