January 1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. David B. Duvall December 19, 1997 Page 2 , You recommended that, other than litigation, the best approach would be to send a letter outlining the problem. The letter would be heard during the Hearing From Visitors portion of the agenda at the next regular monthly meeting of the HPC. Placing this matter before the Historic Preservation Commission is the primary purpose of this correspondence. It is my understanding that, once before the HPC, this matter may be referred to the Local Landmark Committee for evaluation. The evaluation may include an on-site inspection, which my office is willing to arrange. We would also suggest that an on-site inspection is an important and necessary part of a good faith review of the problem and the IfPC objection. Numerous photographs will be made available, and the current title -owner will explain the repairs needed and will answer questions. Your attorney is invited as well. We would also recommend speaking with the neighbors. Since the Commission has once before decertified a structure (removing it from the Historic Landmark Registry), we have at least some precedence and guidelines to follow. The de -certification of the prior real estate, you believed, was premised upon structural changes performed by the owner. This case is similar, and perhaps more compelling. Robert Montel purchased this real estate while the former owner was in the process of replacing the exterior wood siding, and all of the windows. At the time of possession, much of the siding had been replaced, the second floor windows completely replaced, and various other structural changes completed. My client was merely finalizing what had already been done when the objection was received. A review of the title commitment issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation indicates no record of the Historic Designation. The prior owner did not make any such disclosure, and there was (and is) no plaque upon the real estate indicating such a designation. In fact, the ordinance (#107-76) reflects a description of some forty (40) acres commonly described as 60500 Bremen Road. My client purchased substantially less than forty (40) acres, purchasing approximately five (5) acres, on State Road 331. Hence, there is considerable ambiguity between the ordinance and the parceling of this real estate (and its roadway description), and the current real estate subject to the HPC's objection. It should also be noted that a large commercial area has been established immediately to the north of this real estate, which would include a Meijer, 31 by-pass, and other commercial features. Additionally, this residence is believed to be the only residence in the area being claimed as a Historical Landmark. It is not in a multi -residence district. Further, a building permit (#96781) was issued for the erection of pole barn upon this property, which did not draw any attention or notice from the HPC. The permit was issued in June of 1993, and copies have been delivered to the attorneys of record. As you suggested, the only practical means for resolving this dispute would be for the local landmark committee to make a recommendation to the HPC. If the recommendation is to remove this residence from the Registry, all remaining issues would become moot. It is understood than an on-site inspection may take place, and, again, my firm will make the arrangements. Also, it is my understanding that the HPC may consult with its attorney (Aladean DeRose) to obtain some form of a legal opinion concerning the chain of title issues, as well as the issues pertaining to the legal description contained in the original ordinance.