February 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steve Murphy, co-owner with Ms. Ann Manion of the house, then made a presentation defending the alterations. He distributed packets of information, and made the following points: --the house was badly deteriorated, almost irreparable, when they bought it. Their plan was to rehabilitate the house and resell it. --the window they replaced was beyond repair. Moreover, it was in the rear, out of sight. --neighbors had congratulated them on their rehabilitation work. Mr. Oxian then asked Mr. Murphy to present his case alteration -by -alteration, starting with the fence. Mr. Murphy said the stockade was intended to screen from view an unsightly neighboring property to the north. Mr. Pastor then read the staff recommendation. One objection to the project was that the HPC staff had not been able to document the previous fence, to determine its historical value. The new stockade, however, did not violate neighborhood standards, and had precedent elsewhere in the district. The staff therefore recommended approval. Mrs. Sporleder questioned Mr. Murphy and was assured that the fence was in the rear of the house, out of sight; and that it matched all fence requirements for the neighborhood. Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the fence; Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously. Gutters and downspouts were discussed next. Mr. Pastor again read the staff recommendation: since no gutters existed previously, and since standards recognize gutters and downspouts as a necessary adjunct to good maintenance, the staff recommended approval. Mr. Oxian asked whether the house had built-in gutters. Mr. Murphy said he had found no sign of any type of gutter system. Mr. Oxian said he believed the house originally had built-in gutters, which had probably been shingled over to halt deterioration of plaster. (2) Mr. Holycross mentioned that, again, the staff had