2003-07-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 PUBLIC RIGHT - OF - WAY DESIGNATED AS MEGAN COURT" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for considerati on. APPEAL : BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DENIAL OF PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF 700 HARRIS STREET th Mr. O'Connell said at its May 20 meeting the Board of Architectural Review voted 5 - 2 to deny partial demolition of the building at 700 Harris Street. He said one section of the building was approved for demolition. Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the BAR, said the section in question is over 100 years old and it was the feeling of the BAR that it is an essential part of the original building. She said the applica nt has said that this section cannot support a roof, but she feels something could be done to support it. She said the BAR felt criteria one through six applied to the structure. Mr. Randall leach, 4749 Chapel Road, Free Union, applicant, clarified that only Section D has been approved for demolition and he also wants to demolish Section A. He said a roof is needed over the entire structure and additional support would be necessary. He said he thinks Section B, not A is where the boiler originally was. He said to replace the roof over Sections A, B, and C is estimated to cost between $62,000 and $65,000, but only $15,000 to put a roof over Sections B and C. Mr. Brown said Council needs to state their basis for approval or denial and reference the cri teria. Ms. Richards made a motion to deny the appeal based on the grounds cited by the Board of Architectural Review, and Mr. Lynch seconded the motion. Mr. Cox said he has looked at the site and realizes that dealing with the building is not easy. He said he understands the concern the BAR had to try to selectively demolish sections of the buildings. He said he realizes it will be quite a challenge to remove Section A. He said it is clear the whole thing was built at once. He said he would have sug gested retaining the external wall and allowing the applicant to remove the other wall. He said he thinks there is a workable compromise. He said he would like to clarify which walls to retain and which are so compromised they can be demolished. He sai d he would leave the exterior wall untouched and remove the back wall. He said he thinks the applicant needs the assistance of an architect. Mr. Lynch said he sees the merits of gong either way, but in a close call is inclined to back the decision of t he BAR. He said he appreciates the applicant's position, but in the absence of a compelling reason to tear it down, supports the BAR. Ms. Richards asked if the same quality of roof would be needed if the applicant followed Mr. Cox's suggestion.