Laserfiche WebLink
HASC Public Hearing <br /> July 12, 2001 <br /> Page Two <br /> Mrs. Cross asked if the first address of the petition should be 233 South Edward as it was not <br /> included on the application. Mr. Paulsen stated that is should be included and there are eleven <br /> properties total. <br /> Mr. Juan Hatcher, 408 West Macon,was present and stated that he and his wife do not like <br /> having to ask permission to work on their house. Mr. Hatcher stated that in many instances it is <br /> very difficult to restore a home back to original as many companies are no longer in business. <br /> He stated that it is also difficult financially. Mr. Hatcher stated that fl�e neighborhood is <br /> beautiful and the Glidewells and NWRAPS have done a great deal of work in the area. <br /> Mr. Hatcher read questions that his wife had written including who determined economic loss or <br /> hardship and what documentation would be necessary, would property owners be able to go <br /> forward with existing signed contracts, would both of their addresses be included in the petition <br /> as notice was only sent to 408 West Macon,where does a property owner appeal or does HASC <br /> have the last say, and how could they see that their property was exempt from this petition as <br /> they only want it to be under federal guidelines. <br /> Mr. Hatcher stated that he would like to see more done about demolitions than this petition. <br /> Ms. Miller stated that HASC understands if a property cannot be completely restored to original. <br /> If materials are no longer available or the cost is prohibitive then the Commission would work <br /> with a property owner to find comparable and affordable materials. The process is usually that a <br /> homeowner wants to do something with their house and the Commission asks that there is some <br /> planning ahead. There are architects on the Commission who work with petitioners. Ms. Miller <br /> stated that HASC has never caused an action to be considered a taking in the past and would not <br /> do so. <br /> Ms. Miller stated that if a property owner had a slate roof in need of repair and wanted to replace <br /> it with another material, HASC would ask for documentation that the homeowner had researched <br /> repairing the existing slate. Details of a homeowner's income would not be requested. Prior <br /> contracts made would be honored. The decisions of HASC would be appealable to the City <br /> Council and appeals after that would be made to the courts. Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Hatcher <br /> could argue his case for exemption to HASC and to the City Council but if the property is <br /> designated from the beginning it would most likely not be exempt. <br /> Mr. Booth stated that the issues raised are legitimate and he noted that in most cases you have to <br /> give something to get something. Protection would be given that a neighbor could not do <br /> something detrimental in the area. In order to make and keep a historic district there must be <br /> some restrictions for protection. <br /> Mrs. Glidewell stated that Mr. Hatcher had replaced his front porch with wood and like materials <br /> which is what HASC is looking for. She stated that it is important that the properties be <br />