September 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Corrected 10/4/99 Mrs. DeRose noted that the Commission does not follow the State Statute because the Commission was in existence prior to 1977 and thus the Council Attorney cannot use the statute. There was some discussion over the fact that if the Commission likes the State Statute then the Commission should amend the Preservation Plan to adopt it by ordinance. Mr. Talley noted that he has been investigating new options for he new Preservation Plan. There was some discussion over the fact that the current demolition requirements are much more stringent then the State Statute. There was some more discussion over the fact that the Commission left the door open for re -submittal because the denial was made based upon the lack of information. Mr. Fine stated that it was a denial clearly based on the fact that there was not enough information, which would allow Ms. Kopczynski to submit a new application. Mr. Talley stated that the staff was under the opinion that the Commission had denied the application, but, would entertain the subject again with more information. He then read pieces of the minutes from the July meeting. Mrs. Gallagher stated that a motion would have to be made to alter the Preservation Plan either allowing or not allowing applicants who have been denied to resubmit. There was some discussion over whether or not rehabilitation is economically feasible and whether or not the owner purposely ran the property down. ms. Kopczynski stated that memorial Hospital was not responsible fore the foundation damage caused by bad soil. There was some discussion over the fact that the wealth of the owner does not necessarily make the project economically feasible. Mrs. DeRose asked the engineer if a new house was placed on the site would it experience the same problems. The engineer stated that the design of the existing house was incorrect for the soil located at this sight, causing the deterioration. Mrs. DeRose stated that since the house was designed and constructed wrong the deterioration was then no fault of Memorial Hospital. She further noted that the commission should make tonights vote their final decision to give the applicant time to appeal. Mr. Zmyslo asked if the applications were the same of different. Mrs. Saunders stated that the applications were different. Mr. Zmyslo stated that since the major part of deterioration was due to soil problems then it was not the fault of the owner and that the cost of rehabilitation would make the project economically unfeasible. There was some discussion over at what point a project becomes economically unfeasible. Mr. Zmyslo further noted that if the house was rehabilitated someone, whether it be the current owner or a future owner, would take a large loss. There was some discussion over the affect removal of this house would have on the streetscape. Mrs. DeRose asked what the plans for the land would be if demolition was approved. Mrs. Kopczynski stated that once the house is demolished the land would be marketed with the house next door as a yard. She further noted that the lot is not big enough to install another house on. Mr. Fine asked if it would be feasible to stabilize the house, then sell it. Mrs. Kopczynski stated that there is still a considerable amount of interior and exterior damage which would leave a lot of sweat equity for any potential buyers. Mr. Zmyslo moved to approve demolition of the house, based on the presentation given by the engineer, the enormous level of deterioration, the enormous cost of rehabilitation, with the stipulation that the house be thoroughly documented with drawings and photographs of the interior and exterior prior to demolition. Mr. Fine seconded the motion. The motion passed with Mrs. Gallagher abstaining. 6