Laserfiche WebLink
92 <br />93 <br />94 <br />95 <br />96 <br />97 <br />98 <br />99 <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />back to the Commission and then send it down. What happens if the Commission <br />chooses not to rescind the designation? <br />CHERYL GREENE: If the Commission chooses not to rescind the landmark <br />designation then no further action is required by this Commission. The property owner <br />has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the County Council. <br />CATHERINE HOSTETLER: So we cannot take any action on this application <br />because it is an illegal Certificate of Appropriateness? <br />CHERYL GREENE: Yes, it is currently improperly submitted before the <br />Commission as a Certificate of Appropriateness. <br />EDWARD HARDIG: Can we be heard at all? <br />106 <br />107 CHERYL GREENE: The best avenue at this point would be to send you a letter setting <br />108 forth the procedure and explaining where we are on this so you have some understanding <br />109 of what is going on. It is up to the Commission if they wish to open the floor for <br />110 discussion. <br />111 <br />112 - JOHN OXIAN: I think it should be done the proper way, in that everyone considers <br />113 it as an ordinance instead of a Certificate of Appropriateness. That is my <br />114 recommendation. <br />115 <br />116 CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Discussion will not be open and we will proceed <br />117 with the appropriate avenues that are open to us. <br />118 <br />119 CHERYL GREENE: I would advise the Commission that this issue has only come up <br />120 once in the past which is why I think there was confusion originally. I think that the <br />121 proper avenue is to have legal send a letter to the property owner explaining the process <br />122 and procedures involved. If the Commission takes no action regarding this issue then the <br />123 owner has the opportunity to appeal to the County Council. <br />124 <br />125 JOHN OXIAN: This is the fourth time rescinding of a landmark has come up. <br />126 They were either HPC initiated or caused by annexation. <br />127 <br />128 <br />129 B. Local Landmarks 2nd Reading <br />130 1. 501 W. Washington — Rush Bldg. <br />131 <br />132 JOHN OXIAN: I talked with Code Enforcement and the present owners, who as of <br />133 now, have no opposition to landmark designation. Both parties want to see the property <br />134 saved. There are also a few developers interested that wish to use the national register <br />135 tax credits. We recommend it be sent down for landmark designation. <br />136 <br />137 CATHERINE HOSTETLER: Is there anyone present representing this property? <br />3 <br />