Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2025 10 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes January 22, 2024 Page 4of5 Applicant Presentation: Michael Reis, resident, recapped the staff presentation. He said that he was second owner of the property, and that the first owner told him the house was originally moved from a mine in Erie. He said that the demolition was part of a plan to subdivide and redevelop the lot, and that he believe the property was not of significant historical value. Questions of Applicant: Beauchamp asked whether the applicant had explored incorporating the existing structure into their redevelopment plans. Reis said that their plan for subdividing the lot meant that keeping the existing structure was not feasible. Public Comment: Jean Morgan, resident, had some concerns about what would go on the lot after the demolition. She was concerned about the possibility of 3 residential subdivisions fitting into the neighborhood, and would rather something like the current house remain there. Haley said that Commission could make recommendations, but did not have jurisdiction over future development. Commissioner Discussion: Beauchamp said this one was tougher for him as the structure looked to be in good condition. He was hung up on the location being next to the neighboring cabins. He appreciated the applicant's desire to redevelop the site, but wondered whether the existing house could have been relocated somewhere else. Anderson appreciated concerns from Beauchamp, but it was not a concern he shared. He noted the unique history of the structure as it had been moved before. Burg said that she had some concern about the lack of documentation about the architectural history of the house. She said that the location near Miner's Field was important, and noted the importance of the history of the area to the town. She believed it would be a good candidate for landmarking. Keller said that he agreed with staff's recommendation, and would lean towards supporting releasing it, though he could be convinced otherwise. Beauchamp said that the lack of documentation gave him pause to put a hold on the demolition. Burg appreciated that the applicant had met with staff multiple times, and noted the probable cause process and assumed it had been discussed. She wanted to make sure that the applicant knew there were preservation options. Haley said that it was hard because of the location. The neighborhoods east of railroad tracks were likely the next to be redeveloped. However, the fact it was moved in 1964 made the property seem less significant to her. She was concerned by the lack of documentation, but was leaning towards releasing the property. Beauchamp said that he did not want to set a precedent for unnecessary delays in the demolition review process, and that it was important to consider each application on the