Word: landmarks
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...most at stake, however, may be the seven members of the Historical Commission, whose ability to achieve its foremost task--the preservation of land-marks--has been called into question. After placing a two-year moratorium on construction at the historic site, in keeping with the provisions of the landmark ordinance, the commission reconsidered is decision on October 4. But still confused about the legality of the demolition and faced with a State Building Code Appeals Board ruling in favor of the developer, commissioners postponed a decision until a meeting yesterday...
...already claim victory. John O. Mirick, Bell's attorney, who so far has four civil suits riding on the case, says the law is on his side. He was already successfully in the first civil appeal, which challenged the Historical Commission's imposition of penalties for violation of the landmark ordinance. In it. Doyle contended that Sullivan's signature approving the construction drawings constituted the board's approval of the demolition...
...Doyle has not acted in good faith," asserts another nearby resident. Powell Woodward, who tried single, handedly to stop the demolition on the morning of June 14. His worries go beyond, the loss of an historical landmark. "The evidence is pretty strong that Mr. Doyle and Mr. Bell are in it for the money." Woodward says...
...chided Bell as an absentee landlord who let the building deteriorate for its five low-and moderate-income tenants. Within a year and a half after Doyle's original application for demolition--before the site was declared a landmark--two cases of arson gutted the structure. After some tenants moved out after the first fire. Woodward accuses Bell of removing the units' radiators to discourage future tenants. After the second confirmed arson. "Bell left the building exposed to the elements for two years," according to Woodward...
City Councilor David E. Sullivan--who sponsored the 1981 landmark ordinance and faces a suit for inappropriate interference--sees a more serious problem with allowing Doyle to proceed with the proposed construction. He decried the demolition as a gross violation of city authority--one which demands punishment. "I'm sure the [State Building Codes]. Appeals Board decision will be overturned." Sullivan predicts, resulting in a denial of a building permit for Doyle...