RECORD OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF ... - City of Alexandria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RECORD OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW State Basis of Appeal: The Old and Historic District's Board of Architectural Review erred in denying Michael Zarlenga's application for a Permit to Demolish portions of the rear ell of his building at 210 King Street by finding that the limited scope of the requested partial demolition of the rear ell reached such a level as to be detrimental to the public interest of the City (5 10- 103(B) of the Alexandria Zoning Ordinance, 1992, as amended) ("Ordinance"), or that the scope of the request of the limited partial demolition reached the level as justifying denial based on the criteria of $1 0- 104(B) of the Ordinance. Additionally, the City Charter confers the authority to regulate the demolition and capsulation of buildings. The Charter does not confer the authority to regulate partial demolitions and capsulations; as such activities are within the scope of the Board of Architectural Review, or Council on appeal, as alterations governed by $10-105 of the Ordinance. Zarlenga-BAR appeal 0607
C. RICHARD BIERCE, AIA Historical Architect and Preservation Consultant 121 S. Royal St. Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-836-9085 crbierce@,aol.com September 14, 2007 Mr. Michael Zarlenga 21 0 King Street Alexandria, VA 223 14 Dear Mr. Zarlenga: Re: Appeal of Denial for Selective Demolition: BAR CASE # 2007-0085 At your request I have examined interior and exterior surfaces of the rear wing of the historic building at 210 King St. The purpose of this examination was to identify as completely as possible what remains of the original historic fabric and what is clearly of a later origin, with particular focus on the exterior shell. I have prepared a report which summarizes my findings. I have read the BAR Staff report and must take issue with a critical assumption which undergirds the rationale for denying the application for selective demolition. As written in several locations in the Staff Report: " . . .the proposed demolition or portions of the building represented a loss of portions of a historic building that was significant in the historic district." "The Board denied the application for demolition of portions of the rear of the building because it believed that the amount of demolition presented was an unacceptable loss of historic fabric.. . ." Examination of the physical document of the building fabric reveals facts which belie the assumption that there will be loss of historic fabric. To the best of my knowledge, as documented in my assessment report on the historic fabric, none of the items specifically requested to be demolished in the previous application are pertinent to the discussion about historic fabric. In my opinion, all of the requested items, including 2oth c. door and window openings, 2oth c. canopies and railings, a multitude of electrical and mechanical equipment and conduit, are inappropriate and disfiguring alterations to the original historic structure. Again, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual historic fabric which remains in place to this date will be adversely affected by the proposed demolition and will in fact be
Page 1: EXHIBIT NO. ' RECORD OF APPEAL FROM
Page 5 and 6: To 09/14/2007 12:31 PM cc Please r
Page 7 and 8: Historic District. I personally kno

RECORD OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF ... - City of Alexandria

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?