Rumor has it that the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission thinks that the plans submitted and approved by the HPC for this project are being adhered to.
an atrocity! thanks for posting the comparison. so sad that this is allowed to happen. is there no recourse? reading your blog is always so illuminating on the way things really happen in this town. thanks for all your sleuthing.
Sadly, the drawing does specify "Anderson 90deg casement", which while incredibly hideous, was somehow approved. But the sad excuses for pediments Are Not on the drawings. The doors aren't even close. Why hasn't a stop work order been issued?
Good question, Dave--and one that should be directed to the Code Enforcement Officer, Peter Wurster (828-3133). He is the person who would issue it and could explain why he hasn't.
I also think it's worth noting that the size of the windows is misrepresented in the drawing.
Certainly, but its the HPC job to know that Anderson 90deg casements are Completely inappropriate. It is also the HPC's job to demand Peter issue a stop work order. If the Chair thinks this is in compliance, then the board needs to rethink the leadership of its chair. The board is responsible for issuing a noncompliance, calling Peter, and demanding the stop work order. Not I, or anyone else for that matter, is in the position or authority to do so.
I'm not suggesting, Dave, that you should call Peter Wurster to demand a stop work order. I was simply pointing out that he is the person who could answer your question: "Why hasn't a stop work order been issued?"
I do, however, encourage people to contact the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Code Enforcement Officer, and indeed the mayor to let them know that preservation of the historic architecture and character of Hudson is important, and it's not just something that a few cranks like to rant about.
Carole, agreed, but I think the HPC has now dropped the ball twice in the last 6 months, and if I ask Peter that question, he'll likely answer "Because the Commission has not demanded - or proven - why I should place a stop work order." If the chair and the board are in disagreement over this [the misrepresentation of the proposal] then thats another reason why Peter will not, and quite frankly should not, order a stop work order. Again, I think this is an issue with the commission, not Peter. While I certainly can't understand how this is not a unanimous resolution of the commission, it is up to them to speak with one voice. And firmly. A special meeting of the Commission seems the most obvious first order or business.
In terms of expressing discontent over current and recent preservation issues, I do not think, for example, the petition Chris Wagoner circulated following the church debacle was at all appropriate. This is about a Commission who is not acting with resolution and timeliness, to the point where the Codes Office and the general public now treat it as a procedural issue. If we don't give the commission Real teeth then it seems pointless to me for a citizens uproar. We have a body tasked with this. Now lets use it. 226-228 should cause the commission to be in an uproar, this at least, is for certain.
an atrocity! thanks for posting the comparison. so sad that this is allowed to happen. is there no recourse? reading your blog is always so illuminating on the way things really happen in this town. thanks for all your sleuthing.
ReplyDeleteIf the Chair thinks the actual is even close to the drawing he needs to gdet his eyes checked.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the drawing does specify "Anderson 90deg casement", which while incredibly hideous, was somehow approved. But the sad excuses for pediments Are Not on the drawings. The doors aren't even close. Why hasn't a stop work order been issued?
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't a stop work order been issued?
ReplyDeleteGood question, Dave--and one that should be directed to the Code Enforcement Officer, Peter Wurster (828-3133). He is the person who would issue it and could explain why he hasn't.
I also think it's worth noting that the size of the windows is misrepresented in the drawing.
doors specified thermatru as well....which was installed....just not
ReplyDeletein keeping with the rudimentary sketch on the drawings.
the pediments are not remotely close to the approved drawing!
word has it that a stop order is in the works....
Certainly, but its the HPC job to know that Anderson 90deg casements are Completely inappropriate. It is also the HPC's job to demand Peter issue a stop work order. If the Chair thinks this is in compliance, then the board needs to rethink the leadership of its chair. The board is responsible for issuing a noncompliance, calling Peter, and demanding the stop work order. Not I, or anyone else for that matter, is in the position or authority to do so.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting, Dave, that you should call Peter Wurster to demand a stop work order. I was simply pointing out that he is the person who could answer your question: "Why hasn't a stop work order been issued?"
ReplyDeleteI do, however, encourage people to contact the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Code Enforcement Officer, and indeed the mayor to let them know that preservation of the historic architecture and character of Hudson is important, and it's not just something that a few cranks like to rant about.
Carole, agreed, but I think the HPC has now dropped the ball twice in the last 6 months, and if I ask Peter that question, he'll likely answer "Because the Commission has not demanded - or proven - why I should place a stop work order." If the chair and the board are in disagreement over this [the misrepresentation of the proposal] then thats another reason why Peter will not, and quite frankly should not, order a stop work order. Again, I think this is an issue with the commission, not Peter. While I certainly can't understand how this is not a unanimous resolution of the commission, it is up to them to speak with one voice. And firmly. A special meeting of the Commission seems the most obvious first order or business.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of expressing discontent over current and recent preservation issues, I do not think, for example, the petition Chris Wagoner circulated following the church debacle was at all appropriate. This is about a Commission who is not acting with resolution and timeliness, to the point where the Codes Office and the general public now treat it as a procedural issue. If we don't give the commission Real teeth then it seems pointless to me for a citizens uproar. We have a body tasked with this. Now lets use it. 226-228 should cause the commission to be in an uproar, this at least, is for certain.