October 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mir Shawn Peterson: No. You would not do another on site inspection. You would just re- enter in the same evidence as you had again. You can do that at the next meeting, saying that you have inspected these same windows this is the condition and, or, ask if any conditions have changed from when you originally inspected it. So, obviously one month from now there's no real difference. If you waited six months, you may want to reconsider whether you want to go out there. You don't have to go out at all to do this inspection, but you did anyway, and you can re-enter that evidence at the next opportunity. Martha Choitz: It's my been my feeling and it hasn't changed much that from the day that I read the first COA that there wasn't much thought given to the historic problem we've got here, we don't like historic problems, .we like to solve them and get them out of the way. But there has been very little talk about saving the material of the house and because it was built by a number of people working on it some of the windows are not like the other windows and that's part of the house. That is the way it should be. And the fact that we are not looking into that aspect of it, I think is a very wrong-headed idea. That isn't what we are here for. We are to keep the material of that house as true to its original way of being and certainly most of the things that we saw were because there . were actual people working those windows and at different times and they don't all work the same way. And they'll always be differences in them and that is what makes them more intriguing to more people. When we begin to lose that, and I am talking about the Commission as a whole, in all of St. Joe County going like that, there won't be the interest in these places anymore, because they will have been tampered with to the point that it is very evident that that is happening with people that really understand historic preservation as it should be. I don't mean to throw any kind of problems in anybody's way, I just don't think that the thing was researched enough to find people that understood that problem to get their opinion on it and let them have the time to think about it as a carpenter in 1870, wasn't it, at the time that the building was built. And, I have been here for a good portion of that time, and, it isn't that I love that house at all, that I love that aspect of the whole that whole area. It was a very important one historically here and to South Bend as a whole. And that was the time, Mr. Chapin's daughter built that place, and, maybe the one next door, anyway, they were both built by Chapin kids, back in the 1870s and that is part of their charm. And really bothers me to just ignore all that when that it what we're here for, is to try to keep those patches, and so on, true enough so that people who would walk in there later to buy it from you or anyone would know and treasure the fact that it is still natural and not just some manufacturer's idea of setting a window in there that will undoubtedly will work, that you'll be able to see through it and everything else but it won't be part of the fabric of the house. And I think that we did not address that enough. I think that it needs to have a bit more research done, it doesn't take a whole lot. I have been working on windows on buildings here from the old Court House to, you talk about it, to the years that SouthHold was doing things and moving houses and taking care of Tippecanoe Place and all of that I have been through all of that. And our upper most feeling about it is that we have to continue to honor the fabric of the building and that is what I want to leave with you. I don't know how you can shorten that up, so that it will mean anything.