Laserfiche WebLink
with HPC directives at 1071 Riverside Drive. The property is <br />no longer owned by the original party; it was sold and the <br />new owner has not contacted the staff despite repeated <br />attempts to inform him of the violations in question. He <br />stated that -it was -hoped that the -owner would comply -rather <br />than having to take him to court; the HPC had directed the <br />staff to seriously pursue the matter and the process was now <br />in motion. <br />Mr. Eide asked whether the new owner was aware of the problem <br />at the time of sale. Mr. Holycross replied that he did not <br />know; no communication had been forthcoming. <br />Mr. Holycross stated that there might be other violations; <br />there was also the matter of the front railing along the <br />steps that had been installed contrary to HPC directives. The <br />HPC had granted a COA for a wrought -iron rail; the owner had <br />instead installed a railing constructed of pipe. <br />Mrs. Sporleder stated that she felt the matter of the railing <br />was possibly more important than the oval window. <br />Discussion ensued as to the railing. Mr. Holycross asked <br />whether the HPC would like to include the railing in the <br />complaint being filed. <br />Mr. Herendeen stated that the matter of the railing was a <br />concrete, provable violation that should be pursued. <br />Mrs. Sporleder stated her concern that the HPC was no longer <br />pursuing the owner that committed the violations; they had in <br />effect sold legal their problems along with the house. <br />Ms. DeRose explained that it was up to the buyer to <br />investigate such things prior to sale. <br />Mr. Eide asked for Ms. DeRose's prognosis as to the ultimate <br />outcome of the matter. She replied that it was clear that <br />they had plainly violated HPC Standards and that the court <br />would likely rule in that manner. She added that it was <br />difficult, however, to predict the exact outcome because of <br />the number of cases that were currently being heard <br />nationally that dealt with issues such as the "taking" of <br />private property by governmental actions and the like; it was <br />unlikely that these owners would contest the larger <br />constitutional questions and implications possible in this <br />case. <br />Mr. Holycross asked whether it was the consensus of the <br />commission to have Ms. DeRose add the rail matter to the <br />legal complaint. It was; he stated that he would do so. <br />4. Historic Districts <br />No report. <br />7 <br />