May 2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

268 B. Petition to rescind landmark status of 14297 S.R. 23 269 270 CHERYL GREENE: This is a petition to rescind landmark status at 14297 S.R. 271 23. At the last Commission meeting this was improperly before the Commission as a 272 Certificate of Appropriateness at that point and time I recommended that nothing happen 273 until we came back and reviewed this as a petition. I have looked at the Municipal Code 274 and past cases. The Commission has only had this happen once before where an 275 applicant ask to have the landmark status rescinded and the procedure for rescinding a 276 landmark designation is the same as recommending a landmark designation, only instead 277 of sending a recommendation to the County Council designating a landmark the 278 recommendation from the Commission would either be a modification or revocation of 279 the landmark designation. What you have before you is a petition and it is my 280 recommendation that you allow the petitioner to present their petition to the Commission 281 this evening and to state their reasons. After discussion, the Commission will have to 282 make a decision to either recommend the revoking of the landmark status or to leave it as 283 is, it is entirely at the Commissions discretion. 284 285 EDWARD HARDIG: I am Ed Hardig, attorney for the petitioner and landowner, 286 Doris Risler. You have heard why we are here; I would like to pass out to the 287 Commissioners part of my presentation. In the early 1950's, Walt and Doris Risler 288 bought a 41.66 -acre tract of land. In 1976, they were invited to list their home under 289 landmark status. The correspondence addressed to Walt Risler in 1976 stated that the 290 property is being considered for landmark status based on the historical and architectural 291 significance of the house. Mrs. Risler wrote a response to Mr. Oxian accepting the offer 292 that their home be declared a landmark. Mr. & Mrs. Risler was under the impression that 293 their home was given landmark status and not the entire 41.66 acres. I think it was 294 probably an over sight and that it was incorrect. When Mrs. Risler tried to maintain the 295 house after Walt Rislers death it became too much. She now has an opportunity to sell 296 the house and land to the Adams Road Development Corporation. When the developers 297 found out that the entire tract of land was under landmark status which would require that 298 every time a new house was built, it would have to approved by the Commission. The 299 new homes proposed for this area should not have historic status. The plan is to install a 300 new housing subdivision on the 41 acres with sub roads leading into already existing 301 subdivisions. I appreciate Cheryl Greene's idea of modifying the petition to retain 302 landmark status around the house and driveway. Mrs. Risler's best opportunity is to sell 303 it to Adams Development, the land is surrounded by development, and it is development 304 land. By selling the house it will afford Mrs. Risler the opportunity to move to a place 305 that is better suited to her and her son, Matthews, needs. We ask that the Commission 306 petition the County Council, hopefully unanimously, to remove the landmark status from 307 this 41.66 acres because the Risler's did not understand that the entire farm would be 308 landmarked. In the petition we have asked for the entire site to be decertified, however, 309 we are willing to retain the landmark designation for the house and driveway. 310 311 DORIS RISLER: I think that Mr. Hardig has covered everything well. I am getting 312 up in years and the thirteen room house with eighteen steps to go upstairs is getting 313 difficult for me and I would like to sell the house. I had no idea that the land had been 7