|
that architectural features that give a roof its essential (speakers emphasis) character and also the roof
<br />shall not be stripped of architectural features important to its character. So those are, I assume, the
<br />reasons why it wasn't simply done in the office because those are matters of interpretation. Rather than
<br />legal language, I suppose your lawyer can tell you, and if it were legal language then I'm wasting my
<br />time. We petitioned to remove the chimney because it no longer serves any real purpose, we have a high
<br />efficiency furnace, which vents out the side. There is no fire place that vents through that and even our
<br />hot water heater doesn't vent through that so it is an essentially inoperable chimney. It was obviously, it
<br />is indeed true that an 1894 t-gabled houses would have had chimneys, but they were put on for practical
<br />purposes and if you look at the pictures which I assume you have as part of the packet, this is how they
<br />distinguish the chimney. I am an art historian and I can tell you that it adds nothing to the aesthetics of
<br />this house. What gives the character to the house and to the roof line, and I think that everybody who
<br />looks at those pictures will agree, are the massing, of the various peaks and valleys, those are what give
<br />it's roof line and we would never of course suggest that we would want to change those elements. As also
<br />the record points out that the house has been significantly altered. It's not a pure 1894 gabled t by any
<br />stretch of the imagination. There are additions to the house as well, particularly in the back. In the area
<br />behind the kitchen there's at a sun some room that has been added to it, so some of the roofs are actually
<br />not original to the gabled t as well. The chimney, we are going to have to do a complete tear off, we are
<br />currently negotiating with Freund to do that. We are going to be using the approved architectural
<br />shingles; it's not our intention by any stretch of the imagination to subvert the quality of the
<br />neighborhood. For us, it would simply be a matter of convenience to remove this chimney, it's easier to
<br />create a water tight roof, and we've had some issues with leakage around the chimney. Also, we've had
<br />animals enter through the chimney. I'm not saying that these couldn't be solved if necessary, but since
<br />we're going to have this done, we request that we be allowed to remove the chimney. It seems to be the
<br />simplest solution; I don't think that in any way it would alter the essential (speaker's emphasis) character
<br />as the language of your own document puts it- the essential character of the roof. Thank you.
<br />Klusczinski: The chair recognizes any Commissions with questions for the petitioner.
<br />Patrick: I'm intrigued that you regard the chimney a non-essential architectural feature of the roof. And
<br />your last remark that it's a matter of convenience. Do you have a quote for the roofing work with the
<br />chimney and without the chimney?
<br />Rosenberg: We haven't been able to get that. We requested Freund to give us a written estimate both
<br />ways, and they haven't. The ballpark estimate that they gave us overall was over $16,000. We would
<br />choose them because their work is high quality. We have a lower bid, but we can't count on the quality of
<br />those people. But, you know, it's our house we don't want to in any way diminish its value. As for it
<br />being an essential quality or character of the house, it was absolutely- I would never deny that it was
<br />essential in 1894.
<br />Patrick: You don't need to go on with that...
<br />Rosenberg: Ok, fine that was your question I thought.
<br />Patrick: What I wanted to ask you also was given, since we don't have, am I correct that we don't have
<br />the roofing...?
<br />Rosenberg: No, we haven't petitioned for that because we don't have...
<br />Patrick: Ok, so did you say it was a complete tear off and re-roof?
<br />Rosenberg: Yes, it will have to be.
<br />Patrick: That's a major job.
<br />Rosenberg: Yes, a very majorjob.
<br />Klusczinski: Was there a hand on this side, Mary Jane? Todd?
<br />Zeiger: I did, if I could two real quick questions actually. Do you have, is there a fireplace that does feed
<br />into this? A potbellied stove?
<br />Rosenberg: No. I don't... well, our furnace originally, which was probably at some point was a coal
<br />burningfurnace we've lived there, well we came in 1981, so we've been there over 25 years. And...
<br />Zeiger: So there's not a fireplace somewhere that could be opened up in the future? And have you had
<br />an inspection of the actual chimney tuck pointing and the brick, what kind of condition is it in?
<br />Rosenberg: You mean at this point? No, we have not. It doesn't, from a layman's eye it doesn't look to
<br />be in great condition, so I suspect we'll...
<br />Klusczinski: Joann?
<br />W
<br />
|