May 1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N 1. 12670 SR 23 - Petition to remove section from Landmark Mr.' Duvall circulated photographs and presented the staff report. He'also " noted 'that the owner, Mr. 'Selsor, was present. Mr...Oxian stated that the Landmarks Committee recommends that the Landmark -designation remain and that the petition be denied. Mr. Selsor stated that the property was originally an entire farm which has had sections removed from Landmark status and has had buildings removed and new buildings constructed• on it. He furthernoted and discussed the- buildings which were removed, 'without approval from the Commission, and. what,' structures have since been constructed. Mr. Selsor.'. stated that he wanted to remove the land from the Landmark 'so he could"expand on an existing building.. He also -noted -that he has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness- application to make the alterations to the building in case his petition was. denied. Mr. Selsor went on to.state that he has cooperated" and worked with the Commission in the past and that the land being.considered'.. for .removal has no historical significance. He, further stressed that since there'were no, historical buildings or trees remaining on the property that it - is - not historic and that having it remain under Landmark status was a burden the owner should not have to bear. Mr.. Oxian stated that every time Mr. Selsor,came, before the Commission and the Commission approved his requests he has always stated that he would maintain the.integrity of the.site.. Mr. Oxian noted that when' ,the house and outbuildings were landmarked there was nothing else on the' site and that Mr. Selsor- has demolished certain structures with out permission from ''the Commission as he himself has admitted. Mr. Oxian . lstated that just because there are .no .historical buildings, on the property does not, mean it is not significant and that by removing a portion of land. that connects the historical house with its barn would strip the landmark of its -integrity, of which Mr. Selsor has "stated numerous, -times that he wants to preserve. Mr. 'Oxian also .stated that he is totally against removal of this area from the landmark, even though .the. Commission previously allowed a structure to be built on the property. Mr. Duvall noted that the' staff has received the -Certificate of Appropriateness application If rom Mr. Selsor for alterations to. the building located on this site and.that it will be on the May. agenda.. Mrs. .Sporleder stated that the- Commission and Mr. Selsor have worked together successfully in the'past and that she could not see.why that relationship should not continue. Mr. Selsor stated that the land grab mentality of the Commission is inappropriate and that making a farm field historic, is simply inappropriate ,and misguided. He also "interjected thathe does not chip away at the property and that cornfields are -not historic and - that it is not appropriate to expect,a business owner to purchase property and then be expected- to, leave it alone because the Commission wants to preserve'a. historic look.. Mr: Oxian stated that the landmark was made to encompass a; large tract .of farmland and that Mr. Selsor was allowed, to remove certain portions -of it because he convinced the.Commission, at -,that time, that it was not in anyone's best interests to•maintain the landmark as it was designated. Mr.•Oxian stated that designating a large tract of farmland with a historical house is not inappropriate or inconsiderate, it was what. was decided upon as appropriate in 1976. Mr. 'Oxian moved to deny the 'petition- to , reduce the Landmark'at 12670.SR 23. 'Mrs. Choi,tz'seconded the -motion.' The motion passed _unanimously. 2. 108 N. Main--.JMS Building Second Reading _ Mr. Oxian stated that the Landmarks Committee recommends that this building be declared a landmark. There was some discussion over how this building became nominated and what was happening -with the Singer.Manufacturing.building. Mr.. Oxian passed the gavel to.. Mr.-- Talley while he left. "the _room. Mr. Duvall presented the staff report and circulated photographs. Mr..Duvall also noted that there was. owner consent. Mr. Fine moved to forward the proposed Local 4