At the last City Council meeting the Council decided 3-2 to deny an appeal by Tom Harding to allow a window change on the building he renovated at 223 South Tryon Street (corner of West South Street).
It was just an "honest mistake" that a window on this building in the Woodstock Historic Preservation District was replaced. The original window, facing west onto a right-of-way, was a single pane that was the same width as the "transom" window above it. The window opening was enlarged during the renovation and a double-hung window replaced the single-pane window. It's not like the HPC didn't accommodate some of Harding's requests; it did, but it required him to keep the single-pane window, and his architect agreed.
On February 16 the Council said, in effect, "Put it back", supporting the decision of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission. I believe that was the first time in the memory of any HPC member now or recently serving that the City Council had supported it, rather than over-riding a decision made by it.
OK, fine. But now the Council is set to "re-consider" the very same appeal again, only two weeks later. You can read the Agenda for Tuesday's City Council meeting at the bottom of the City's homepage: http://www.woodstockil.gov/
The Council's 3-2 vote, killing the appeal, was the right vote. However, I thought at the time, "Had the two missing members of the Council been there, might the vote have been 4-3, in favor of the appeal?" On March 2 we'll find out.
No doubt that the members of the Historic Preservation Commission will continue to be concerned about their worth and value to the City of Woodstock. Will they just say, "The hell with this" and walk out?
Four experienced members of the HPC left the Commission within the past 3-4 months. Two experienced members remain, plus new members.
Months ago certain members of the Council were aware that the Commissioners didn't feel "appreciated." Well, keep stabbing with that knife. Maybe you can kill off all the Commissioners this time.
It was just an "honest mistake" that a window on this building in the Woodstock Historic Preservation District was replaced. The original window, facing west onto a right-of-way, was a single pane that was the same width as the "transom" window above it. The window opening was enlarged during the renovation and a double-hung window replaced the single-pane window. It's not like the HPC didn't accommodate some of Harding's requests; it did, but it required him to keep the single-pane window, and his architect agreed.
On February 16 the Council said, in effect, "Put it back", supporting the decision of the Woodstock Historic Preservation Commission. I believe that was the first time in the memory of any HPC member now or recently serving that the City Council had supported it, rather than over-riding a decision made by it.
OK, fine. But now the Council is set to "re-consider" the very same appeal again, only two weeks later. You can read the Agenda for Tuesday's City Council meeting at the bottom of the City's homepage: http://www.woodstockil.gov/
The Council's 3-2 vote, killing the appeal, was the right vote. However, I thought at the time, "Had the two missing members of the Council been there, might the vote have been 4-3, in favor of the appeal?" On March 2 we'll find out.
No doubt that the members of the Historic Preservation Commission will continue to be concerned about their worth and value to the City of Woodstock. Will they just say, "The hell with this" and walk out?
Four experienced members of the HPC left the Commission within the past 3-4 months. Two experienced members remain, plus new members.
Months ago certain members of the Council were aware that the Commissioners didn't feel "appreciated." Well, keep stabbing with that knife. Maybe you can kill off all the Commissioners this time.
3 comments:
With my usual curiosity, earlier today I am glancing through the upcoming agenda of the 03.02.10 City Council meeting, just a few days after noticing this story, as posted on The Woodstock Independent's web site. Highlights of the Independent's coverage explained the concerns of Woodstock's City Council and its' Historical Preservation Commission relative to a replacement window installed in a private home located in the historical district of Woodstock, but which did not meet the code for a home built during this particular time period.
In today's Woodstock Advocate, the picture of the window replacement in question does reveal a rather noticable disparity between the width of the transom and the double window replacement hung by one of the home's owners.
If my understanding of their recommendation to Mr. Harding is correct,i.e., that he remove the double-pane window and replace it with a single pane window,and keep it as close to, or the same width as the transom, in this particular instance, I agree whole-heartedly with the HPC and the city council's decision in this instance. Oddly enough,however, Woodstock's City Council is not "sticking to their guns," and is preparing to cast a re-vote during this Tuesday's regularly scheduled city council meeting, when, hopefully, all of its members are present.
The city's decision to conduct a second vote following an appeal from Mr. Harding, who currently owns the home and personally completed the window replacement project, along with the assistance of another contractor, is a fairly novel way of conducting business.
Given the absence of two of the city's council members, whose presence and vote will probably result in Mr. Harding's favor this Tuesday,I'm wondering whether the City Council will now see fit to open the "flood gates" in reconsideration of the "shoddy" manner in which they arrived at a "majority" vote with regard to nomination of Grace Hall by Woodstock's Historical Preservation Commission historical piece of property worthy of preservation and adaptable re-use, but definitely demolition by the Woodstock Christian Life Services enterprise.
Last November, when I last time I contacted Woodstock's City Manager's Office, as to when the City Council would "untable" Grace Hall's nomination for historical preservation and resume discussion of any and all adaptable reuse for it as probably one of Woodstock's most famous historic landmarks worthy of preservation, it was conveyed to me in no uncertain terms, and I paraphrase loosely, that "Grace Hall is a dead issue."
The manner by which Woodstock's City Council arrives at its' decisions, tables them, or - as in the Harding case - arbitrarily decides to revisit them, is - to say the least - intriguing. I'll be watching to see the outcome of the council's second vote, as a result of Mr. Harding's appeal.
In light of the inaction of the WCC and the HPC relative to Grace Hall, and their purported decision to "cave in" a "private business enterprise," I'd be flabbergasted if the re-vote by the city council members did not weigh in Mr. Harding's favor.
It doesn't seem to matter to the City Council that the Harding appeal was filed outside the ten-day time frame specified by the City Code.
Why don't we just throw out all the laws in Woodstock?
The re-vote on the Harding property was requested by Councilman Dick Ahrens, who was present and voting at the City Council's denial on February 16.
Materials in the packet for the March 2 City Council meeting explain that such a request for re-vote is permitted under parliamentary procedures.
Post a Comment