Laserfiche WebLink
• adopted rules for the conduct of business regarding conflict of <br />interest, her point being that a conflicted member may make a motion but may <br />not support his motion as a member of the commission but must speak as a <br />member of the public. <br />Fr. Bullene moved for approval of the motion. Mr. Wiener seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Fine indicated that he felt the replacement windows were not appropriate <br />noting the difference in the muntin pattern. He concurred that the vent pipe <br />and TV service connection were appropriate. Fr. Bullene noted the highly <br />altered state of the building and the relatively minor character of the <br />windows in question stating that if general restoration were to be undertaken <br />on the building that these would be incidental to the work required. <br />Mr. Talley indicated that in his view the windows were probably not broken <br />accidentally and that the applicant had acted in disregard of the information <br />communicated to him by himself, Ms. Stephenson, and the HPC office. Mrs. <br />DeRose indicated that despite the sarcasm in his letter, the applicant is now <br />clearly on notice and has submitted the required application. She believes <br />that he now understands the requirements and the extent of possible recourse. <br />Fr. Bullene asked for clarification of the chronology of related events. Both <br />Mr. Talley and Mr. Duvall described the course of events over several months. <br />Mrs. DeRose indicated that a letter from counsel should be helpful in assuring <br />future compliance on the part of the applicant. Mr. Wiener inquired about the <br />relative significance of the window material remove. Mr. Duvall indicated that <br />it was difficult to assess as the windows had been discarded and the <br />documentary photographs in the survey did not clearly indicate the character <br />• of those windows. <br />The motion passed on a six to one vote with Mr. Fine voting no and Mr. Talley <br />abstaining. <br />IV. Regular Business <br />A. Approval of Minutes - November 20, 1995 <br />The minutes were approved unanimously as submitted. <br />B. Treasurers Report <br />Mr. Wiener distributed copies of the third quarter financial report. He stated <br />that at the next meeting he would provide the 1996 budget. Mr. Talley inquired <br />about how across the board departmental budget cuts would effect the <br />commission. Mr. Duvall noted that the office had received no notification of <br />cuts. Departmentally the commission budget is line item in the County <br />Commissioners budget and not a department. Reductions of the administrative <br />funding would be at the discretion of the County Commissioners. <br />Mrs. Petrass moved to approve the treasurers report. Fr. Bullene seconded the <br />motion. The motion passed unanimously. <br />C. Correspondence <br />Mr. Duvall Indicated the following, including items carried forward from the <br />previous month: <br />Received: <br />1) Letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation giving access <br />information to Preserve -Link on the internet. <br />. 2) Copy of letter from Parks Dept. to John Grcich of Riverside Drive LHD <br />indicating the inappropriateness of his performing unauthorized landscaping <br />activities in Shetterly Park. <br />3) Letter from Hercig Assoc. thanking Mr. Duvall for conferring regarding <br />proposed alterations at the North Pumping Station and indicating that the <br />proposal to cut scuppers through the parapets in no longer being favored. <br />