My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
February 1992
sbend
>
Public
>
Historic Preservation
>
Meeting Minutes
>
HPC Meeting Minutes 1992
>
February 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2019 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
6/8/2020 10:07:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
South Bend HPC
HPC Document Type
Minutes
BOLT Control Number
1001404
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Steve Murphy, co-owner with Ms. Ann Manion of <br />the house, then made a presentation defending the <br />alterations. He distributed packets of <br />information, and made the following points: <br />--the house was badly deteriorated, almost <br />irreparable, when they bought it. Their plan was <br />to rehabilitate the house and resell it. <br />--the window they replaced was beyond repair. <br />Moreover, it was in the rear, out of sight. <br />--neighbors had congratulated them on their <br />rehabilitation work. <br />Mr. Oxian then asked Mr. Murphy to present his <br />case alteration -by -alteration, starting with the <br />fence. <br />Mr. Murphy said the stockade was intended to <br />screen from view an unsightly neighboring property <br />to the north. <br />Mr. Pastor then read the staff recommendation. <br />One objection to the project was that the HPC <br />staff had not been able to document the previous <br />fence, to determine its historical value. The new <br />stockade, however, did not violate neighborhood <br />standards, and had precedent elsewhere in the <br />district. The staff therefore recommended <br />approval. <br />Mrs. Sporleder questioned Mr. Murphy and was <br />assured that the fence was in the rear of the <br />house, out of sight; and that it matched all fence <br />requirements for the neighborhood. <br />Mrs. Sporleder moved to approve the fence; Mr. <br />Herendeen seconded the motion; motion carried <br />unanimously. <br />Gutters and downspouts were discussed next. <br />Mr. Pastor again read the staff recommendation: <br />since no gutters existed previously, and since <br />standards recognize gutters and downspouts as a <br />necessary adjunct to good maintenance, the staff <br />recommended approval. <br />Mr. Oxian asked whether the house had built-in <br />gutters. Mr. Murphy said he had found no sign of <br />any type of gutter system. Mr. Oxian said he <br />believed the house originally had built-in <br />gutters, which had probably been shingled over to <br />halt deterioration of plaster. <br />(2) Mr. Holycross mentioned that, again, the staff had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.