March 2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or culture of the city, county, state, or the nation. 2. The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship which represents an architectural characteristic or innovation. 3. The educational value of the property. 4. The suitability for preservation. 5. The location of the site of significance with historic interests. 6. The identification with the life of a person of historical significance. I have talked to Mrs. Hostetler, and president, Ms. Lynn Patrick, prior to the meeting and this information will be provided to Mr. Hesch so that he can prepare his petition more properly for your consideration. JOHN OXIAN: The only person that is in this room that was down there to make the presentation to make this a land mark was me. I am the one who talked with the owner originally, I am the one who sent the letter, and I am the one who worked with the person who asked that this house be made into a land mark. So, whatever you are going to present here is only what you think happened. The only person who was there and made the presentation before the council was me. So whatever Mr. Hesch comes up with or whatever you other commission members come up with is all hearsay; because, none of you were there. This idea of revoked land marking only happened once back in 1976 when a man on Gumwood Road did not listen to the commission's request that he not put a porch on the front of his house to make it look like a southern plantation style house instead of a federal style house. Because we revoked the land marking of that house, which at that time we were a new commission and we were just learning the game and everything else, we lost the farm, all the acreage, a bam, and several out buildings, and the man still hates me to this day. That is the only one we ever revoked, and that was in the county. CHERYL GREENE: I just wanted to remind the commission that what you are doing tonight is simply accepting the petition. There will be a later point in time at which evidence will be presented for the commission's consideration. I have advised the commission that when you are looking at the action that you propose to take, remember that you work in a closed universe as much as courts do, and you look at what is presented in front of you, and you are limited within the scope of your purview in order to make your determination. This is just for your ad vocation for your next couple of meetings. JOANN SPORLEDER: In outlining those areas of significance, I presume; because, I vaguely remember this originally, that all of those areas were in fact documented on paper before the original designation was made. So, I presume that somewhere along the line someone in authority to do so would need to go look at the property again to see if all the original criteria are still in place or if something significant has happened to change the liability of its original designation as a land mark. CHERYL GREENE: What has been presented to you by way of petition is essentially saying that those factors that led to the original land marking should have either changed as such that it requires or for warrants a revocation of the landmark designation; or that the landmark designation as it stands now should be amended or modified in some manner. You do have the factors from the original designation; but, you would also have to make a determination based upon the current state of the property. Whether you 3