February 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

out to color their judgment of its historical appropriateness. A proposal could not be rejected simply because C of A procedures had been violated. She pointed out the absence of any mechanism to censure those who violated procedure. Mrs. Sporleder said she would have voted as she did on this proposal in any case, on the proposal's own merit. She regretted, however, that the Commission had not been allowed any input on the project. Mrs. DeRose said the Commission could, if it wished, consider creating a fine to punish owners who applied for certificates of appropriateness after the fact. Mrs. Sporleder said that the Commission already had the power to make such owners rework a completed project; that, in itself, was punishment. V. Regular Business A. Approval of Minutes 1. November, 1991 Mr. Oxian stated that the changes he had requested to the November minutes had been duly made. Mrs. Dennen noted that her name had been excluded from the roll of "members present" in the November minutes. Mrs. Petrass moved to approve the November minutes, as amended. Mr. Herendeen seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimouslv. 2. December, 1991 Mr. Oxian requested a number of emendations: --on page 2, to add his statement that he did not own the property on Lincolnway West that Mr. N. Shafer had cited. --on page 3, to note that he had told Mr. R. Shafer that his questioning of the worth of tax credits and funding was opinion only. --on page 11, to change the word "ordinance" to "standards." Mrs. Dennen moved to accept the December minutes, as amended; Mr. Eide seconded the motion; motion approved unanimouslv. (10)