2003-10-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 order. Ms. Scala said that Gabe Silverman, owner of the adjacent building, wants a day light separation between the buildings, and partial demolition may not satisfy this. Ms. Scala said the BAR voted 5 to 2 to deny the demolition request based on d emolition guidelines. In a second action, the BAR voted 7 to 0 to deny construction of a replacement wall. Ms. Scala said that staff recommends that Council uphold the BAR's decisions. Ms. Lynn Heetderks, Vice Chair of the BAR, 1621 Amherst St., said t hat 224 th Court Square is one of the few remaining 19 century structures remaining in the Court Square area. Ms. Heetderks said that the BAR was advised by the City Attorney's office to evaluate the demolition request as they would any other, and not to c onsider the court order. Ms. Heetderks said the denial was based on demolition guidelines. She said there were two dissenting votes on the BAR. One member felt she did not have enough information and the other felt that the integrity of the building had already been compromised by the 1961 action. Ms. Caravati asked if the wall would be visible if the lot behind it was built upon, and Ms. Heetderks said she cannot say for certain. Mr. Schilling said that when there is a split decision on the BAR he t hinks it would be helpful to have those dissenting at the Council meeting to represent their viewpoint. Ms. Richards said that in reviewing the reasons why the BAR rejected the request, she thought one of the most important was that removal of the wall c ould damage other parts of this or the other building. Ms. Heetderks noted that the issue of replacement of the wall was considered a moot point by the BAR because demolition had already been denied. She said this is why there was little discussion of t he matter. Ms. Heetderks said the BAR is aware that if the Council overturned the BAR's decision then the BAR would reconsider the replacement wall. Ms. Mary Beth Johnson, owner of 224 Court Square, said she is appealing the decision denying her request for partial demolition because she is under court order to do that. Mr. Schilling asked if Ms. Johnson would prefer not to be in this position and does not want to remove the wall. Ms. Johnson said that she bought the building in 1991 because it was a n historic building. She said she guesses she would rather not remove the wall, but has a court order requiring her to do so. Ms. Schilling, speaking hypothetically, asked Ms. Johnson if Council upholds the BAR's decision and the court order is overturn ed, is that something she would like to see happen. Ms. Johnson said she would and would not because of the court order. Ms. Richards asked if Mr. Schilling's line of questioning has the ability to put Ms. Johnson in contempt of court, and Ms. Lisa Kel ley, City Attorney, replied that she supposes so. Ms. Richards said she thinks this questioning is putting Ms. Johnson in a very awkward position. Mr. Cox said that Council should be voting independent of whether the action is to Ms. Johnson's benefit or not. Mr. Cox said he feels that the greater concerns are what are the risks to the building if the wall is removed and what kind of precedent would Council be setting. He said he thinks it would be a bad precedent to set to approve the demolition.