HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-05838
,
I
I~
I V
-.....;
"Q
VI
~
~
~
,
,"
~
~
()
~
~
~
i
t!
~ i
\ \) i
,]
I
'i.,).., j
, ,
. . I
.;j'
~.1
1
G..l
1\,0,1
'J ,1
c...1
~I
,
I
2,,1
1
~j
,
"
...
I ATIIANASIOS C. KATSAOUNIS
and IRENE A. KATSAOUNIS,
plaintiff/Petitioners
vS.
T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATIII S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
:Zket Nos. 98-5838 Equity Term
: 98-6004 Civil Term
: CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
AND NOW, this
s
ORDER J ~.
\'
day of I if\1- 1998, the terms of
the attached Stipulation and Praecipe are adopted as an Order of
\, Court and the matter is remanded to the Borough council for further I
II
!:
I
BY THE COURT:
\ Ii W
111 [1
t
Hon. Edgar B. Bayley, J.
/
I action.
\',11- r...'[ r
I
i:
)ll-L~.t/G
Q .'j--.'(C/
Ii ! J- lr'(~..
.'1lL.,LLC.r IL /~ a L .
IUlLh...." d () ./0 {t. U
/2~l~
tJ. ~~A-'
r
I
ATHANASIOS C. KATSAOUNIS
and IRENE A. KATSAOUNIS,
Plaintiff/Petitioners
vs.
T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATHI S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Docket Nos. 98-5838 Equity Term
98-6004 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
.
.
This
STIPlfLATION AND PRAECIPE
~,A('
'. l l.
St~pulatLon, made the day of
fir ,,:( r! brr- 1998,
memorializes an agreement, reached by and among the above-captioned
parties, who are desirous of settling the action in equity docketed
at 98-5838 Equity Term and the action at law docketed at 98-6004
Civil Term and who are intending to be legally bound as an Order of
Court, as follows:
1. The bond posted by the Plaintiff/Petitioners to the
, action in equity shall be transferred to the action at law docketed
,I
,
I at 98-6004 Civil Term. By this Stipulation, the parties jointly
PRAECIPE the Prothonotary to so transfer the bond.
2. The equity action at 98-5838 Equity Term shall be marked
II as settled and discontinued.
By this Stipulation, the parties
jointly PRAECIPE the Prothonotary to so mark the equity action.
3. The parties stipulate that the action at law has been
timely filed.
i:
The Motion To Consider Petition For Review Nunc Pro
i
i i Tunc of the
if
I Stipulation,
Plaintiff/Petitioners shall be withdrawn.
By this
the parties jointly PRAECIPE the Prothonotary to so
mark the Motion.
4. The parties stipulate that the relief reqnested by the
Plaintiff/Petitioners in their Petition for Review shall be
addressed in its entirety by jointly remanding the objection of the
Plaintiff/Petitioners to the issuance of the Certificate of
Appropr1ateness to the Borough Council of Carlisle, Pennsylvania
for reconsideration.
5. The parties stipulate that the Stay issued in the action
at law on October 20, 1998, by the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley remain
in effect pending further Order of Court or written directive of
the Borough Council. The parties desire that, should the Borough
Council so direct, either party may lift the Stay by praecipe to
the Prothonotary. The parties further desire that the Bond should
only be released upon joint praecipe or Order of Court.
6. The parties stipulate that there shall be no
, administrative appeal or other judicial review of the action of the
Borough Council save as may specifically be provided by both the
Council and the parties together.
It is intended by this
stipulation that neither party be permitted or required to return
to the Court of Conunon Pleas, or any other forum of judicial
review, save for the purpose of determining the amount of damages,
if any, sustained by reason of granting the Stay.
7. The parties agree that time is of the essence and further
agree to take all reasonable steps, in good faith, necessary to
assure the efficient and timely resolution of the matter.
!fM!~' ~ : /. -A/J'.f:-::2ti.~p7 &'::<=
' n a , un's ,1AN(I.I'cr' . Michael Bletz '_
!<:et-{f~ S.
Kathi S. Bletz
\~\,\ Uu-~Q i2L~il~
Michael R. Rundle, Esq.
/7///( H )ki~"vu! l}
Ir ;e A.~saounis
. ~
Matthe J. Eshelman, Esq.
,--~ .., -,
, - , ,
'::.'.' -.~
:~1
"",
,
, ,
C' > , , I
....)
(,> .,
II!
ii
,
i
,
! ATHANASIOS C. KATSAOUNIS
and IRENE A. KATSAOUNIS,
plaintiff/Petitioners
vs.
T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATHI S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Docket No.
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
ZONING/INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de
su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
, en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedades 0 ostros derechos impoprtantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COURNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
ATHANASIOS C. KATSAOUNIS
and IRENE A. KATSAOUNIS,
Plaintiff/Petitioners
vs.
T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATHI S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Docket No. 'Ij,'/J:j E7".t7
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
ZONING/INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The Plaintiff/Petitioners, Athanasios C. Katsaounis and Irene
A. Katsaounis, through their attorneys, The Law Offices of Patrick
F. Lauer, Jr., respectfully petition the Court for a temporary
restraining order, subject to an underlying Complaint, filed
simultaneously herewith and incorporated herein by reference, and
I: in support thereof, aver as follows:
1. Petitioners are Athanasios C. Katsaounis and Irene A.
Katsaounis, husband and wife and owners of the parcel of
residential real estate in the Historical District of the Borough
of Carlisle commonly known as 250 West South Street, Carlisle, PA
17011.
2. Respondents are T. Michael Bletz and Kathi S. Bletz,
I husband and wife and owners of the parcel of real estate abutting
: that of the Petitioners in the Historical District of the Borough
of Carlisle commonly known as 264 West South Street, Carlisle, PA
17013.
3. On August 21, 1998, Respondent T. Michael BIetz applied
to the Historical Architectural Review Board (H.A.R.B.) of the
Borough of Carlisle for a Certificate of Appropriateness of
Proposed Exterior Work.
4. The Respondents BIetz proposed to demolish a garage on
their property and build a new one.
S, The old garage is detached from the dwelling, located
approximately fifty feet from the rear of the Respondents' house
and approximately seventy-five feet from the Petitioners' dwelling.
6. Historic District Guideline # 6 states: "The removal of
distinguishing architectural features shall not be permitted. In
cases where such features have deteriorated beyond saving, they
shall be replaced with approved replications of similar material
:: and design." (emphasis added.)
7 . The proposed new garage would be attached to the
Respondents' house on the side facing the Petitioners' dwelling.
8. There is only one other attached garage in the entire
Historical District.
9. Historic District Guideline #2 states: "All buildings
should be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations or
additions that have no historical basis and which seek to create an
older or more modern appearance are discouraged."
10. The H.A.R.B, met on September 1, 1998, and issued its
Report on Certificate of Appropriatemenss of Proposed Exterior
': Work. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
- - - - - -~.
11. The Petitioners Katsaounis respectfully disagree with the
findings of the H.A.R.B.
12, The H.A.R.B. report was submitted to the Borough Council
of Carlisle on or before October 10, 1998.
13. No notice was given to the neighboring property owners,
including the Petitioners Katsaounis, because the Respondents did
'i
not seek a zoning variance.
i:
11
14. As a result, neither the Petitioner Katsaounis nor other
:: neighboring property owners were given an opportunity to make their
"
1
:1 observations known to the Borough Council and/or to the H.A.R.B.
15, The Borough Council approved the Report and issued a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
16. The Petitioners' first indication of the Respondents'
intention to perform exterior work on their property came on
Saturday, October 11, 1998, when construction equipment and
materials appeared on the Respondents' property.
17. The Petitioners Katsaounis stand to suffer irreparable
harm if their observations are not considered by the Court, the
Council, or the H.A.R.B. in that their property abuts that of the
Respondents, and the Petitioners' property would be the most
affected in terms of value of real estate,
,.
"
18. The Petitioners stand to suffer irreparable harm to their
own property as well as to the ambience of the neighborhood in that
the exterior character would be forever altered.
19. Garages of the period were outbuildings: the common
nuisances of lights, fumes, woodworking, etc. were set back away
from the residences.
20. The Historic District Guidelines are designed to protect
and preserve what "modern" times consider junk so that future
generations can enjoy what become "classic" examples of history.
21. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Borough Council, the H.A.R.B., or both, did not have all
of the facts needed to make an informed decision regarding the
appropriateness of such construction.
22. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Respondents' proposal is violative of the spirit and the
letter of the Historic District Guidelines.
23. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Borough Council would either refuse to issue a Cer~ificate
of Appropriateness or remand the matter to the H.A.R.B. for
'! modification if it is presented with the observations of the
Petitioners and their neighbors.
24. The Petitioners are willing to post bond, as required by
the Rules of civil Procedure, in an amount sufficient to cover any
additional cost incurred by the Respondents BIetz from the issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order should Petitioners' prayer for
relief be found to be without merit.
REPORT ON
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Location of properly:
Applicant
Application date:
Deadline for Council review:
Prepared by:
Date prepared:
264 West South Slreet
Michael Bietz
August21,1998
October 10,1998
Kenneth C. Gillie Jr., PlanninglZonlnglCodes Manager
September 1, 1998
1, The exact location of the area in which the work is to be done,
This structure is located on the South Side of the third block of West South Streel.
2. Exterior changes to be made or the exterior character of the structure to be erected,
Including the general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building,
sign, or structure,
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing detached wood frame garage located to the rear
of the house, and build a new attached garage wnh Gennan wood lap siding at the southeast (left
rear) comer of the house. The applicant also proposes to remove existing vinyl siding on the rear
and side of the house and replace n wnh Gennan wood lap siding.
3. Surrounding structures, their general exterior characteristics, and features similar to
the request being made.
The property is surrounded by other two and three story brick structures of various designs and
ages. The structures appear to be predominanlly Victorian and Italianate in style, wnh a modem
structure also occupying a 101. The surroundirg structures are contributing resources to the
Historic District (except for the modern structure).
4. Effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the
district and how this Change complies with the Historic District Guidelines.
Historic District Guideline #1 states: In general, deteriorated materiat on the exterior of a building
shall be repaired or reptaced with material that duplicates the old as closely as possible.
Historic District Guideline #2 states: All buildings should be recognized as products of their own
time. Alterations or additions that have no historical basis and which seek to create an older or
more modem appearance are discouraged.
Historic District Guideline #4 states: Aluminum or vinyl siding over brick, stone, or masonry
buildings shall not be permitted. Aluminum or vinyl siding shall not be permitted to be ptaced on
wooden buildings where the use of said materials could be seen from a public street, public
avenue, or public sidewalk. Exceptions should only be considered in rare instances where, In the
judgement of the HARB, the use of said materials would not have an adverse impact on either the
Historic District in general or the specific neighborhood affected. In cases where doubt exists as
to whether or not an exception is warranted, the decision shall error on the side of preserving the
Historic District.
Historic District Guideline #6 stales: The removal of distinguishing architectural features shall not
be permitted. In cases where such features have deteriorated beyond saving, they shall be
replaced with approved replications of similar material and design.
Section 255-132 at the Code of the Borough of Carlisle regulates the demoInion of structures
wnhin the Historic District. More specifically subparagraph C. lists requirements that must be met
in order to approve demolnion. The Code section reads:
,.
c. No building defined by subsection B above shall be demolished unlesS one (1) 01 the
following is satisfied, In the terms ollhe Borough council, based upon the recommen~ations
oflhe Board:
(1) That the applicant proves Ihatthe demol~lon is needed 10 clear the land lor a project
of special publiC benel~ lhat would greally oulweigh lhe loss 01 the historical
resource.
t ' '
\"
\:
!.
~~
(2) That the applicant proves lhat no reasonable beneficial use of the building is
possible: or
(3) That the applicant proves lhatthe denial 01 the demol~ion would greally resull in
unreasonable economic hardship 01 the owner.
The demol~ion of the existing garage Is In compliance with requirement (2) as tisted above, and
does not class~y as a historical resource. The garage suffers from severe deteriora\lon, and
could be subject to condemnation.
The add~ion of a garage complies w~h the Historic District Guidelines. The siding material used
Is SympathetiC to the district and the roofing material used will be similar in color to the existing
slate on the house,
6. APpropriateness of exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public
street or sidewalk.
The proposed work will be visible from West Soulh Street.
6. General design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure,
and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the district,
The existing structure is a three story, brick, Victorian, w~h steeply p~ched slate roof. The
building has heavy dentll work at the roofline and intricate iron gingerbread surrounding the wrap
around front porch. The buiiding is a strong contributing resource to the Historic District.
7. opinion of the HARB as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve
or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district.
It is the opinion of the HARB that the work follOWS the Historic District Guidelines and will not
destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district.
8. specific recommendation oj the HARB as to the issuance of a certificate of
APpropriateness.
A motion was made by Bob Davis and seconded by Jim Flower Jr., pursuant to Section 255-132
B, to recommend that Borough council Issue a certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the
existing garage. This motion is based on the facts that the garage is not highly Important to the
historic character of the district, is not a highly important historic resource, and will not affect the
continuity of that portion of the Historic District. This motion passed the HARB unanimously (5-0,
Donna W,iliamS and Bellie Henry absent).
On a motion made by Jim Fiower Jr. and second by Lee scholl, HARB unanimously (5-0, Donna
WilliamS and Bettie Henry absent) recommends that council Issue a certificate of
APpropriateness for the demol~ion of this structure.
On a molion made by Jim Flower Jr. and second by Lee schOll, HARB unanimously (5-0, Donna
WilliamS and Bettie Henry absent) recommends that council Issue a certificate of
APpropriateness for the remainder of the work subject to the use of wooden passenger doors and
a wooden garage door,
il
Ii
I
II
!I
I'
II
ii
"
I
~ I
,
"
VERIFICATION
I, rr-ev'\~ kJ Sa.Ou'n I~ , state that I am the 'P!o,;,,-/It+- in the
above-captioned case and that the facts set forth in the above
;i ~JtIOV". are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,1
II information, and belief. I realize that false statements herein ar~
il subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authoritie
'II
under 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904.
'I
,
. 4- /
1'7 YlI.( /I- 14 ./lfY.t'J/'.(J1.{ .(.Iv
Date:
ii ATHANASIOS C. KATSAOUNIS
and IRENE A. KATSAOUNIS,
Plaintiff/Petitioners
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Docket NOB. 98-5838 ~;quity 'fUl'm ~
98-6004 civil Torm !
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW
vs.
" T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATHI S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please transfer the bond from the Equity Docket to thu Civil
i; Docket 98-64'(1)4 pursuant to the Court Order of tlovombur !j, 1 f}f}lJ.
Resp t
llY, SU~iitted'
~i 'L----
!I
':
i; Date: #
Matthew J. sheJ."an, Esqui.ro
Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauor, Jr.
2108 Market Street, Aztec Building
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4706
ID# 72655 Tel. (717) 763-1800
,.....,.1..
r f
t -i-
j c r
- (,
:"
s-
-~ ....::...
--p v,
~\'> ---
-0
-0 ...,
.., ~
K
~
J.
~
f
~
~ f.
-P~
I ~
"<>
:",.
c
'"
ATIII\NI\SIOS C. KI\TSAOUNIS
and IRENE 1\. KATSAOUNIS,
Plaintiff/Petitioners
vs.
T. MICHAEL BLETZ
and KATHI S. BLETZ,
Defendant/Respondents
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Docket No. ?P- t;;PJP Q'UI ~I ~oQ."1
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
ZONING/INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
, within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. si usted quiere
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de
su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
en la petie ion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedades 0 ostros derechos impoprtantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
i VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
; ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
! ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
,
CUMBERLAND COURNT BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
of Carlisle for a Certificate of Appropriateness of Proposed
Exterior Work.
4. The Respondents BIetz proposed to demolish a garage on
their property and build a new one.
S. The old garage is detached from the dwelling, located
approximately fifty feet from the rear of the Respondents' house
and approximately seventy-five feet from the Petitioners' dwelling.
6. Historic District Guideline #6 states: "The removal of
distinguishing architectural features shall not be permitted. In
cases where such features have deteriorated beyond saving, they
shall be replaced with approved replications of similar material
and design." (emphasis added.)
7. The proposed new garage would be attached to the
Respondents' house on the side facing the Petitioners' dwelling.
8. There is only one other attached garage in the entire
Historical District.
9. Historic District Guideline #2 states: "All buildings
should be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations or
additions that have no historical basis and which seek to create an
older or more modern appearance are discouraged."
I' 10. The H.A.R.B. met on September 1, 1998, and issued its
Report on Certificate of Appropriatemenss of Proposed Exterior
I Work. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
'i
reference.
i!
',."- .'._'!:Z'"
11. The petitioners Katsaounis respectfully disagree with the
findings of the B.A.R.B.
12. The B.A.R.B. report was submitted to the Borough Council
of Carlisle on or before October 10, 199B.
13. No notice was given to the neighboring property owners,
including the petitioners Katsaounis, because the Respondents did
, not seek a zoning variance.
14. As a result, neither the Petitioner Katsaounis nor other
neighboring property owners were given an opportunity to make their
observations known to the Borough Council and/or to the B.A.R.B.
15, The Borough Council approved the Report and issued a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
16. The Petitioners' first indication of the Respondents'
intention to perform exterior work on their property came on
Saturday, October 11, 199B, when construction equipment and
materials appeared on the Respondents' property.
17. The Petitioners Katsaounis stand to suffer irreparable
harm if their observations are not considered by the Court, the
Council, or the B.A.R.B. in that their property abuts that of the
Respondents, and the Petitioners' property would be the most
affected in terms of value of real estate.
lB. The Petitioners stand to suffer irreparable harm to their
! own property as well as to the ambience of the neighborhood in that
the exterior character would be forever altered.
19. Garages of the period were outbuildings: the common
nuisances of lights, fumes, woodworking, etc. were set back away
from the residences.
20. The Historic District Guidelines are designed to protect
and preservE' what "modern" times consider junk so that future
generations can enjoy what become "classic" examples of history.
21. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Borough Council, the H.A.R.B., or both, did not have all
of the facts needed to make an informed decision regarding the
appropriateness of such construction.
22. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Respondents' proposal is violative of the spirit and the
letter of the Historic District Guidelines.
23. The Petitioners Katsaounis believe, and therefore aver,
that the Borough Council would either refuse to issue a certificate
,of Appropriateness or remand the matter to the H.A.R.B. for
modification if it is presented with the observations of the
Petitioners and their neighbors.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioners, Athanasios C. Katsaounis and Irene
C. Katsaounis, respectfully petition the Court to REVIEW the action
of the Borough Council of Carlisle, DECREE that such action is
violative of the spirit and letter of the Historic District
Guidelines, and ENJOIN the Respondents, T. Michael Bietz and Kathi
S. Bietz, from proceeding with the proposed demolition of the old
garage and/or construction of a new garage upon their property at
264 West South Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; or, in the
alternative, to remand the matter to the Borough Council of I
Carlisle with direction to permit petitionera to prosent their I
observations and arguments to the Council.
Respe:~!UllY submitted,
tffiqb ~(c.L,
Date:
Matthew . Eshelman, Esquire
Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr.
2108 Market Street, Aztec Building
Camp Hill, pennsylvania 17011-4706
10# 72655 Tel. (717) 763-1800
REPORT ON
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Location of property:
Applicant:
Application date:
Deadline for Council review:
Prepared by:
Date prepared:
264 West South Street
Michael Bietz
August 21, 1998
October 10, 1998
Kenneth C. Gillie Jr., Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager
September 1,1998
1. The exact location of the area in which the work is to be done,
This structure is located on the South Side of the third block of West South Street.
2, Exterior changes to be made or the exterior character of the structure to be erected,
inCluding the general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building,
sign, or structure.
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing detached wood frame garage located to the rear
of the house, and build a new attached garage w~h German wood lap siding at the southeast (left
rear) comer of the house. The applicant also proposes to remove existing vinyl siding on the rear
and side of the house and replace it with German wood lap siding.
3. Surrounding structures, their general exterior characteristics, and featmes similar to
the request being made.
The property is surrounded by other two and three story brick structures of various designs and
ages. The structures appear to be predominantly Victorian and Italianate in style, w~h a modern
structure also occupying a lot. The surroundi~g structures are contributing resources to the
Historic District (except for the modern structure).
4, Effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the
district and how this change complies with the Historic District Guidelines.
Historic District Guideline #1 states: In general, deteriorated material on Ihe exterior of a building
shall be repaired or replaced with material that duplicates the old as closely as possible.
Historic District Guideline #2 states: All buildings should be recognized as products of their own
time. Alterations or additions that have no historical basis and which seek to create an older or
more modern appearance are discouraged.
Historic District Guideline #4 states: Aluminum or vinyl siding over brick, stone, or masonry
buildings shall not be permitted. Aluminum or vinyl siding shall not be permitted to be placed on
wooden buildings where the use of said materials could be seen from a public street, public
avenue, or public sidewalk. Exceptions should only be considered in rare instances where, in the
judgement of the HARB, the use of said materials would not have an adverse impact on either the
Historic District in general or the specific neighborhood affected. In cases where doubt exists as
to whether or not an exception is warranted, the decision shall error on the side of preserving the
Historic District.
Historic District Guideline #fj states: The removal of distinguishing architectural features shall not
be permitted. In cases where such features have deteriorated beyond saving. they shall be
replaced wilh approved replications of similar material and design.
Section 255,132 ofthe Code of the Borough of Carlisle regulates the demol~ion of structures
within the Historic District. More specifically subparagraph C. lists requirements that must be met
in order to approve demol~ion. The Code section reads:
C. No building defined by Subsection B above shall be demolished unless one (1) of the
following is salisfied, in the terms of the Borough Council. based upon the recommendalions
oflhe Board:
(1) That the applicant proves thaI the demolrtion is needed to clear the land for a p'''lect
of special publ,c benefrt that would greatly outweigh the loss of the historical
resource.
(2) That the applicant proves that no reasonable beneficial use of the building is
possible: or
(3) That the applicant proves that the denial of the demolrtion would greatly result in
unreasonable economic hardship of the owner.
The demolrtion of the existing garage is in compliance with requirement (2) as listed above, and
does not classify as a historical resource. The garage suffers from severe deterioration. and
could be subject to condemnation.
The addrtion of a garage complies wrth the Historic District Guidelines. The siding malerial used
is sympathetic to the district and the roofing material used will be similar in color to the existing
slate on the house.
5. Appropriateness of exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public
street or sidewalk.
The proposed work will be visible from West South Street.
6, General design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure,
and the relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the district.
The existing structure is a three story. brick, Victorian, with steeply pitched slate roof. The
building has heavy dentil work at the roomne and intricate iron gingerbread surrounding the wrap
around front porch. The building is a strong contributing resource to the Historic District.
7. Opinion of the HARB as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve
or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district.
It is the opinion of the HARB that the work follows the Historic District Guidelines and will not
destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district.
8. Specific recommendation of the HARB as to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
A motion was made by Bob Davis and seconded by Jim Flower Jr., pursuant to Section 255-132
B. to recommend that Borough Council issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the
existing garage. This motion is based on the facts that the garage is not highly important to the
historic character of the district, is not a highly important historic resource. and will not affect the
continuity of that portion of the Historic District. This motion passed the HARB unanimously (5-0.
Donna Wiiliams and Bettie Henry absent).
On a motion made by Jim Flower Jr. and second by Lee Scholl, HARB unanimously (5-0, Donna
Wiiliams and Bettie Henry absent) recommends that Council issue a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the demolrtion or this structure.
On a motion made by Jim Fiower Jr. and second by Lee Scholl, HARB unanimously (5-0, Donna
Williams and Beltie Henry absent) recommends that Council issue a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the remainder of the work subject to the use of wooden passenger doors and
a wooden garage door.
VERIFICATION
I, -i-{-eVl<? It<-\~ SC\OL~n 1<;". , state that I am the fl~'Vl11U- in the
above-captioned case and that the facts set forth in the above
,~,-\ iOV'-
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge':
,
,
information, and belief. I realize that false statements herein ard
subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authoritieJ
under 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904.
/7121( /I- I/; Ilp1t,'"1..( /,v
Date:
VERIFICATION
I, ,W"'V\(\5IC<;/(QJs401)..1';~ , state that I am the (-(~(lIdl+f in thEl
above-captioned case and that the facts set forth in the above
Pe~Jo\'\
are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge'l
h ' I
ere~n are
I
information, and belief. I realize that false statements
subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authoritie
under 18 Pa, C.S. S 4904.
iffj ~~J^ / C' /(p:~U 'ul--
r . - f
Date: