March 2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. I firmly believe that the existing 136 -year-old windows are a rare feature of this landmark and contribute toward its identity and appeal. 10. That the replacement offour or even one window, will serve to set a dangerous precedent for additional windows to receive the same treatment and latitude. 11. The permission to replace windows in a signature landmark will serve only to challenge this Commission's authority and guidance when reviewing proposals for other historic properties within its jurisdiction. An exception to the guidebook will invite accusations of policy rooted in subjective, arbitrary and capricious practices. The Guidebook must always be preserved as a frameworkfor preservation and a contract to property owners inside the District. 12. The petitioner has not demonstrated an unreasonable hardship from the denial of this application, orfrom recommendations to pursue standard maintenance and repair practices or other prescribed improvements. 13. It is questionable to think that other members of the public whose projects have supported the Guidebook of the district or that of Local Historic Landmarks will view the proposed changes favorably.. Or that the change will best serve future homeowners of the Anderson House. Sassano: With the caveat that I'm still trying to understand the intent of the Code, it clearly states that original doors, windows and hardware shall not be discarded when they can be restored and reused in place, page 75 of the guidebook. In my professional opinion, and in any opinion I'd think, the windows clearly are restorable and to remove them and not restore them in place would clearly be in contradiction to the guidebook. Based on those guidelines I move in favor of the motion to deny. Chase: Mary Jane Chase, I am in favor of the motion for a couple of reasons. When you accept a house of this quality, you accept obligations. An obligation is to preserve it, you're a caretaker. The threat of having legal action taken is not the issue. The issue is to be a good caretaker, and we have proof that the windows can be restored and work very well, better than a fake replacement. It would be like taking the Hope diamond, taking it out and putting a glass chip in there. Then you relinquish the stewardship of that house. I vote to accept the motion. Klusczinski: Linda? Riley: I vote to deny the motion. I've been convinced tonight by all of these people that know more than I do, of how significant this house is and how important it is to keep the windows and repair them... Klusczinski: Chair requires a clarification of your vote. I think that you voted in favor to deny, which is to deny a denial... Riley: I'm voting in favor of the motion. Sorry. This house is so significant, I think that the windows should be repaired and maintained. We are opening Pandora's Box if we start allowing one of the better houses in our town to replace the windows. Moved: Patrick Second: Chase To deny C of A 2008-0214 Approved Unanimously 5-0 Klusczinski: We're under a continuance for C of A 2007-1107A. There is no public hearing tonight. That C of A was introduced November 26, if memory serves, or November 19, 2007. We have been under continuance in the December and January meetings and require a decision tonight. The continuance will expire, and that C of A will go through by default if not defeated. So, it's a clarification. Chair entertains a motion to accept or deny C of A 2007-1107A. l��