April 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Holycross referred the Commission to the proposed review procedures submitted in February. At this point, he said, the procedures were still just suggestions. Mr. Oxian said the procedures were designed to make C of A hearings at the monthly meetings more consistent. They laid down methods for approving, conditionally approving, and denying C of A's. He said that the procedures could be tabled to give commission members more time to study them. He drew their attention particularly to the provisions for the proper making of motions. Mr. Herendeen stated that the review procedures established a parliamentary -style rule for the hearing of C of A's. Mr. Holycross said some Commissions used such rules as a script when conducting hearings. Mrs. DeRose said that, from a legal standpoint, it was better to have specific, established procedures for conducting Certificate of Appropriateness hearings because the procedures would provide a clearer, more precise record. Should any C of A case culminate in litigation, a clear record would benefit the Commission. The procedures were tabled. C. 1716 E. Wayne. Mr. Pastor reminded the Commission of the decision on this case- -i.e., to require the owner, Mrs. Metzger, to replace the gate she'd installed without a COA, but to allow her to retain the fence. He had recently come up with three proposals for replacing the existing vinyl -clad chain -link fence gate. He passed around specifications for these proposals; two were wrought -iron, costing approximately $1800, and the third was pipe - frame, cost as yet unknown. Mr. Holycross reported that he had discussed the project with the owner, and that she had been most cooperative. He said she hadn't seemed concerned about the price, but had been too busy to undertake the replacement. D. 1071 Riverside - -LHD This case concerned the installation of an oval window without a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mrs. Dennen 11