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
not been given the opportunity to inspect the <br />house to determine whether any kind of gutter <br />system existed. This was because no Certificate of <br />Appropriateness had been filed. <br />Mr. Herendeen moved to approve the gutters and <br />downspouts. Mr. Eide seconded the motion. Motion <br />unanimouslv approved. <br />Discussion of the new elliptical window then <br />resumed. Mr. Murphy repeated that the windows <br />were beyond repair, and distributed photographs <br />illustrating their deteriorated condition. He <br />said he and Ms. Manion had acted in good faith; <br />they wished to improve the house; any breach of <br />procedure was unwitting. Also, the window project <br />was nearly complete, and it would be very costly <br />to begin it over again. $12,000 had so far been <br />spent on renovations; an estimated $12,000 more <br />would be spent. The owners "simply could not <br />afford" to replace this window. <br />Mr. Murphy then cited the preservation guidelines, <br />pointing out wording which implied that the <br />guidelines apply only to the original windows. <br />The casement pair he had replaced, he said, was <br />not original. He based this conclusion on these <br />points: <br />--there was no basement under the rear vestibule; <br />just a crawlspace. The basement extends under all <br />other rooms in the house. <br />--There was a break in the exterior wall clearly <br />indicating a later addition. <br />--The interior walls are likewise discontinuous. <br />Mr. Holycross asked Mr. Murphy whether work on the <br />window had continued after the stop work order had <br />been issued. He said no. Prompted by Mr. <br />Herendeen, he said clapboard infilling had <br />continued after a January 14 conversation with <br />Mr. Pastor, mostly to prevent weather damage. <br />in conclusion, Mr. Murphy argued that since the <br />rear extension added no architectural style to the <br />house, standards were silent on the treatment of <br />its windows. Also, he felt the improvements <br />benefited the house and the entire neighborhood. <br />Mr. Pastor stated that much of the rehabilitation, <br />aside from the window change, was sympathetic to <br />the house's architectural style, and would almost <br />certainly have approved approval. Correct <br />(3) procedure, however, had been violated; no C of A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.