February 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to scratch your brain or review the minutes for what was done on November 19; but to hear the additional legal testimony from the petitioner's counsel. Rodes: I am Robert Rodes attorney for the applicant. My contention here is that the proposal will not change the appearance of the house sufficiently to make it within the power of the Commission to turn it down. My claim is ... I prepared a legal memorandum, has it been distributed? (Affirmed) Well then, basically, my claim is that the role of the Commission is to preserve the general ambience both of the building and of the neighborhood. What we are talking about here is a change that will, the most that it will do, is increase the thickness of a window sill by a half an inch. And that will not be visible, that will not be a noticeable change. And I have put together my arguments as to why the, from the language of the Ordinance and the language of the State's statutes as to why I believe the Commission cannot interfere with so minor, so little visible, a change. I think, this is a matter of what is the scope of the Commission's authority and I think the important work of the Commission is to preserve the ambience of the community. And I think, here we have, my client is cold in winter and electricity, source of heats the house, he wants to put in double glazing for comfort and efficiency. I think, changes of this kind are within the... unintelligible ... to historical preservation. Now, I have here arguments, fairly technical from the text of the Ordinance and the State's statutes which I'll be glad to enlarge upon if the Commission wishes, but I shouldn't read something that I have already given out in writing. So I ask the Commissioners... Patrick: Thank you. Rodes: Any ... anything further? Klusczinski: Are there any questions for the petitioner's counsel? Zeiger: A clarification. You said that the only modification, what you just said that it is only going to add a half inch window sill... Rodes: The only visible Zeiger: So in this COA that has been supplied to us, it says that the new width of the daylight opening is 305/8 inches and the existing window sashes are 31 V4 , so that is a decrease in size. So that is a change. In addition to the window sill, as well as the height of the new is 37 3/8 and the existing window is 39, so that is another change. So what you really just represented isn't true. Rodes: I stand corrected. That was my mistake. Zeiger: That is a significant difference between just a half an inch window sill and changes in sash size and window openings size and that's my objection to this COA is that it is significantly changing not only the window sill it is also changing the size of sashes by inserting a completely new unit into this window frame. That is my objection to this COA and why I feel it is not compatible with the guidelines. I appreciate the clarification in that. Rodes: Fair enough, my claim continues to be that it will not be a noticeable change from the outside, from the street, which is what we are looking for the ambience of the building. Also, it will not be a change in the historic or architectural character of the building. That language is in the State statute but... Zeiger: The State statute that clarifies the state statute that runs this Commission or the statewide statute that runs the rest of commissions in the state? r4i