January 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. The historical, architectural and cultural significance weighs in favor of disallowing the demolition of the Historic Landmark. 10. The substantial public benefit of keeping the Historic Landmark weighs in favor of disallowing the demolition of the Historic Landmark. 11. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the current condition or state of deterioration of the structure is due to factors outside the Petitioner's (or its predecessor's) — -control.------ - - - -- ---- ---- 12. Petitioner has failed to show by substantial evidence that historically appropriate renovation or rehabilitation is economically impractical. The Petitioner's evidence on this factor is outweighed by the Report of Bob Yapp, Community Preservation Specialist, which is more credible than the Applicant's submission. The basic condition of the structure appears to be sound and the architecture is significant. The total cost of rehabilitation is probably less than $200,000, and not over one million dollars as the Petitioner claims. 13. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it has fully considered and investigated all reasonable alternatives to demolition. Among these alternatives are sale of the structure, the rental of the structure as a non -denominational chapel or gathering place for.families after funerals or internment; the lease or rental to third parties, among other potential uses. 14. Petitioner has not fully investigated the availability of grant or public funds to assist with rehabilitation. 15. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and allowing the structure to remain would cause it a substantial economic hardship. These are the findings set forth in the denial that was submitted to the Commission. The Chair will now entertain a motion on whether to approve or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Lynn Patrick: I will make a motion. I move that we deny the Certificate of Appropriateness 2005- 1028 [renumber 2006-0123, as of 23 January 2006] regarding the Gatehouse, based on the evidence . presented in the findings of fact and in the other comments made here this evening. Timothy Klusczinski: Second. Shawn Peterson: It is a motion on the floor, it has been seconded, to issue a denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness based on the evidence presented to today and in making the findings of fact, which I presume are set forth in the document I just read, including'all of their, and based upon the evidence submitted, those findings and that denial in the form submitted. Correct? And, that has been seconded? [Consents were given.] All in favor? [Six ayes were given; no nays were heard.] 23 January Meeting Minutes [Corrected Version] 2 6