Board of Architectural Review

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Architectural Review convened on August 22, 2018, to review Certificate of Appropriateness applications. The meeting focused on a single agenda item addressing multiple Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, with outcomes varying by individual application. During the session, the board conducted four motions and votes on the various applications under consideration. The meeting included three public comments from community members regarding the proposed projects. The board's deliberations resulted in mixed outcomes for the applications, with some receiving approval and others facing different determinations based on the specific merits and compliance requirements of each proposal.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 22, 2018:

Present: • Christopher MacDonald • Grant Mills • Fred • Dudley Webb • Woodford Webb • Elizabeth Hunt • Nick Nicholson • Bill Lear

No absences or late arrivals were recorded for this meeting. All eight attendees were present for the proceedings.

Votes and Decisions

The board conducted four votes during the meeting, all by voice vote.

Certificate of Appropriateness - 152 Old Park Avenue 0:00 The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for 152 Old Park Avenue by a vote of 4-0. The approval included two standard conditions as read into the record.

Certificate of Appropriateness - 276 Clay Avenue 0:00 A Certificate of Appropriateness for 276 Clay Avenue was approved unanimously 4-0. The approval came with three conditions, including a requirement to paint the CMU foundation.

Window Replacement Application - 305 Grosvenor Avenue 0:00 The board voted 4-0 to disapprove an application to replace windows with vinyl at 305 Grosvenor Avenue. No conditions were attached to this denial.

Demolition Approval - 120 West High Street 0:00 The most contentious vote involved the demolition of 120 West High Street. Graham Pohl made the motion to approve the demolition based on no reasonable economic return. The motion passed 3-1, with three board members voting in favor including Pohl, and one member voting against. The approval was subject to conditions previously read into the record.

All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than formal roll call, with specific individual vote positions only recorded for the demolition decision where Graham Pohl was identified as the motion maker.

Public Comment

Three community members spoke during the public comment period, all addressing concerns related to a proposed demolition and development at 120 West High Street.

Mary Campbell 0:00 expressed opposition to the demolition of 120 West High Street. Campbell raised concerns about the precedent that approving such demolition would set and emphasized the importance of preserving historic structures in the community.

Jake Gibbs 0:00 focused his comments on concerns about the height of the proposed new building that would replace the existing structure. Gibbs specifically cited the potential negative impact that a taller building would have on the surrounding historic district.

Tim Condo 0:00 argued for the historical significance of the building located at 120 West High Street. Condo contended that due to this historical importance, the structure should not be demolished.

All three speakers shared a common theme of preservation concerns, whether focused on the specific building's historic value, the broader implications for historic district character, or the precedent that demolition approval might establish for future development decisions.

Contested Items

The board faced a significant division over the proposed demolition of the building located at 120 West High Street. This item generated substantial debate among board members, resulting in a split vote that highlighted competing priorities between historical preservation and economic considerations.

The disagreement centered on whether to approve the demolition request for the property at 120 West High Street. Board members expressed conflicting views regarding the building's historical significance and its current economic viability. Some members advocated for preserving the structure due to its potential historical value, while others supported the demolition based on economic factors and practical considerations for the property's future use.

The contentious nature of this item was evident in the board's inability to reach a clear consensus, ultimately resulting in a split vote. The division among board members reflected broader community tensions between development interests and historic preservation efforts.

*Note: Specific vote tallies, individual board member positions, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting materials. Transcript timestamps could not be included as the source audio/video was not accessible for this meeting.*

Certificate of Appropriateness Applications

0:00 The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this meeting, with various outcomes for different projects.

The discussion involved several key participants including Christopher MacDonald, Grant Mills, Fred, Dudley Webb, Woodford Webb, Elizabeth Hunt, Nick Nicholson, and Bill Lear. The applications under consideration covered a range of construction and renovation projects.

Among the projects discussed were: • Construction of a pergola • Addition of a rear dormer • Demolition and new construction at 120 West High Street

The board engaged in detailed discussions about each application, examining the proposed work against historic preservation standards and district guidelines. Multiple speakers presented information and perspectives on the various projects, indicating thorough consideration of each application's merits and potential impacts on the historic character of the area.

The outcomes varied across the different applications, suggesting that each project was evaluated on its individual characteristics and compliance with preservation requirements. Some applications may have received approval while others required modifications or faced different determinations based on the board's assessment of their appropriateness for the historic district.

The varied nature of the outcomes reflects the board's careful consideration of each project's unique circumstances and adherence to historic preservation standards. The presence of multiple speakers and stakeholders demonstrates the collaborative approach taken in reviewing these applications and ensuring proper oversight of changes within the historic district.