December 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

repairable and need not be demolished. He stated that he and Mr. Crumlish had discussed possible cost of repair at the site and concluded that stabilization of the structure would cost in the range of five thousand dollars, though rehabilitation for occupancy could cost more depending on the intended use. Mr. Oxian opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Talley commented that having visited the site and having read the various materials submitted, he concurred with Mr. Crumlish's conclusions and had also observed only three damaged rafters. He further stated that he believed that the necessary repairs would be so simple as to be within the skill requirements,of an amateur, and that the rehabilitation of plumb conditions were achievable as described by the engineer. He believed the cost quotes submitted by the applicant to be high relative to the market, five thousand dollars seeming sufficient to restore the plumb and structural integrity of the building. He observed that the present owner had possessed the building for twelve years without expending effort to maintain it from which he inferred long term intention of its demolition. He stated that he opposed such demolition based on Mr. Crumlish's letter and his own knowledge of the cost of repair. Mr. Botkin then addressed the commission, stating that the building had no historical significance, in the sense of George Washington having not slept there, and that the building dated from 15 to.twenty years after the house and being architecturally unrelated to the house. He reiterated that the structure was not .well built originally. He stated that the owner had expended considerable expense in rehabilitating the house but that this structure had never been improved and had leaned since the time of its acquisition. He indicated that the City was now telling them to either fix it or tear it down. He indicated that there was no point in spending five thousand dollars to stabilize the building unless it could be put to some use. He further observed that the contractors consulted were not certain as to how much work would be required to bring the -building back to plumb. He concluded that there was little to be gained for the historical value to neighborhood, and that this building was just old, poorly constructed, and of insufficient value to the owner to warrant repair. Mr. Talley interjected that he had inquired with the State Fire Marshal's office who were unsure as to how the building came to -be reviewed by them. He further stated that the City Division of Code Enforcement had—indicated-..that------- ----they —had—been summoned to the property by the owner for an inspection. He further indicated that he did not see where there were other extenuating requirements such as parking need, addition to the building or other use which necessitated the use of the space occupied by the carriage house. He also noted that there was an automobile which appeared to be_.abandoned-or not in use on the property and that the .building .in question would provide storage space for such. Regarding the historic interest of the structure Mr. Talley noted that the stalls for two horses were clearly discernible in the building. Mr. Botkin inquired as to what gave this building historical significance. Fr. Bullene responded that it was highly doubtful as to whether George Washington had slept in the house at this location either and reiterated his comments from the previous b meeting that the minor buildings are part of the historic context of the major building and that the humble sets off the grand. He noted the letter from Southhold which discussed the increasing rarity of this type of structure which had been common during the era .in which the Lincolnway East District was developed. He noted that the idea of the importance of historic districts rests not on the importance of individual buildings but on the collection of buildings which have historical value. He then verified that the owner was in possession of the property at the time of the district's designation and that there had been no controversy at that time regarding the inclusion of the accessory structures in the requirements of