Laserfiche WebLink
fe <br />and they actually did get in the house. The front door was gone and ply wooded over and <br />the back door was ajar. There was very little outside that ever reflected grace or beauty. <br />Inside the stairs and banister were gone so there was no getting upstairs. Joe and herself <br />went through those rooms that they could get into and obviously many others had been <br />through it. It was in pretty pathetic shape. That's not a reason for demolition, but it had <br />obviously been abused over the last few weeks in preparation for the demo. She was out of <br />town this weekend and on Monday they drove over there again and there was nothing but a <br />gaping hole in the ground. At which time she called Donna Rote and indicated that she <br />didn't know what our City rights are in demolition, but if somebody demolishes a building <br />she believes they' should return the landscape to a safe condition because there is this huge <br />hole. Donna indicated that she would follow up on that with someone from the Building <br />Department, so she isn't sure what happened with that. This whole saga precipitates a letter <br />from the City asking the board to give them more clarity as to what is a Landmark that can <br />be protected. This is the list that was done at some point, this is not the complete O.H.I. <br />list. Mrs. VanAuken commented that this is the list that she made up, but it is not a <br />comprehensive list. Mr. Barker indicated that the O.H.I. list should be incorporated into the <br />software system with the Building Department. Mrs. Davis questioned on what basis were <br />some of these homes made O.H.I. Mrs. Lord suggested that age would deternune if it is <br />qualifies for O.H.I.. They did a grant in 1985,,the purpose of that grant was to do a survey <br />of the older homes and when they wrote up the grant application they put in there what they <br />were going to do and, that was our criteria. Probably what the board_needs to do is tell them <br />this list, while informational, is not a complete list. Mrs. VanAuken indicated that this was a <br />follow up to the pamphlet that Mrs. Lord did that was to help people understand where the <br />old houses were in town. If we were to put on all the O.H.I. homes, it would be a very long <br />list. Mrs. Lord suggested that O.H.I. has no protective qualities, it is just information. <br />Plaqued houses have no protection. Again, it is hopefully the owner takes on a sense of <br />pride and does protect it. The only ones that have any protection at all are Butternut Ridge <br />and the three buildings. 5he is thinking that this list is only more confusing to them for their <br />purposes. Mrs. Davis questioned if there was no way to protect these old buildings. Mrs. <br />Lord indicated that the only protection is a delay, which is exactly what the issue that came <br />before them a little while ago was about. The board turned down Fred Biszantz's request <br />for a new roof. He was delayed for a certain time period, but after that period is up he can <br />do what he wants to do, through the ordinance. Mr. Barker questioned if they should get <br />the ordinance changed so the plaqued homes in the City have protection. Mrs. Lord replied <br />that they would have to have discussions about that and one of the reasons would be; in <br />order to get a plaque, the board didn't use the same criteria that they would have used for a <br />landmark. It was more just to recognize the age that it was built, rather than just being so <br />many years old. For instance, there are.some modern and up-to-date looking houses that <br />have something inside that is old. She is not sur.e that the board would have landmarked <br />those, but because they were recognizing them as an older home it had less historic <br />architectural significance. Mr. Barker questioned if she would rather pursue homes that are <br />landmarked versus plaqued as far as protecting them. Anybody in the City of North <br />Olmsted that's either plaqued or a landmark designation could do whatever they want at this <br />point. Mrs. O'Rourke indicated that they could anyway. Mrs. Lord indicated that it seemed <br />that the board needs to find out from the Building Department what is actually plaqued on <br />the software, it was their understanding that the purpose of the software to recognize these. <br />Then perhaps the board could give a better definition to the Building Department as to what <br />2