March 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Patrick: I would like to make the comment of the Professor that it's illegal to hold him to a different standard, and just comment that he's not being held to a different standard but to what's in the guidebook; i.e. the windows not being replaced, unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. Based on my personal visit and all other evidence I don't believe that they're deteriorated beyond repair. And you're not being held to a different standard, it's about what's in the guidebook for that kind of property. Klusczinski: So in cases where there are dual guidelines, the most restrictive ones apply and your house is nestled within a National Register district, a local historic district and it's a landmark itself. Hostetler: Tippecanoe's guidelines are the A guidelines, they're the only ones in the City that are d fferent from everyone else's, and they apply to the interior. Klusczinski: So, professor, they're under even more stringent guidelines because we have some jurisdiction over the inside of the building unlike your house. Hostetler: It's a national, it's a fagade easement with Historic Landmarks Foundation. Klusczinski: So it's not a local landmark, Group A standards... Hostetler, No, it's a National Register Group A. Klusczinski: Ok, very good, any other discussion? Any comments from legal? Metiever: Not at this time. Klusczinski: Hearing none. Chair entertains a motion. Patrick: I'll make a motion. Regarding Certificate of Appropriateness 2008-0214, I move that the C of A as submitted be denied. Sassano: You have to give reasons right? Klusczinski: Not yet, is there a second? Chase: Second. Klusczinski: Motion has been made and seconded. Any additional discussion? Correct me if I'm wrong counsel, we've been told by previous counsel that we had to give reasons if we conflicted with the main motion. Metiever: Yes, and no. Generally you would make a motion in the aff rmative to approve and then anyone voting against the approval would give reasons for the disapproval. As the motion is made and pending on the table, the motion is to deny, so a yes vote for that particular motion is a disapproval and therefore under the general guidelines you would have to give a reason for in this case a yes vote to deny. So, yes, you have to give a reason. Klusczinski: So in other words whenever a C of A is denied, we must give a reason. Sassano: All of us. Metiever: Yes. Sassano: So everyone that is in favor of that motion to deny must give a reason. Klusczinski: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll begin with roll call please. Patrick: Do I have to give my reason? Klusczinski: Yes, your official vote and reason. Patrick: Ok, I vote to deny for the reason that the windows are not deteriorated beyond repair, and that replacement is contraindicated based on the historic guidelines for this district and this property. Klusczinski: Timothy Klusczinski, vote in favor of the motion to deny with these brief comments. History is forever. But its symbols are temporary. Someday every historic building that we cherish today will be lost. Even in our lifetime, we can recall entire neighborhoods erased, buildings razed and houses remuddled. Some changes are drastic, others add up over time. Recognizing that all change is inevitable, preservation should do it's very best to guide the changes that confront symbols of our heritage. The 1872 Anderson House is one of these examples. Historic preservation is not a pretty buildings'society. Well beyond that notion it is a plan for mapping our culture with recognition for those that paved the way. It's about innovation, craftsmanship and a complete understanding of now unavailable materials, the longevity of the products built from them and the embodied energy that they possess. 13