Laserfiche WebLink
preservation. This was affirmed by R. Oxian and Mrs. Choitz. <br />Mr. Oxian observed that the only opposition at the time of designation was <br />among the owners around Vernon at the east edge which contains much more <br />modern buildings requested to be left out. After a poll of the owners in that <br />vicinity, a portion was deleted from .the original proposed area. He also <br />indicated that there .was an.area which probably should have been included at <br />Miami Street which was not included in the original neighborhood proposal. <br />Mrs. Choitz noted that she chaired the District Committee at that time <br />attending every meeting regarding the designation and that it was clearly <br />understood that the carriage house was to be included in the designated <br />district. She further noted that there had been subsequent awareness of the <br />continuing neglect of the building, but that the commission is not geared to <br />controlling the activities of owners_ but that it expected that owners will <br />maintain whole properties, noting that this building is one of the few <br />remaining utilitarian carriage houses in this area of town. She also observed <br />that she had just returned from the middle Pennsylvania area where people take <br />great pride in structures of this character in every detail and would not <br />dream of letting one be demolished. She further noted that these structures <br />were effectively put to many, uses there including the attachment of. <br />greenhouses. She also observed that to her knowledge there hadbeen no effort <br />to find•an alternative owner for this structure,_ noting. that there might be <br />other individuals interested in saving the structure by relocating it. She <br />mentioned that such an arrangement could represent a savings to the owner to <br />the extent of the cost of demolition. She said that she would be sorry to see <br />the building come down for lack of effort to find alternatives to demolition. <br />Mr. Oxian inquired as to whether the applicant .had read the HPC resolution <br />regarding the requirements for demolition. Mr. Botkin indicated that he had. <br />Next Mr Oxian inquired who had put the new garage doors on the building. Dr. <br />Kempf responded that she had. Mr. Oxian the asked the purpose of these doors. <br />Dr. Kempf indicated that they represented an effort to further secure the <br />building. Mr. Oxian indicated that the building could be utilized as a garage <br />for the tenants of the main house. He also indicated that having examined the <br />building that the deterioration appeared to be "demolition by neglect". He <br />discussed how. farm properties are often designated as Local Landmarks <br />including all of the accessory structures because the ensemble represents a <br />singular whole indicating that the minor structures in a district had similar <br />importance. His stated opinion was that the carriage. house was an important <br />part of the property and district. He recalled that one building had been lost <br />to demolition by neglect in the Lincolnway district but did_not see that as a <br />precedent for continued demolitions and he would oppose any more. <br />Mr. Botkin responded to Mr. Tally's. earlier comments regarding the cause for <br />the building's inspection by code officials saying that the Fire Marshal's <br />visit had been routine and that there was no ulterior motive in seeking <br />parking space, etc. but did acknowledge that the owner .had called City Code <br />Enforcement. He then returned to.the issue of cost indicating that the <br />necessary cost of maintaining this property was not justified in the mind of <br />his client and that the commission could not assume a waiver from all district <br />property owners to meet any required expense to maintain the buildings located <br />therein. He further indicated that having not protested at an earlier time did <br />not imply a need to accept all judgments of the commission. Fie did concur that <br />perhaps there was some solution feasible if a third party could be found to <br />assume ownership of the structure (by removal) but that he and his client were <br />not aware of any such parties. He indicated that he_ did not know how Code <br />Enforcement would view this. <br />Mr. Oxian stated that Code Enforcement was a different agency of the <br />government and that they would likewise need to persuade the Commission (or <br />Common Council) of the necessity for demolition. He noted that the commission <br />