March 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• CERTIFICA_TE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF REPORT_ (Follow-up Report) PROPERTY -- 415 Parry Street OWNER(S) -- Ms. Rebecca Shriner DESIGNATION -- Local Historic Landmark Please refer to attached February Staff Report for details of case. The owner of this property asked her tenant to publicly read a letter to the HPC last month, please see attached. I would like to respond to several points made by the owner in that letter. The owner was sent an agenda and staff report on the Wednesday before the February meeting, as is the practice for all COAs. Staff is unable to have this material ready before that time. It is a problem when an owner lives out of town. The HPC committee therefore tabled the matter. The owner was notified on February 16 that tonight's hearing (March 15) would take place (and sent an agenda). .The owner came to our office on December 9, 1992 and inquired as to the procedures for having her Local Historic Landmark property "dedesignated." I told her that there were no such procedures that I was aware of and that, in my opinion, I doubted whether the HPC would look favorably on the proposal. During that conversation Ms. Shriner indicated that she could not afford the expense of the property and wanted to sell. She also stated that she had spoken to the construction company next door to the property and that they had expressed interest in purchasing the property if they could have the house demolished, otherwise they would not buy it. In the course of the conversation Ms. Shriner indicated that the roof had been replaced. When informed that she needed a COA to do such a project, she expressed surprise. When asked when the project had taken place, she indicated that it had been some time in the last year. I did not accept a COA application at that time because I understood the project to have taken place quite some time in the past; it seemed a waste of time to pursue a project that had not occurred recently. At no time did she indicate that gutters had been replaced or that either pro.iect was underway at the time. I assured Ms. Shriner that we were interested in helping her with the property in any way that we could and that we would inspect the property because we were not familiar with it (Ms. Shriner asks in her letter why we did not immediately know this property among the 115 Local Landmarks throughout the county when she appeared unannounced in the office). Staff went to the site that afternoon and saw the half -round gutters torn 40 apart and laying on the ground; the contractors were putting up the plastic gutters. I did not think it appropriate, due to the project being essentially finished, to try to intervene. I sent her a letter that day (12-9-92) asking for a COA application and documentation of the project and