Council rejects Heritage remodel

Barbara Diamond

A proposal to add square footage to a Mountain Road home on the

Historical Register was vetoed Tuesday by the City Council.

It was the second time in two meetings that the council rejected

the recommendations of the city’s Heritage Committee and the Design

Review Board’s approval of modifications to a registered home.

Two weeks ago, the council approved the use of fake wood on a home

on the city’s Historical Register, material opposed by the Heritage

Committee. Tuesday it overruled approval of a two-story addition to

the back of a registered home, which the committee had recommended to

preserve the cottage look from the street.

Neighbors appealed the board’s decision on the Mountain Road

cottage -- the committee has no decision-making powers.

Applications for putting a structure on the historical register

are submitted to the committee, but must be approved by the director

of the Community Development Department and are subject to appeal.

The registration of the Mountain Road home was not appealed.

“Bottom line, we think the approval hinges on the historical

registry,” said appellant Mary Locatelli.

Heritage status offers incentives to property owners of valued

structures, including intrusions in set-backs not normally allowed

and a reduction in parking requirements, which the architect for the

Mountain Road home’s owners used in designing the addition.

“Based on the facts, circumstances and the timeline, one can only

assume [registering] was done to obtain the considerable financial

and construction benefits with waiving building codes and variances,

reviews permits and fees for the planned future remodel since the

owners submitted remodel plans to the Design Review Board a mere two

months after being placed on the historic register,” neighbor Robin

K. Hall said.

Interim Zoning Administrator Liane Schuller told the council that

the proposed additions would have required variances or required to

conform to the city code, if the structure were not on the city’s

Historical Register.

“What bothers me is the process, not the substance,” said

Councilman Wayne Baglin. “The Historical Register is to preserve and

enhance what we have in town. Rather than protection, the ordinance

appears to be a license for exploitation. The loopholes are turning

into black holes. “

Heritage Committee members, who were not at the council meeting,

said they held three hearings before a proposal was submitted for

modifications to the “C-rated” cottage they felt they could

recommend. C-rating means the building adds to the neighborhood

character without necessarily being distinguished architecture.

“Amy and I just want to build our house,” said property owner

Steven Schenk. “I have been hearing comments from all over town. I am

afraid we will get lumped in with the Montage.”

The Schenks first submitted a one-story addition, but later

revised the proposal to add a 728-square-foot second story to the

rear of the cottage and a 63-square-foot deck. With the addition, the

house would be less than 1,500 square feet. The city code would

permit a much larger, taller home on the lot if built from scratch on

the site, subject to design review approval, according to John

O’Neil, the Schenks architect.

“We did not abuse or intentionally circumvent the process,” said

O’Neil.

Appellant Locatelli said the privacy of her backyard is precious

and would be diminished by the proposed addition, which is about 20

feet from the property line.

“I don’t have as much trouble with the square footage as I do with

the loss of the neighbor’s privacy,” said Councilwoman Toni Iseman.

“If you drive by the front, you hardly see the stakes. You don’t even

realize there is even a project there.”

The council voted 3-2, with Councilmen Baglin and Steven Dicterow

opposed, to send the project back to the Design Review Board to look

at the privacy issues and the rear-yard setback.