The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-5354 D~'~' ~~~ JERRY MOCK : IN THE COURT OF COMi' APPELLANT :CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA v. :2007 - ,~~3Sy ~~ BOROUGH COUNCIL :CIVIL ACTION -LAW OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE APPELLEE Notice of Appeal Jerry Mock, a resident of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, by and through her attorney, Daniel J. Menniti, Esquire, files this Appeal from a denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Borough of Carlisle pursuant to the Judicial Code as amended, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 933. The Certificate of Appropriateness was denied on August 9, 2007 by a split vote (3-2). In support of her Appeal, Appellant therefor avers as follows: 1. Jerry Mock is a resident of Carlisle, Pennsylvania and is the owner of a building containing the operation of Mock-Mays Associates, a psychology and counseling otFice, at 47 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 2. On May 11, 2006, the Borough Council of Carlisle (hereinafter "Council") upon the recommendation of the Historical Architectural Review Board (hereinafter "HARB") approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the restoration of this building in the Historic District of Carlisle. See Exhibit A. 3. The Certificate of Appropriateness set conditions for the approval, one of which was that Appellant was to "replace existing 10 lite door in kind." It is noted that the existing door was rotted beyond repair and was not the original door of the property. Because of the fact that the psychology office heavily deals with confidentiality, both of its clients and of its information, the Petitioner herein believed it was her compelling duty to have as secure a door as possible which would be ready for the moving date and sought to get a new and very secure door to replace the rotted door. They were going to move immediately. It also should be noted that there are four doors on the Pomfret Street side of the property. The door at issue is on the west side of the property and is separated from the other three doors on the Pomfret Street side which are in an alcove. No two of the four prior doors on the Pomfret Street side were identical to each other. See Exhibit B, the pictures of the exterior of the building and the four exterior doors. 4. The owner of the building assiduously searched for a replacement for the rotted door. She discovered that an identical door was not available and that an identical replacement would have to be specially made at great cost and would not be available for the moving date to the new office. The contractor advised her that an "in kind" door could be provided in time and at a reasonable price. Attached herewith are the specifications of the accepted replacement door. See Exhibit C. 5. The year after the door was in place, HARB, alleging that the new door was not identical to the existing door, presented a petition to the Council that it withdraw the Certificate of Appropriateness on June 4, 2007 because the new door was not identical to the door it was replacing. HARB relied on historical Guideline #7 for its decisions. See Exhibit D. The Guideline notes that identical hazdwaze "shall be repaired and retained wherever possible." (Emphasis added.) The Council met on July 12, 2007 and discussed the recommendation concerning the door. After over an hour of discussion, the decision of the Council was tabled. 6. At its meeting of August 9, 2007, the Council adopted in a split vote (3-2) the recommendation of HARB and rescinded the Certificate of Appropriateness granted on May 11, 2006. Attached herewith as Exhibit E is the Report on Certificate of Appropriateness of Proposed Exterior Work which was adopted by the Borough of Cazlisle for its rescission of the Certificate of Appropriateness. 7. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Section 933 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 933. 8. The action of the Borough Council in approving the Report of the Historical Architectural Review Boazd is being appealed through this Honorable Court because it was not supported by substantial evidence, it was based on errors of law, it was azbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and it was contrary to law for the following reasons: a) The decision is based on an error of law in that the determination of HARB is, inter aria, unduly repressive upon the property holder considering the circumstances and economic impact and is an illegal intrusion upon the property owner's rights. See Weinberg v. City of Pittsburgh, Historic Review Commission, 651 A.2d 1182 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994). b) In addressing the question of replacement, Guideline #7 says that the existing windows, doors, and openings, including all components, etc. shall be retained and repaired "whenever possible." It was not possible for Petitioner to get the door replaced in time for her to move her offices to the new building. Consequently, she did the most reasonable thing, that is, obtaining a door "in kind." To hold the Petitioner to a higher standazd for the new door is azbitrary, capricious, and repressive. c) The term "in kind" of Guideline #7 was interpreted by HARB to mean "exactly the same." HARB opined that "the term was used for years to mean just that with no other instances of the definition being questioned." Such a determination was azbitrazy, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The meaning of the term "in kind" has not been defined anywhere in the regulations or rules or guidelines of HARB. Consequently, the only legal way to determine the meaning of it is to go to the dictionaries. See Matthews v. Konieczny, 527 A.2d 508, 513 (Pa.Supr. 1987). The dictionaries, the American Heritage Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary, state that the term "in kind" includes "similaz." See Exhibit F. d) The three doors facing Pomfret Street were never actually identical doors, but rather were similaz doors. The door in question is apart from the other three doors which are in the alcove; therefore, it does not affect the exterior view of the property on Pomfret Street. This was acknowledged by several people at the meeting of the Borough Council. e) The fact that HARB itself interpreted the meaning of the word "in kind" to suit its own feelings about the matter is certainly azbitrary and capricious. f) HARB has not taken into account the circumstances under which this new office was to be used. In order to move the new office, a door was needed immediately and quickly as their lease expired in the former office building.. Consequently, they acted in the most reasonable and prudent manner. The cost for the replacement for the exact, identical door that was there previously (which was not the original door) was exorbitant and could not be ready for the moving date. It was thus determined that the identical door was unnecessary in that the new door was "in kind" as determined by the owner and could be ready for the moving date. g) The Petitioner does not doubt the ability of the Historical Architectural Review Boazd to make determinations, but it should not make a determination in writing and then return a yeaz later and state a meaning which suits its own purposes when the meaning that was attributed to it by the owner was a reasonable and prudent one. h) HARB has the right to make regulations, but it is unconscionable to allow an agency, the maker of rules and regulations, also to render judicial interpretation of the terms if they are not defined in the law or regulations. i) The HARB decision that stated that Jerry Mock should have returned to HARB with an identical door was not feasible. The owner reasonably believed that she had complied with the HARB condition of approval and saw no reason to return. Petifioner believes that it was incumbent upon HARB to inspect the building to make sure everything was in order before they moved into the building. To wait one yeaz and then complain about the door bespeaks of laches and is unconscionable to say the least. j) HARB in the Report to the Council opined publicly that the door in question violated Carlisle Building Code because the owner had changed the exterior by installing a slightly smaller door. The installed door did not affect the exterior opening. The Codes Officer subsequently approved the door and in fact voted in favor of the Petitioner at HARB. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Appellant requests that this Honorable Court reverse the action of the Carlisle Borough Council and direct the Council to reinstate the approval of the Historical Architectural Review Board granted on May 11, 2006. Date: ~ /, ~~ ? _ r Daniel J. Menniti, squire Attorney ID 18729 517 South College Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-258-6014 Attorney for Appellant BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Communit~~~~T MAY 1 6 2006 . 2, 2006 R.S. Mowery Perry Heath 100 Bent Creek Blvd Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Re: Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret Dear Perry: R. S. ~WIItY dt S~t$1NG Pursuant to the Historic District provisions of Article XVII of the Cazlisle Zoning Ordinance, at its meeting on May 1 1, 2006, Borough Council approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following changes at the above referenced property: replace an existing 10 lite door ' replace wood sashes where neei~d clean the building exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind replace half round gutters with materials in kind replace shake shingles with materials in kind replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. In reviewing this request, Borough Council considered the effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district; the appropriateness or exterior azchitectural features which can be seen from a public street or public~sidewalk; the general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and relation of such factors to similaz features of buildings or structures in the district; the requirements of the Historic District Guidelines; and the advice received from the Historical Architectural Review Boazd. Accordingly, you may now proceed with obtaining any required permits to effect this improvement. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -~ . Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager cc: HARB file ~~ ~ 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 ic`i' }4.. '~~ -F R .rte,.., ` ~ ~titi ' ~.k~ '"' ,~ A ' ~ r . } ws~ .. R ~ A~ 'i,, ~ .Y~' ~ ~ r-_ . ~~1 ~ a ~ ~, L ~, ~~~ ~w.._ z ~~f ~ ~ - ,~ ~ ;,%; ~ ~~ ~_~ ' `K e t tl~ ~~S ~ .l 4fi.} . i d w y ~ 3 ;Iyd~74~ t f ~;~' ~%~ ' ~ .: ~ ~~., T7 ~ ,, ~ r°~i~y; T' +-' ~,~ y ~. ~ , n~t' :' ~ , -' _ ~ v_, ._ Advance Sash & Door, Inc. 6106 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 USA Voice: 717-790-0150 Fes; 717-79D-0180 Sold To: R.S. Mowery 1000 Bent Creek Blvd Mechaniisburg, PA 17050 Invoice Invoice Number. Q~~AN~~ 3027 ~ ~ May 22•C D 2006 TM WNrlow.na Door S~YIy 8aro Page: 1 Shi~ to: 7 W. Pomfret St 386-1628 Carlisle, PA Customer ID Customer PO ~ Pa ment Terms ' ~ Mowery, R.S.. ~ Sue Health C.O.D. ~ Sales Rep ID ~ Shipping Method ~ 5hip Date I Due Date ' ! Zeigler, Todd K. Hand Deliver i 5/22/06 ! ' Q~bh' Item Description Ulllt Price f Exbencinn i ~ 1.OOMISCEXTDBS i i I 3.0 Gull SCEXTDRS i i I I 1.OOMISCEXTDRS I I I Vendor # tnv I ab invoice Date Descriptio I Paitl ~P~ ~ C ' Job ~ Name .~ j ~ i'fiu9~.!~ Gi+t..~ i~osted ~ I .._._ _ ,,_. ~ I i i ChecWCredit Memo No: I CT VINYL 1450 WNDOWS, WHITE I,OW-E GLASS FULL SCREEN , 23 1/6 2C 33 1/4 EXT DOOR ONLY 2-B X 6-8 1 3/4 12 '• Y,ITE F7512 DOOR ONLY j :9" X 4"RADIUS EXT BRIGHT BRASS ~iINGES INSWING i~-8 OAK ALUMINUM ADJ SILL ONLY 4 X9/16 i Qice #~7 Di count I ~ I~a~~ ~q~l~3 i 159.00! i I 690.03 690.031 ~jj ~ 9. 9Gj 29. 70~ 41.251 41.251 I~ I I Subtotal 7 60.9 8 Sales Tax 45.66 Total Invoice Amount 606.64 Payment/Credit Applied TOTAL a o 6.6 4 EXHi3BIT C CARLISLE~S HARB GUIDELINES The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register as a way to recognize properties worthy of preservation. Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment." Pennsylvania's Historical and Museum Commission works with local municipalities in attaining National Register listing, as well as certifying and administering historic districts. Within the Federal and state framework, the Carlisle HARB has created a series of guidelines to help you understand what is recommended before you fill out your application form. These guidelines are based on the National Park Service Standards shown to the far right of the facing page, but specifically tailored to Carlisle. The following pages will illustrate these in a way that is easy to understand. Of course, every building is different. If you are uncertain about, or need clarification of any aspect of the process, call the Borough Zoning Officer at (717) 249-4922. It's better to have discussed the project thoroughly before coming to the HARB meeting than to come unprepared. Carlisle Borou~'s 12 Guidelines: The fTollowing is directly from section 255- 12 of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance. Historic District Guideline #1: Deteriorated material on the exterior of a building shall be repaired or replaced with material that repliates the existing (or preferably original) as closely as possible. The folbwing materials shall not be permitted uniess otherwise provided for elsewhere in these guidelines: artificial brick, art~cial cast stone, vinyl, or aluminum. On recommendation of the HARB and action by Borough Council, other material may be deerr>ed appropriate where the use of other material or materials replicates the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably oHginal) material. Historic District Guidellne #2: All buildings should be recognized u produce of their own time. Akerations that have no historical basis are not permitted; provided however, on recommendation of the HARE and anion by Borough Council, alterations may be deemed appropriate where the use of said materials replicates the detail, profile, configuration, and properties of existing (or preferably original) material ~~~~ ~. .~ ! 18 A REFERENCE GUIDE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS Historic District Guideline #3: • Previous s to a building, which have acquired ~unce in their own right, shall be recognized and respected. Historic District GuideNne #4: Aluminum or vinyl siding over brick, stone, or mazonry is prohibited. Aluminum or vinyl siding over wooden buildings shall be prohibited where it can be readily seen from a public street or public way. If aluminum or vinyl siding is permitted az a replacement for existing aluminum or vinyl siding, the new aluminum or vinyl siding shall not be layered over the existing aluminum or vinyl siding. All buildings shall be recognized az products of their own time. Historic District Guideline #5: The method of cleaning brick, stone, or other masonry strucwres shall be by the gentlest means possible. It is recommended that low-pressure water cleaning with a mild detergent be tried first prior to any other type of cleaning method. Abrasive cleaning of brick or other masonry materials shall not be allowed unless it is necessary for the preservation of the historic structure. Chemical cleaning of brick or other mazonry materials shall only be allowed where it can be shown that the chemical will not do permanent damage to the building surface, will not be harmful to the ernironment, and will be used in a safe manner. All chemicals used and the method of cleaning must first be approved by the Borough Engineer.The cleaning of buildings will only be allowed on a case-by-case basis. As an alternative to chemical or abrazi~ cleaning, it is recommended that repainting be considered to protect the historical significance of the building. Historic District GuItNBne #6: The removal of distinguishing architectural features shall not be permitted. In cases where such feauerss have deteriorated beyond saving, they shall be replaced with materials that replicate the detail, profile, configuration and pro cries of the existing (or preferably original material. Historic District Guideline #7: The location, dimension and material of replacement windows, doors and openings shall be the same az the existing (or preferably original windows, doors and openings. Existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings, including all components: sazh, glass, transoms, sidelights, lintels, sills, frames, moldinggss, shutters, doors, steps, and hardware, shall be retained and repaired whene~r possible. Design or material changes that are not consistent with the existing (or preferably original) window or door components, and which appear on a primary facade of a building, shall be prohibited, except as set forth below.A primary facade is the elevation(s) of the building, which directly faces a public street or public thoroughfare; a building may have more than one primary facade. A secondary facade is the elevation(s) of the building that is (are) seen from a distant public street or public thoroughfare and substantially bbcked from view by another building (such az the rear elevation screened by a garage or a side elevation adjacent to another building). Rep cement windows or doors, or their components, which are on a building's secondary facade, shall be consistent in style with the existing (or preferably original) materials, but may be composed of other materials. Consistent with guideline number one, replacement materials on either a primary or a secondary facade shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably original) material. Historic District Guideline #8: The original material and architecwrai feawres of porches, steps, and hand rails including balusters, columns, and brackets; roof decorations of wood, cast iron, terra-cotta tile, and brick should be retained when possible. Such materials shall be repaired or replaced with material that replicates the existing (or preferably original) az closely as possible. Historic District Guideline #9: Roof shape and pitch shall be preserved. The material shall be repaired or replaced with material that replicates the existing (or preferably original) az closely az possible. If the cost of a particular material is prohibitive, such az slate, terra-cotta or metal, an aesthetic fauimile recommended by the HARE and approved by Borough Council may be utilized. Historic District Guideline #10: Unless modified herein, the Board shall utilize the most recent version of the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings in iu recommendations. Historic District Guideline #11: Signs should be integrated into the particular architectural character of the building and neighborhood and follow the Historical District precedent in form and in placement on the building. Signs should be either consistent with the period of the building or clearly contemporary to enhance old/new inter-relationship. Signs should approximate the quality of materials, designs, and workmanship of surrounding architecture and should be linked to particular building colors and/or materials. Historic District Guideline # 12: Signs should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Lettering should be clear, legible and in character with the archiucwre or history of the building. Signs should inteeggrraate hardware appropriately into sign design.The lighting of signs is to be considered az part of the aesthetic illumination of the overall display and/or architecwre. The illumination should be subtle, pedestrian oriented, and not in competition with adjacent illuminated signs. Neon signs are prohibited in the historic district unless they blend in with the architecture or history of the building. NATIONAL PARK eJERVICE~ .DEPARTMENT OF TEIE INTERIOR i0 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION l; A pr erty will. be used as it wars historically ar be given a new use that.. requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a ropperty willbe retained and preservedpThe removal of distinctive materials, or alterationof features, spaces and,spatial relationships-that characterize. a property will be avoided. 3. Each. property will be recognized as a physical record of tts time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical. development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties will not he undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquiredhistoricslgnificance in their o.vn right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctiue features, finishes, and construction techniqques ar examples of craftsmanship that characterize''a pn~perty will be preserved. 6: Deteriorated histaric features will be repairedratherthanreplaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old iti design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated. by documentary and physical evidence. ?. Chemical or-physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historicmaterials will n<it be used. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved'in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be''undertaken. 9. Ncw additions, exterior alterations, or related constructan will inot`destroy historic Materials, features, and spatial relationshi that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the histaric materials, features, size, scale and proportion and massing tc~ protect the integrity of the property and .its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related. new canstructon will be undertaken insuch a mariner that, if removed in the future, the essential form `and integrity of thehistoric propertyand its environment'would be unimpaired' GENERAL TREATMENT GUIDELINES 19 ~r~s~a~c~~,~~c~rT~c~r~~ ~v~'~'r~~oAxv REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF ~.PPROPRIATENESS OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK Location of property: Applicant: Application date: Deadline for Council review: Prepared by: Date prepared: 47 W. Pomfret Jerry Mock 6/4/2007 7/19/2007 Alycia Reiten June 6, 2007 1. Exterior changes to be made or the exterior character of the structure to be erected, including the exact location or work to be done, general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building, sign, or structure. The applicant proposes that the installation of a 12 lite door remain in place of the previously approved 10 lite. 2. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district, the appropriateness of exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public street or sidewalk, and the relation of such factors to the general characteristics and features of surrounding structures and other similar buildings or structures in the district. This is an office building constructed of stuccoed brick with an inset porch and Victorian details set in a neighborhood of predominately commercial uses m mixed style buildings. The a licant received approval of replacement of a l O lite door in kind 34' wood and installed a twelve rte T .~.. _ _ ~ .~ . ~._.._.w_ ~ _ .. __... . smaller door~~Z` l2 )~m its place. The applicant stated that the approval language using "in .. kind" did not mean exact but as closely as possible. The term in kind was described by the board (~ as alms meaning exact and a term used for years to mean just that with no other instances of the definition b~c~uestioned. When you refer to the images below to see the two compared side by side, the 1 O lite door has two columns of five panes of glass covering at least 3/< of the door, the 12 lite has three columns of four panes of glass just over half of the door. The board discussed the proposed 121ite compared to the original approval which was requested as a 10 lite door. The applicant said that they were not able to find a 10 lite door for a reasonable amount of money so put the 121ite in because it was close enough. In addition, the applicant modified the size of the original opening to a smaller size to fit the stock door that was purchased. This is specifically contrary to guideline number 7. The applicant states that the board should look at the reasonableness of requiring the new door to be replaced because of the expense already incurred for the 121ite door. Had the correct door been installed to the language of the approved certificate of appropriateness, the applicant would not be faced with an additional cost. The applicant did not make any effort to contact staff or come back to the board with their predicament. Suggestions would-have been pro~~ide to help locate an appropriate door, or someone to construct one as has been done now. The board is not responsible for additional costs ~ISTO~dCA~ AIdCHIT.~'CTU.~AL Iz~~~>~'BGpARD incurred by an applicant that doesn't follow the approval as granted. If they wanted something different they should have come back. How does this change comply with the Historic District Guidelines? The proposed changes DO NOT comply with HARB Guideline 7 Historic District Guideline #7: The location, dimension and material of replacement windows, doors and openings shall be the ame s the existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings. Existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings, including all components: sash. Mass, transoms. sidelights lintels sills frames moldings shutters doors steps, and hardware, shall be retained and repaired whenever possible. Design or material changes that are not consistent with the existin (or preferably original) window or door components and which appear on a primary facade of a building shall be prohibited except as set forth below. A primary facade is the elevation(s) of the building, which directly faces a public street or public thoroughfare; a building may have more than one primary facade. A secondary facade is the elevation(s) of the building that is (are) seen from a distant public street or public thoroughfaze and substantially blocked from view by another building (such as the reaz elevation screened by a garage or a side elevation adjacent to another building). Replacement windows or doors, or their components, which are on a building's secondary facade, shall be consistent in style with the existing (or preferably original) materials, but may be composed of other materials. Consistent with guideline number one, replacement materials on either a primazy or a secondary facade shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably original) material. Date of Original Approved Work: May 11, 2006- • to replace an existing 10 lite door in kind ^ replace wood sashes where needed in kind ^ clean the building exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind ^ repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind ^ replace half round gutters with materials in kind ^ replace shake shingles with materials in kind. ^ replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. The applicant was approved for a l O light door in kind (34" wood). It was replaced with smaller (32 %i" wood) 12 light door, which violates two of the specifications cif guideline number 7. 4. Opinion of HARB as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district. The door that was installed is not consistent with th~shazacter of the building and looks distinctly out of place with the two-other 10 light,-34"wooden doors: The instaile.d door is smaller in size and contains two additional lights from the old door removed. ~~s~~~e~~ ~e~rrT~e~~~ ~vrEW.soA~v 5. Specific recoannn~endatious of the fiARB as to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 2-2 (Craig Doll & Lee Scholl voted against) to recommend disapproval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. _ ---------- _- ~ M'~ fL[Cdr1/ ('f~62t,'t~R~L r~+-Cn.a~/t/t../~ ~ Ev, ~ (9 M'r , ~` kidney stone I kindling ~_ ?~ :ddish seed of the ly of minerat salts som the skin of a ble only for chil- icated. rams for children. ed Polish sausage. 3.: Kiesel, pebble +ellowissz hydrous after Dietrich G. smolciag material, ~. 2. Tha euphoria :.] s.1. A member of i language of the z measure :8 ons. [ME < t c Med. Lat. swndred.] oven rug or other To put to death. was a disease that tinguiish. 3. a. To mtrdt garlic killed openw~g killed :tivtty. S. To con- tiskey. 6. To cause es are killing me. hwart passage of; to s ;turn off. Co hitt~a Ball) with return imppoossssitble. action. 2. To-COm- stroy is such large he act of killing. tiom. in at tM WU. 1riUen.] rs. A'New World ous to inland wa- Imit.] tiller whale. xy whale, Orcinur made of a stone in sh•~s.~ Aay of au- dontidae, inhabit- irm regions. [Orig. • Quarry; kill. 3. A r~to kill; foul. ous. -kilM- the enthusiasm or :mes, tsp. racquet :tly placed that it . hardening, bura- ~eal,.or clay, esp. a Ceramics. -tr.v. i [ME kilne < OE xsokl hll•o-volt (kIl'a-vblt~ n. One thousand volts. kll•o•watt (YII'a-w8t') n. One thousand watts. kli-owvatt-hour (kIl'a-wbt-ours n. A unit of electric power [ consumption indicating the total energy developed by a power of Rae kilowatt acting foz one hour. kiR (kBt) n. A kaealength skirt ccith deep pleats, usually of a tartan wool, worn esp. as part of the dress for men in the Scottish ds. -trv. kilted, kits-tns, Wtts. To tuck up ` around the y. [< kilt, to t=ick up < ME kilren, of Stand. orig.] kll•tar (kt1'tor} n. Good condition; proper form: The radio -- was out of kilter. [Orig. unknown.] K$iom1~•bun-du (kim-bcT'on'd6b) n. A Bantu language of An- ki•tno•no (ka-m8'aa, -nb) n., pl. -nos. 1. A long, loose, wido-sleeved Japanese robe worn with a broad sash. 2. A loose robe worn mainly by women. [J.: ki, to wear -~- mono, object.] kin (kin) n. One's relatives; family; kindred; kinfolk. -Idiom. next of Wn. The person or persons closest in blood relationship. [ME < OE cyn. ] -kin or - ns st¢f. Little one: devilkin. [ME < MDu.] kl-na (]cb'na) n., pl. Wns or -nag. See table at currency. [tia- tive word in Papua, New Guinea.] ki•nase (ld'aSs~ n. An enzyme that catalyzes the transfer of phosphate from ADP or ATP to as acceptor. [xi:~(t: tic) -~•3 kinds (YSad) adj. -sr, -est. i . Of a friendly, generous, or warmhearted natures 2. Showing sympathy or understand- ing; charitable: a kind word 3. Huttsane; considerate: kind to animalr. 4. Forbearing; tolerant: very kind about the bra ken window. 5. Generous; L='beral: kind words of praise. 6. Agreeable; beneficial: a ~' climate kind to asthmatics. (fvlE < OE (ge)cyndr, natural] Synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, benign, benevo- lent, gracious, compassionate. These adjectives apply to per- sons and their acttoru when they show esidence of concern or sympathy for others. Kind and kindly aze approximately- interchangeable in describing persons and their natures; with reference to acu that reflect consideration or sympa- thy, kindly is more common. Kindhearted especiall}• suggests an maate tendency to behave in such manna. Benign im- plies gentleness by nature; benevolent, charitableness and desire to promote others' welfare; gracious, courtesy and warmth, especially to those at a disadvantage; and compas- sionate, atendency to be easily moved to pity. kinds (Iciad) n. ~. A class of similar or rtlated individuals. 2. A specific tree: What kind of airplane is that? 3. Archaic. Manner. 4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color. -Idioms. s11 kinds of. Informal. Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of rime ro fintsh the job. in Wnn. 7. With product or commodi- ties rather rhea with ~n~ey: day in kind 2. In tht same manner or with something equivalent: returned the sli hr in kind kind ot. Informal. Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hun- gry. [ME < OE fgeicyne~ nature.] usage: The use of the plurals these gad those with kind . as is these kind of films, has rtsptctablt literar4 antecedenu gad has often betas defended as a stasible idiom by British grammarians. But the usage Rill resist the hackles of those who go strictly by the rules gad is probabh• best avoided in writing, if only to avoid offending the seasibifitics of tradi- tionalists. It is easy enough to substitute this (ar that) kind of or these (or those) kinds of and to see that the following' noun and verb ee is number with kind: This kind o{jilm has had a !ot o~success in foreign markets Those are the kinds of books that capture the public imayinarion • V«ten kind o u used to mesa "more or less," it is proptrl~ pre- ceded by the indefinite article a in formal writing: a kind of genius (not kind of a genius} • The use of kind of to mt$Il som~rhat," as in he was kind of sleepy, is generally re- garded as informal. kiln i L:N ? 4 l killdeer ~- or llUlac vi u ~~...,,...-~ . . 1. An injury resulting violation of a legal injury resulting directly rticular cause, without ~nQ causes. . An actual or immi- n of a legally protected ~ contrast to an invasion ectural or hypothetical. jury (i-rep-ar-a-bal). mat cannot be adequate- ~d or compensated by ~ is therefore often con• eaaediable by injunction ~s~at F_n~i7iIRY RULE. Violation of a ~yury. 1. An injury re- cie~ a willful act commit- ~OVVledge that it is likely a~,other or with reckless E of the consequences. 2. ~ yIISCHTEF. rf injury. 1. A completed use consequences cannot i'ied for an indefinite peri- injury to land the conse- ~if which will endure until giic~ner takes possession, as which the reversioner jNsent right of possession. ..Torts. 1. Ina negli- ,any harm caused to a rch as a broken bone, a ,~ bruise; bodily injury. 2. ~sion of a personal right, mental suffering and .~ricnnmP.nt_ -Abbr. P.I. pensated by money. serious bodily injury. Serious physi- cal impairment of the human body; esp., bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious, permanent disfig- urement or protracted loss or im- pairment of the function of any body part or organ. Model Penal Code § 210.0(3). in kind, adv. 1. In goods or services rather than money <payment in cash or in kind> . 2. In a similar way; with an equivalent of what has been of- fered or received <returned the fa- vor in kind>. - in-kind, adj. <in- kind repayment>. in law. Existing in law or by force of law; in the contemplation of the law. Cf. L~ FACT. in-law, n. A relative by marriage. in lieu of. Instead of or in place of; in exchange or return for <the creditor took a note in lieu of cash>. in limine (in iim-a-nee), adv. [Latin "at the outset"] Preliminarily; pre- sented to only the judge, before or during trial. See ~oTTON nv Lr~IE. in-limine, adj. (Of a motion or order) raised preliminarily, esp. because of an issue about the admissibility of evidence believed by the movant to be prejudicial. in loco parentis' (in loh-koh pa-ren- tis), adv. & adj. [Latin "in the place of a parent"] Of, relating to, or act- ing as a temporary guardian or caze- ~ taker of a child, taking on all or some of the responsibilities of a paz- ent. ~Lp c~.S Law D~c~tdx~ee~~Y ~~i2o ~=~~ i~o~, ao6, pace ~ s"5' Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Notice of Appeal are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~ Jerry k JERRY MOCK APPELLANT v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF COMMflN PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 2007 - CIVIL ACTION Certificate of Service AND NOW, this 7 day of September 2007, I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal in the above-captioned matter upon all parties of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edwazd L. Schorpp, Esquire 53 West South Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Date: / J/ ~ ` ~ R 17` ~ ~ F Daniel J. M enmti, Esgwre orney ID 18729 517 South College Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 717-258-6014 Attorney for Appellant ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~+ ~~~ ~ ~~ c~ ~ ...i ~: ~ ~° c_ __ ~ e; v ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Jerry Mock Appellant Vs. No. 2007-5354 CIVII, TERM Borough Council of Borough of Carlisle Appellee WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND). TO: Borough Council of Borough of Carlisle We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between Jerry Mock, Appellant vs. Borough Council of Borough of Carlisle, Appellee pending before you, do command you that the record of the action aforesaid with all things concerning said action; shall be certified and sent to our judges of our court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within (20) days of the date hereof, together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth. WITNESS, The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley P.J. our said Court, at Carlisle, PA., the 7th day of September 2007. iY/ ~U-t.Ge' .CJ .~PXlc' Curtis R. Long, Proth otary w:+ir ,~ 4 ~y N ~ V ~ N v ° ~, - ~ ~ ~ o '~ ~ °~ ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~° ~° ~ ~~ ~~° n 2 ~ C') ~ ry ~,~ 3+ J~ •~^ a ~ '' t = `~ t~ ~y . .:_ d ~( ~ O ~ ~~ . ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~.~ r ~ ~~ ~ ~ J ~ €3~~ ` '~ ~~~~~ .~~ ~ •_ ~ r ~. ~~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ fJ b ~. ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ... J n ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ c x _~ 0 N{{ fmAr 'l ~: ~~ '~ ~~~ ~ _-~ ~~ ..~, JERRY MOCK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Appellant :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO: 2007-5354 CIVIL BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee RESPONSE TO APPEAL And Now, comes the Borough Council of the Borough of Carlisle (Borough), by and through the Borough Solicitor, Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire, and responds to the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant as follows: 1-2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averments of this paragraph and the remaining paragraphs violate the procedural rules applicable to pleadings, however the Borough will respond rather than file preliminary objections. Exhibit A attached to appellant's Notice of Appeal speaks for itself and, to the extent appellant's averments contradict the document, the same are denied. Additionally, to the extent appellant's averments attempt to interpret Exhibit A, the same are conclusions of law requiring no answer herein. After reasonable investigation, the Borough is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of appellant's averments concerning the condition of the replaced door or any exigent reason for replacing one or more doors. It is denied that the doors were not similar. To the contrary, all four doors were of French Provincial .+ ' style architecture. The replacement door replicates Federal style architecture. To the extent that the photos attached as Exhibit B are authentic, of which proof is demanded, the photos speak f©r themselves. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Borough is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and the same are therefore denied. By way of further response, a replacement door of French Provincial style architecture was reasonably obtainable at reasonable cost. Information concerning the availability and cost of an identical door was provided to both appellant and the Borough Council prior to its vote. Further, appellant's averments as to self-created time constraints are irrelevant to this proceeding. The replacement door described in this paragraph and Exhibit C, and as installed on the property, is not a replacement in kind, but is of Federal style architecture. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. The HARB did not initiate the matter sub judice. The Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager initiated this matter by notifying appellant's contractor that the replacement door violated the conditions under which the 2006 Certificate of Appropriateness was issued. The contractor agreed on behalf of appellant to return the matter to the HARB and Borough Council for a determination of the propriety of issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement door. No formal application was filed on behalf of appellant, however, the parties proceeded accordingly. Whether the replacement door was identical or in kind was an issue for determination and not pre-determined as alleged by appellant. In its consideration of this matter, the HARB relied upon its inherent expertise, the enabling authority of state law, 53 P.S. § 8001, etseq~., the provisions of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle which govern the Historic District (Chapter 255, Article XXI) and the Carlisle Historic District Guidelines as approved by motion of the Borough Council. Exhibit D speaks for itself and, to the extent appellant asserts a particular interpretation, the same constitutes a conclusion of law requiring no response. The averments concerning the proceedings of the Borough Council on July 12, 2007 aze admitted and aze more fully described in the record. 6. Denied. At its meeting on August 9, 2007, the Borough Council voted to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement door. The 2006 Certificate of Appropriateness has never been rescinded and appellant remains at liberty to install a door which meets the conditions of that Certificate. The 2007 vote of the HARB was a tie vote resulting in no recommendation, but preserved the status quo; thus, under the law, it was tantamount to a negative recommendation. Exhibit E speaks for itself and, to the extent appellant expressly or impliedly asserts a particulaz interpretation, the same is a conclusion of law requiring no response. 7. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law requiring no response. By way of further answer, the matter sub judice constitutes a local agency appeal under the statutory authority of 2 Pa. C.S. § 751, et seq; see 53 P.S. § 8004(d). Denied. The averments of this pazagraph and each of its sub-parts aze conclusions of law requiring no response. By way of further answer the Borough avers as follows: a) Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law requiring no response. b) Denied. To the extent applicable, Guideline #7 speaks for itself and any interpretation is a conclusion of law requiring no response. A replacement door of French Provincial style azchitecture was available within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. It is denied that appellant was being held to a higher standazd than other property owners in the Historic District. After reasonable investigation, the Borough is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning appellants efforts to obtain a door replacement and the same aze therefore denied. The remaining averments aze conclusions of law requiring no answer. c) Denied. These averments aze conclusions of law requiring no response. By way of further response, appellant has not attached a copy of the guidelines as officially adopted by motion of the Borough Council, but has attached' a copy of reproduced guidelines found in a publication made available to tltie general public (Exhibit D attached to the Notice of Appeal), the veracity of which is not admitted for purposes of these proceedings. The motion of tlae Borough Council adopting the Guidelines constitutes the official version. The report of the HARB (Exhibit E attached to the Notice of Appeal) spears for itself. The dictionary excerpts, to the extent relevant or applicable, speak for themselves (Exhibit F attached to the Notice of Appeal). The report of the HARB speaks for itself, and to the extent the appellant asserts a particular interpretation,the same constitutes a conclusion of law requiring no response herein. The replacement door was not an in kind replacement, as it was of Federal style azchitecture and replaced a door of French Provincial style architecture in a building of French Provincial style azchitecture. d) Denied. The three doors facing Pomfret Street (and the door perpendicular to Pomfret Street) were all of French Provincial style architecture. The suitability of the replacement door does affect the visibility of the building from Pomfret Street as it is of a different architectural style than the other doors and is not suitable for the overall French Provincial architectural style of the building itself. e) Denied. The averments of this sub-part are conclusions of law requiring no answer herein. fj Denied. The use of the building is irrelevant to the consideration of exterior changes to a building in the Carlisle Historic District. A suitable replacement door of French Provincial style architecture was available within a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. After reasonable investigation, the Borough is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in this sub-part and the same are therefore denied. g) Denied. The consideration of this matter was governed by state statute, 53 P.S. § 8001, et seq., Chapter 255, Article XXI of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle and Guidelines adopted by motion of the Borough Council. Appellants beliefs or wishes as to how the matter should have begin considered are irrelevant. To the extent the averments of this sub-paa~t constitute conclusions of law, the same are denied. h) Denied. The Ordinance and motion imposing regulations upon construction and alterations within the Carlisle Historic District were adopted by Borough Council, not the HARB. The averments ofsub-part g of this paragraph of the Borough's response are incorporated herein by reference. I) Denied. To the extent that appellant's averments in this sub-part constitute conclusions of law, the same are therefore denied. After reasonable investigation, the Borough is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments in this sub-part ar~d the same are therefore denied. j) Denied. The HARB did not question building code matters, nor does it have jurisdiction over the same. The Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager questioned compliance with the building code. The Borough believes that the doorway does not meet the requirements of the statewide building code, duly adoptdd and in effect in the Borough, but has been unable to gain access to the premises to verify non-compliance. The vote of an employee of the Cods Department who sits on the HARB was predicated by considerations governing the Carlisle Historic District and not the requirements of the statewide building code, a subject over which the HARB had no jurisdiction. New Matter 9. Appellant never applied for a building permit for the construction work at the property, work which appellant asserts cost in excess of $70,000. As no permit was obtained, the work was performed unlawfully without benefit of Borough inspection for both Historic District compliance and statewide building code compliance. To the extent that any delay in discovery mf the impropriety of the replacement door occurred, the same was caused by appellant in not following the lawful requirements of the Borough relating to building construction and alteration. 10. Appellant has never applied for an occupancy permit to occupy the premises. As no occupancy permit has been obtained, appellant's occupancy is unlawful. In addition, to the extent that any delay in discovery of the impropriety of the replacement door occurred, the same was caused by appellant in not following the lawful requirements of the Borough relating to building occupancy. 11. To the extent that appellant claims economic hardship in this matter, the Borough asserts that it has provided her with sources of grant (not loan) funding which would pay oche hundred percent of the cost of installation of a proper door. WHEREFORE, the Borough demands that the within appeal be dismissed with prejudice. Edwazd L. Schorpp, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 17495 35 South Thrush Drive Cazlisle, PA 17015-7652 Telephone: (717) 486-8386 Email: elschorpp@comcast.net Attorney for Appellee VERIFICATION I verify that the statements contained herein aze true and correct. 1 understand that false statements herein aze made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. .use.. + _ Alycia Reiter, lanning/Zoning/CodesMarager Dated: ~ _~ ~ ~ ~~ . r ~ JERRY MOCK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Appellant :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO: 2007-5354 CIVIL BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, Appellee CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response of the Borough Council of the Borough of Cazlisle, was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Daniel J. Menniti, Esquire 517 S. College Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: ~=~ Edwazd L. Schorpp, Esq ' e Dated: ~ "ay"~~ -tip cn ~~] r~} ;; ~ ~ ~ rl ' :.' ~ •~ 1 u ~ ~' '. ~ ~y. ~ .1.. "il t '~ _~ ~ ^' ~ 6 y "`~ ~ 1 ~ ^'~ ova. .?oo `7' -- sssY INDEX 1. Applicant a-mail. 2. Application provided by applicant dated Apri124, 2006. 3. Letter to applicant's representative -meeting dated Apri126, 200b. 4. HARB Agenda -May 1, 2006. 5. HARB Minutes -May 1, 2006. 6. HARB report on Certificate of Appropriateness of proposed work (May 3, 2006). 7. Council approval letter dated May 12, 2006 w/Certificate of Appropriateness dated May i 1, 2006. 8. Series of a-mail correspondence w/applicant's representative (Perry Heath) and Zoning Officer, Alycia Reiten dated April 5, 2007 through July 25, 2007. 9. Letter to applicant's representative -meeting dated April 26, 2007. l0. HARB Agenda - Apri130, 2007. 11. HARB Minutes - Apri130, 2007 12. HARB Report dated May 1, 2007. 13. Letter to applicant -meeting dated May 30, 2007. 14. HARB Agenda dated June 4, 2007. 15. HARB Minutes dated June 4, 2007. 16. HARB report dated June 6, 2007. 17. Memo -Mock Mays Assoc. -July 12, 2007. 18. Council minutes dated July 12, 2007. 19. Zoning Officer style description dated July 20,.2007. 20. Council minutes dated August 9, 2007. 21. August 10, 20071etter to applicant. 22. August 20, 20071etter from applicant. 23. August 22, 2007 response from Michael Keiser. 24. Certified Carlisle Borough Council meeting minutes of January 9, 2003. 25. Certified copy of Chapter 255, Article ~ of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, Section 255-145 through and including Section 255-164. Page 1 of l Rein, Alycia P. From: uwspheath~aol.com Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:51 PM To: Reiten, Alycia P. Subject: 47 West Pomfret Street Alysia: Attached are the current pictures of the project at 47 West Pomfret Street. The owner cannot be present at the HARE meeting on May 1. R. S. Mowery & Sons is handling the remodeling work so I will be there along with my wife (business associate of the owner). I will drop off the signed application on Monday. There are five pictures attached. Carriage House: The outbuilding located adjacent to the property off the street but visible from West Pomfret Street. We plan to replace the shake shingles on the front roof. Front: This shows three proposed renovations. (1) The left front door wilt be replaced with an identical wood door. (2) The air conditioning units will be removed and new window sashes custom made of wood to replace the opening. (3) The facade and entire exterior will be repaired and repainted in colors very similar to the existing colors, possible shade differences but nothing dramatic. Unseen in this picture is the expected repair of the chiimneys. They will be rebuilt (missing bricks) and repointed. Additionally, the roof wail be repainted and new gutters installed that match the exisiting. Front Door: Close up of the door to be replaced. ~ide View: As in the front, air conditioners will be removed and windows replaced with new wood sashes and frames. Sign: This is the sign currently hanging at the owner's present business location two doors away at 57 West Pomfret Street. It is proposed that the same sign will be moved to 47 West Pomfret Street. Please let me know if there's anything special I ought to be aware of. THANK YOU!! Perry Heath • 4/24/2006 ,~.,,TM., t ., APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BOROUGH OF CARLISE 53 W. SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Property Address 47 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 , q A 2. APPLICANT INFORMATION Owner or Lessee Mailing Address Zip Phone # Jerry Mock 57 West Pomfret Street 17013 717.258.0214 Contractor Mailing Address Zip Phone # R. S. Nlowzr c~ ~ ~~ s ~'v- ~ ~~-{~ 1000 3r~.{~r~.k !~ von IUecklov/'q IzfX~ sir:. fo Architect or Engineer Mailing Address Zip Phone # 3. TYPE OF WORK (Check all that apply) ^ Awning ^ Lighting ^ Sandblasting ^ Chemical Cleaning ®MasonryBrick ^ Shutters ® Chimney ^ New Structure ^ Siding ^ Cornice ®Painting ^ Store Facade ® Doors ^ Porch/Stoop ^ Stucco ® Gutters/Spouting ®Roof ®Windows ^ Other: 4. PROJECT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (Check all that apply) ® Photographs of property and/or neighboring properties. ^ Drawings and/or architectural renderings. ^ Materials and/or color samples. ^ Sign rendering with sample lettering. ^ Other: 5. OTHER REQUIRED PERMIT APPLICATIONS FILED ^ Building Permit Application ^ Sign Permit Application NOTE: Either a building permit application or a sign permit application must be submitted for this application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to be considered complete. Revised 4/11/95 6. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Use additional sheets, if needed) This project consists almost exclusively of repair and maintenance to be completed as a result of negligence. Specifically, (1) the front door will be replaced with a wooden core door as close to original. as can be ordered; (2) window air conditioners will be removed and new sashes built of wood will be installed; (3) the exterior will be cleaned, damage repaired, and re-painted in existing colors; (4} roof will be repainted in existing colors; (5) chimneys will be repaired and repointed; (6) gutters will be replaced; (7) concrete ornaments will be replaced on top of the brick piers at the driveway entrance; (8} shingles will be replaced on the "carriage house". Additionally, the sign located currently at 57 West Pomfret Street will be attached. .. 4 r~~ 7. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the information contained herein is completed and accurate and that the work is authorized by the owner of records of the named properly. Furthermore, I agree to attend the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical and Architectural Review Board to present this application. I understand that failure to appear at the meeting will result in the application being tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Failure to attend two consecutive meetings after acceptance of an application will result in the application being considered withdrawn from consideration. Signa of Applicant Date D Print Name of licant / ~ ~ ~ _ _P,1~on®~ ~` GJ THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION IS COMPLETELY SUBMITTED. **For Official Use Only** Date of acceptance: Acce ted B Revised 4ll 1195 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Community Service" April 26, 2006 R.S. Mowery Perry Heath 100 Bent Creek Blvd Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dear Perry: Please be advised that your application for the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) will be reviewed at the meeting to be held Monday, May 1, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. The HARB will meet at Carlisle Borough Hall, 53 West South Street, Carlisle. Your request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 47 W. Pomfret wiU be considered at this time. The Borough staff recommends you or a representative ahead this meeting in order to answer any questions the BARB may have. An agenda. will be available at the meeting. If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoaing/Codes Manager xotifx:aeon ~« 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE HISTORICAL ARC~'I`ECTU REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Monday, May 1, 2006 5.30 P.M. Consent Agenda 1. Approve minutes from the Apri13, 2006 meeting. 2. A request by Joe Hadley for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 109 S. Bedford St. to repairlreplace fire damaged - front and reaN~r~of - :standing-seam metal in kind; ; .2 pair wood sash front -, rebuilt with wood; replace 4 storms on front; vinyl attic double hung window replaced in kind; reaz - 2nd floor vinyl bdrm dbl hung replace in kind; wood casement 2nd floor powder room replaced in kind; aluminum k style gutters & downtownspouts in kind; wood soffit & fascia replaced in kind. 3. A request by Shaun Foote for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 9 Irvine Row to hang two .16.75" x 18.375" wall signs (east and west elevations ~at entranceways) with dazk green background, gold lettering and logo to read "Carlisle Capital Company." 4. A request by Pat & Dino Craig for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 30 W. Pomfret St. to install fire escape system from 3rd story window in rear of building. System includes window replacement (window not visible from public way), rail & ladder system of steel material . 5. A request by Erick Jensen for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 141 W. Louther St. to hand-clean & repoint brick with type n mortar in kind as needed and replace exterior plastic light fixture with new metal of ornamental detailing to match existing rails. 6. A request by Dave & Tammy Long for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 68 E. Louther St. to reroof house - remove existing layers on main house, replace with ashpalt shingles in kind to existing top layer; recoat rear roof; and replace existing vinyy on dormer in kind (damaged). 7 A request by Perry Heath for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret St. to replace existing 10 lite door in kind, replace wood sashes in kind where needed, remove a/c units, clean exterior, repair damaged comer (ashphalt shingles hit by car) to be replaced in kind, repoint chimneys in kind where needed, replace half round ~.~,~ gutters in kind, replace shake shingles in kind, replace concrete ornaments from top of brick piers (replica made for replacement of existuig one in land). 8. A request by Mary Roell for a Certificate of Appropriateness 44 N. Bedford St. to replace existing emergency exit door with new of proper dimension for traditional use per the 5ecction 8311.4.2 of the International Residential Code 20031ess than 6'8" of similaz style vinyl clad steel double glass doors to replicate existing; replace existing 4 x 6 fire metal fire escape with 9' x 15' sized in kind; replace half round gutters & downspouts in kind. 9. A request by Harriet McDowell for a Certificate of Appropriateness 128 S. East St. to replace roof with single type composite material, siding (except stone area) with Hardiboard, existing pvc gutters with k style, steel front door with six light solid wood door, remove chimney, & add shutters to front. ~' ReQnlar Agenda . 1. A request by John Lopp for a Certificate of Appropriateness 1 Courthouse Square to apply breathable. water repellent to all above grade stone. 2. A request by Sack Brunner for a Certificaate of Appropriateness 141-143 N. Hanover St. to install insulation ~~^~, boards & vinyl siding in rear (yellow & beige porgon} of building and awnings on front. 3. A request by Stanley Dye for a Certificate of Appropriateness 204 N. Hanover St. to replace window panes, rotted wood sash & dormers, soffit, repoint mortar as needed. 4. The HARB may discuss selections for the 2005 Historic Preservation Awards. Opportunity for the public to speak on items of concern not listed.. on .the. agenda. r"1 ~~. 2. A request by Jack Brunner for a Certificate of Appropriateness 141-143 N. Hanover St. to install insulation boards & vinyl siding in rear (yellow & beige portion) of building and awnings oa front. 3. A request by Stanley Dye for a Certificate of Appropriateness 204 N. Hanover St. to replace window panes, rotted wood sash & dormers, soffit, repoint mortar as needed. 4. The HARB may. discuss selections for the 2005 Historic Preservation Awards. Opporhmity for the public to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. Opportunity for board members to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. Respectfully submitted, -- _ - Alycia Reiten - Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager Y, BOROUGH OF CARLISLE HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Monday, May 1, 2006 Members present: Craig Doll, Mary Fitts, Jim Flower, a cca Hammell, Tom Ludwig, and Walter Nichols. Staff present: Alycia Reiten, Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. 1. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the minutes from the Apri13, 2006 meeting. 2. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Jce Hadley for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 109 S. Bedford St. to repair/replace fine damaged - front and rear roof -standing seam metal in kind; 2 pair wood sash front -rebuilt with wood; replace 4 storms on front; vinyl attic double hung window replaced in kind; rear - 2nd floor vinyl bdrm dbl hung replace in kind; wood casement 2nd floor powder room replaced in kind; aluminum k style gutters & downtownspouts in kind; wood soffit & fascia replaced in kind. 3. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Shaun Foote for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 9 Irvine Row to hang two 16.75" x 18.375" wall signs (east and west elevations at entranceways) with dark green background, gold lettering and logo to read "Carlisle Capital Company." 4. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-O ,to recommend approval of a request by Pat & Dino Craig for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 30 W. Pomfret St. to install fire escape system from 3rd story window in rear of building. System includes window replacement (window not visible from public way), rail & ladder system of steel material. 5. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Erick Jensen for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 141 W. Loather St. to hand-clean & repoint brick with type n mortar in kind as needed and replace exterior plastic light fixture with new metal of ornamental detailing to match existing rails. 6. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Dave & Tammy Long for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 68 E. Loather St. to reroof house - remove existing layers on main house, replace with ashpalt shingles in kind to existing top layer; recoat rear roof; and replace existing vinyy on dormer in kind (damaged). ! 7. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a ~ ~ request by Perry Heath for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret St. to replace existing l O lite door in kind, replace wood sashes in kind where needed, remove a/c units, clean exterior, repair damaged corner (ashphalt shingles hit by car) to be replaced in kind, repoint chimneys in kind where needed, replace half round gutters in kind, replace shake shingles in kind, replace concrete ornaments from top of brick piers (replica made for replacement of existing one in kind). The applicant's request was submitted stating replacement of the door "in kind". Rebecca stated that the door actually has ten panes and the replacement should be the same. Tom agreed that the replacement needs to mimic the deteriorated door. Perry said that was fine. 8. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Mary Rcell for a Certificate of Appropriateness 44 N. Bedford St. to replace existing emergency exit door with new of proper dimension for traditional use per the Secction R311.4.2 of the International Residential Code 20031ess than 6'8" of similar style vinyl clad steel double glass doors to replicate existing; replace existing 4 x 6 fire metal fire escape with 9' x 15' sized in kind; replace half round gutters & downspouts in kind. 9. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a request by Harriet McDowell for a Certificate of Appropriateness 128 S. East St. to replace roof with single type composite material, siding (except stone area) with Hardiboard, existing pvc gutters with k style, steel front door with six light solid wood door, remove chimney, & add shutters to front. 1. On a motion by Tom Ludwig, second by Rebecca Hammell, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval A request by John Lopp for a Certificate of Appropriateness 1 Courthouse Square to apply breathable water repellent to all above grade stone with the condition that the applicant provides data sheets for the breathable penetrating sealer for approval by the Borough Engineer. 2. tabled for applicant to research alternate materials: A request by Jack Brunner for a Certificate of Appropriateness 141-143 N. Hanover St. to install insulation boards & vinyl siding in rear (yellow & beige portion) of building and awnings on front. 3. tabled, applicant not in attendance: A request by Stanley Dye for a Certificate of Appropriateness 208 N. Hanover St. to replace window panes, rotted wood sash & dormers, soffit, repoint mortar as needed. 4. The HARB confirmed selections for the 2005 Historic Preservation Awards. a. 148 South Hanover Street -Carlisle House B & B sign b. 56 West Pomfret Street -front door (Edlin's) c. 2A North Hanover Street -church roofing project d. 3 5 West Louther Street -window replacement -Union Fire Company building e. 21 North Pitt Street -entrance & banners -museum f. 36 West High Street -Storefront restoration (Bonnie Martin) g. 9 East Pomfret Street -Business sign (Buckley) Opportunity for board members to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. Mr. Nichols expressed his concern for the deterioration of the exterior of the Library and that the Librarian was not able to offer any positive comments as to the intentions of the library to tend to the matter. The Zoning Officer stated that she spoke with a member from the Library board and that the area is intended to be painted this spring. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager HISTDRICAL ARCHITECT[IRAL REVIEW BOARD REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK Location of property: Applicant: Application date: Deadline fvr Council review: Prepared by: Date prepared: 47 W. Pomfret Perry Heath 4/24/2006 6/8/2006 Alycia Reiten May 3, 2006 1. Ezterior changes to be made or the exterior character of the structure to be erected, indu~btg the enact location or work to be done, .general design, arrangement, tezture, material, and color of the building, sign, or structure. Applicant proposes to replace existing l O life door in kind, replace wood sashes in kind where needed, remove a/c units, clean exterior, repair damaged corner (ashphalt shingles hit by car) to be replaced in kind, repoint chimneys in kind where needed, replace half round gutters in kind, replace shake shingles in kind, replace concrete ornaments from top of brick piers (replica made for replacement of existing one in kind). 2. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural natare of the d~bstrict, the appropriateness of exterior architectural featarea which can be seen from a public street or sidewalk, and the relation of each factors to the general characteristics and features of surrounding atractures and other similar buildings or structures in the district. This office building is constructed of stuccoed brick with an added inset porch and Victorian details. The proposed changes are consistent with the existing materials and configurations of elements and will have no adverse impact on the surrounding commercial neighborhood. 3. How does this change comply with the Historic District Guidelines? The proposed changes do not comply with HARB Guidelines 7. Historic Distrkt Gaideiiae #7: The location, dimension and material of replacement windows, doors and openings shall be the same as the existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings. Existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings, including all components: aach Blass transoms sidelights lintels sills frames molding, shutters dQors_~ps. and hardware, shall be retained and repaired whenever possible. g$ or material changes that ate not ^.,Q;~*w*+* with the existin¢ (or preferably orig't~ ~ window or door comnc?nents. and which ac-oear on a nrimazv facade of a old' ¢ shall be prohibited. except as set forth below A primary facade is the elevation(s) of the building, which directly faces a public street or public thoroughfare; a building may have more than one primary facade. A secondary facade is the elevation(s) of the building that is (are) seen from a distant public street or public thoroughfare and substantially blocked from view by another building (such as the rear elevation screened by a garage or a side elevation adjacent to another building). Replacement windows or doors, or their components, which are on a building's secondary facade, shall be consistent in style with the existing (or preferably original) materials, but may be composed of other materials. Consistent with guideline number one, replacement materials on either a primary or a secondary facade shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably original) material. HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 4. Opinion of HARB as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district. The proposed changes aze a strong testament to the property owners intention to retain and maintain the existing features of this unique structure. The proposed changes will ensure the longevity of the building and its' place in our historic district. 5. 3peciflc recommendations of the HARB as to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 6-0 to recommend approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed Tb Excellence In Community Service" 2, 200b R.S. Mowery Perry Heath 100 Bent Creek Blvd Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Re: Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret Dear Perry: Pursuant to the Historic District provisions of Article XVII of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, at its meeting on May 11, 2006, Borough Council approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following changes at the above referenced property: replace an existing 10 lite door in kind replace wood sashes where needed in kind clean the building. exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind replace half round gutters with materials in kind replace shake shingles with materials in kind replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. In reviewing this request, Borough Council considered the effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district; the appropriateness or exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public street or public sidewalk; the general design, arrangement, texture, material, and color of the building or structure and relation of such factors to similar features of buildings or structures in the district; the requirements of the Historic District Guidelines; and the advice received from the Historical Architectural Review Board. Accordingly, you may now proceed with obtaining any required permits to effect this improvement. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager cc: HARB file 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717} 249-4422 1 H U w H Q a4 O F~ x w 4 O c~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,G ~ ~ a~ 4~ .~ ~ ~~' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ • ~. 0 ~ ° -~ ~ ~ .~ ~. ~ ~ G U ~ ~ .~ a ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, vim: ,~ c ~ ~' ~ ~ ~.. n_~ ,~ '~ ,~ ~ " o .~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ..., a~ ~., ,,,C Q 'tJ ~ , ca .~ ,~ ~ ~ Cd U eu .~ ~ O ,~ ,~ ,~ ~ C/~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' 0 s-a ~ °' ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~-' -- i c~ ...~ Q Q CJ~ C/~ Page 1 of 3 Reitisn, Alycia P. From: Reiter, Alycia P. 8mt: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:30 PM To: 'Perry Heath' Subject: RE: 47 w Pomfret Once 1 have one, you will be! From: Perry Heath [mailto:pheath@rsrrwwery.wm] gent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:29 PM To: Rei6en, Alycki P. Subject: i2E: 47 w Pomfret Alycia, Just confirming that I'm on the HARB agenda for Monday, right? Perry ~. Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. 8. MOWERY 8 SONS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Rdei6en, Alyda P. [mailbo:AReiten~carlislepa.org] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:56 PM To: Perry Heath Subject: ItE: 47 w Pomfret I found a picture of the original door (attached). It is a lot different than the one installed. There are always options, just which you (or those you represent) want to pursue will be the decider. The regular procedure for the Historic District would provide for me to issue a letter of violation and state that the installation of the current door does not meet the approved certificate of appropriateness and as such must be replaced with what it was supposed to be or face citations until it's fixed. The option to swap out the doors may not be an easy solution on the part of the person paying for the door(s). The other option would be to come back to HARB and acknowledge the difference and ask for permission to leave it as is (which has no fee of course). I would prefer the door be replaced as it was supposed to be, however t am not a purist and understand the burden this can cause. It really seems like an honest mistake so I would say come back to the board and see what they have to say (we do have purists so keep it in mind). You never know until you try. No new application, just come to the next meeting (Apri130-5:30pm) and plead forgiveness. I've heard it's easier to receive forgiveness than get permission Up to you, just let me know how you wish to proceed. 9/18/2007 Page 2 of 3 From: Perry Heath [mailto:pheath@rsmowery.oom] Sant: Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:01 PM To: Kellen, Atyda P. RE: 47 w Pomfret I thought we did replace it in kind. What should I do? The other door was rotted at the bottom and was discarded, so that's not an option. Could it be that I just can't count right? Did I submit any pits that you might have that might indicate a bad count"! Other than that, what are my options? Is coming back to get another approval for what's there now an option? I certainly think it's an appropriate door -it's not fiberglass or solid or aluminum or anything goofy. It's solid wood with lites that differ from the application. Your advice? Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. 8. MOWERY 8 80N8, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Bivd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Reiben, Alycia P. [maitto:AReiben~carlislepa.org] Sent: Thursday, Apra) 05, 20071:54 PM To: Perry Heath Subject: RE: 47 w Pomfret Do you have anything you can suggest as to where the mix-up occurred? How going to be remedied? From: Pent' Heath [mailbo:pheatt-~rsmowery.com] Sent: Thursday, April O5, 2007 1:17 PM To: Reiben, Alyea P. Subject: RE: 47 w pomfr+et Me. ~, Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOYYERY ~ 80N8, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Reiter, Alycia P. [mail6o:AReiten~cariislepa.org] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:47 AM To: Perry Heath Subject: FW: 47 w Pomfret Hi Perry, It was good to speak to you the other day. At the HARB meeting on Monday night, we discussed nominees for the HARB 9/ 18/2007 Page 3 of 3 awards for 2006. At that time it was brought to my attention that the door replacement at 47 w. Pomfret did not actually follow the HARE approval. The approval motion is below: A request by Perry Heath on behalf of Mock Mays Associates for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret St. to: replace an existing l O life door in kind replace wood sashes where needed in kind clean the building exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind replace half round gutters with materials in kind replace shake shingles with materials in kind replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. It appears that a 12 life door was installed rather than the 10, unless the door hasn't actually been changed out, then the HARB application may have been incon'ect. I've attached a picture from today. Please advise as to whom I should direct this problem with, if not you. Thank you, Alycia 9/18/2()07 :.. ;'..: '. t a :~ .~. ~ ~3 f ~~. i ,, ::r .>~ .;:( Y., y f s 9 r .' - ~~ :,,,;;.Qy, .. 's.. Y 'r i Page 1 of 1 RailDen, Alycia P. From: Reiten, Alycia P. Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:24 AM To: 'Perry Heath' 8ut~ect: Contacts Attachments: CE Facade Application (2).doc * Matt Bookamer -custom build - 258-5258, mwbookamerCctZpa.net * HolloweN Restoration -Kevin Hollowell 717-385-0307 COYLE LUMBER 8 MILLWORK, inc. 231 East Old York Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: 717-243-4124 Fax: 717-243-9821 Email: in lelumber.com Architectural Warehouse 224 North George Stnaet York, PA 17401 717-854-7152 Brandt Sylvan Antique Flooring 651 East Main Street Lititz, PA 17543 717-626-4520 hip://www.svlvanbrandt.com Matt or Kevin can custom build, so can Coyle of course. The Architectural Warehouse and Brandt Sylvan are huge warehouses with salvage parts. I've attached the application for the commercial fagade grant, which is up to $12000 now. Please let me know if I can do anything else. Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manage-• 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA t7or3 ~Q) 7rT24o'6933 (~ 717'z49'ST87 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 1 Rsib~n, Alycia P. From: Perry Heath [pheatht~rsmowery.comJ Bent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:14 AM To: Reiten, Alycia P. SubJect: RE: Name Question please Her name is Sue. Owner is Jerry Mock. Yes, Jerry is a female. Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOMYERY >4 SONS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.508.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Reelben, Alycia P. [ntiailbo:AReiben~carlislepa.org] Sew: Tuesday, May 01, 200710:09 AM To: Perry Heath 5ub~ect: Name Question please What is your wife's name? As she and Ms. Mock were presenting, I would like to reference names correctly. Tho I heard you affectionately refer to her as your bride, I don't think that the Minutes should reflect "Perry Heath's Bride". Please let me know at your convenience. Thank you, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA r7or3 (p) 7r~-z4o-6933 (~ 7x7'249"5587 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 RNbn, Ahlcia P. From: Perry Heath [pheath~rsmowery.com] 8~nt: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:07 PM To: Reiten, Alycia P. 8ubjtact: RE: Contacts Same as this month's agenda, I guess. Pent' P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOWERY d~ 80NS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Iteiten, Alycia P. [mailbo:ARei6enf~cariislepa.org] Sant: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:02 PM To: Perry Heath Subiact: RE: Contacts The next meeting is June 4. What do I say for the report/agenda? Frain: Perry Heath [mailbo:pheath~rsmowery.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:59 PM To: IZeiten, Alycia P. Subf ec~: RE: Contacts Alycia, When is the next HARB meeting? Please put us back on the agenda. Thanks. P. Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOMYERY ~ 80NS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Rsi6en, Alycia P. [mailbo:AReit~en~caritslepa.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:24 AM To: Pent' Heath 9/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 Subjet#• Contacts `Matt f3ookamer -custom build - 258-5258, mwbookamerCd~pa.net Hollowell Restoration -Kevin Hollowell 717-385-0307 COYLE LUMBER & MILLWORK, inc. 231 East Old York Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: 717-243-4124 Fax: 717-243-9821 Email: in yielumber.com Architectural Warehouse 224 North George Street York, PA 17401 717-854-7152 Brandt Sylvan Antique Flooring 651 East Main Street Lititz, PA 17543 717-826-4520 h~:glnrww. sylvanbrandt.oom Matt or Kevin can custom build, so can Coyle of course. The Architectural Warehouse and Brandt Sylvan are huge warehouses with salvage parts. I've attached the application for the commeraal fagade grant, which is up to $12000 now. Please let me know if I can do anything else. Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 53 W. South Street CaT•lisle, PA r7or3 (p) 7r7'24o'6933 (17 7r7'z49'5587 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 1 Rein, AlYcia P. From: Reiten, Alyda P. Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 200712:47 PM To: 'Perry Heath' Subject: 47 w. pomfret Since you've asked to be put bads on the HARB agenda, does this mean you won't be appealing next week? I need to prepare the report for Coundl to reflect what's happening, if appeal expected and so Perth. Please advise. Thank you, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA r7or3 (p) ~r7-zqo-6933 7r7'z49-5587 9/ 18/2007 Page 1 of 2 RN~sn, Alycia P. From: Perry Heath [pheath~n3mowery.comj 8~nt: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:55 PM To: Reiten, Alyaa P. Cc: Bean, Fredrick M. eubjrct: RE: 47 w. pomfret Here are my thoughts ... 1 believe in taking the "high road". Therefore, my preferred course of action is to get HARB buy-in and approval. And I really believe that this issue is not so egregious that I shouldn't be able to get support from HARB. The question is ... and I asked it at the meefing ... how much would they expect us to pay for an "identical" door? So, I'm planning to come back with the estimates for a custom door to see if they will then support the fact that the current door is a satisfactory replacement. The cost of the current door (stock) was $690 -not cheap! If a replacement door is "cheap" then I'll just go that route and iYll be all over. If HARB is inclined to not support the current replacement (and I am assuming the cost for an "identical' door to be considerably greater -and may be wrong -than the cost of a stock replacement door) then I will probably suggest that the owner appeal to Council. The owner has actually suggested that I appeal now but will defer to me. So, that's the plan at this point. Appeal for next week's Council meeting? Probably not likely since I'd like to try the HARB process first. It's simpler and rrrost appropriate. I assume that I can be granted the flexibility of doing so and won't be ated for being out of compliance until then, right? For agenda purposes, etc., please list Jerry Mock as the applicant. I'll try to downplay my Council role and wear my Mowery hat in these proceedings. By the way, please note that I've cc'd Fred just so he's in the loop. Now, with my Council hat on, may I make a suggestion or maybe you could educate me ... can HARB use the term "identical" rather than "in-kind"? My use of in-kind in the application was intentional. There are clearly two definitions. One would apparently offer some discretion, the other does not. Therein lays the whole problem that got us to this point. Are you OK with these plans? Perry Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MONIIERY ~ SONS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com From: Reiben, Aiycia P. [maitGo:AReiben@carlistepa.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:47 PM To: Peny Heath Subject: 47 w. Pomfret Since you've asked to be put back on the HARB agenda, does this mean you won't be appealing next week? I need to prepare the report for Council to reflect what's happening, ff appeal expected and so forth. Please advise. Thank you, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 9/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA r7or3 ~Q) 7r7'z4o'6933 (~ 7r7"Z49'S587 9/18/2007 Roman, Alycia P. From: Reiten, Alycia P. Sont: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:50 AM To: 'Perry Heath' Subject: RE: Contacts Let me know if anything changes please. Otherwise, I'll see you Thursday. -----Original Message----- From: Perry Heath [mailto:pheath@rsmowery.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:31 PM To: Reiten, Alycia P. Subject: RE: Contacts Sure. Just checking. -----Original Message----- From: "Reiten, Alycia P." <AReiten@carlislepa.org> To: "Perry Heath" <pheath@rsmowery.com> Sent: 5/8/2007 4:42 PM Subject: RE: Contacts Nice try. Because you said you'd like to come back, I took it off of the agenda to allow you to do so. Isn't that what you wanted? From: Perry Heath [mailto:pheath@rsmowery.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:54 PM To: Reiten, Alycia P. Subject: RE: Contacts Hi. My greenbook does not show the denial of the application. I assume the strategy is to wait until we come back and then make another determination? Or better yet, has it just fallen between the cracks to be forgotten? :-) Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOWERY & SONS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com 1 From: Reiten, Alycia P. [mailto:AReiten@carlislepa.orgJ Sent: Tuesday, May O1, 2007 9:24 AM To: Perry Heath Subject: Contacts * Matt Bookamer - custom build - 258-5258, mwbookamer@pa.net * Hollowell Restoration - Kevin Hollowell 717-385-0307 COYLE LUMBER & MILLWORK, inc. 231 East Old York Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Phone: 717-243-4124 Fax: 717-243-9821 Email: info@coylelumber.com <mailto:info@coylelumber.com> Architectural Warehouse 224 North George Street York, PA 17401 717-854-7152 Brandt Sylvan Antique Flooring 651 East Main Street Lititz, PA 17543 717-626-4520 http://www.sylvanbrandt.com <http://clickit.go2net.com/adclick?cid=372441 &area=is.clicktracking&site=ylw&shape=textlink&cp=info.anywho&rawto=http://clicks.superpag es.com/ct/clickThrough?SRC=Infospace&target=SP&S=PA&T=lititz&Z=&CID=493352&C=sylvan$ 2Bbrandt&ACTION=log,red&LID=0048350648&FL=url&TL=off&LOC=http://www.sylvanbrandt.com> Matt or Kevin can custom build, so can Coyle of course. The Architectural Warehouse and Brandt Sylvan are huge warehouses with salvage parts. I've attached the application for the commercial facade grant, which is up to $12000 now. Please let me know if I can do anything else. 2 Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (p) 717-240-6933 (f) 717-249-5587 ,ri Page 1 of 1 R~rt, Alycia P. Prom: Reiten, Alycia P. Sint: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:24 AM To: 'Perry Heath' 8uflysct: RE: HARE I'm happy too. I am on my way out the door, so it won't be until this afternoon or early tomorrow, but I'll provide you as many of the contacts as I can remember. Alycia Prom: Perry Heath [mail6o:pheathCitrsmowery.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:16 AM To: Kellen, Aiycia P.; Don Grell SubJect• HARE Good morning. As I continue to struggle with this HARE thit-g, I am reminded that you had told me that you had received numerous caNs/emeils in support of the HARB. Frankly, I have n3ceived no HARE-favorable comments at all.. As a matter. of fact, it's been quite the opposite. But I really want to understand better and have input, from both sides of the issue. Can you supply me with names and contact information of anyone that I can call to get a perspective that is different than the one I have received? Perry Petry P. Heath, Diroctor of Business Development R. 8. ME>t'MA:RY i 801N8, SIC. 1000 Bent Creek BNd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmawery.com 9/18/2007 i ~ May 2, 2007 Attn: Mark Heeb Reff: 10 life door slab Thank you for considering Coyle Lumber & Millwork Inc. for your project. We can produce for you acustom-made door slab as per your request. The door slabs would be made of solid sapele a type of mahogany for paint with full mortise and tenon construction. The l O life door slab will have '/s" tempered argon filled insulated glass installed. All prices are figured on use our stock profiles if your job requires a profile we do not have there will be a tooling fee added to the total price. Price is as follows; 1-3/4" x 34-1/2" x 80" door slab $ 992.59 ea. Once again Coyle Lumber & Millwork Inc. thanks you for giving us the opportunity to quote you a price. Prices do not include tax or shipping fees. We look forward to working with you on this project and future projects. Sincerely Mike Christopher The interior 1-3/8" thick door would be $475 in pine/poplar with antique glass - $700 in mahogany. $600/$950 for the same two options in 1-3/4" exterior. Matthew W. Bookamer M.W.l3ookamer Fine Woodworking 1937 Maplewood Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-258-5258 Fax: 717-258-1050 Email: mwbookamerna~pa.net www.bookamer-fine-woodworking Other considerations: John Dodson 938-4468 did the door across the street (Edlin's) Kevin Hollowe11385-0307 The Old Neighborhoods League has offered to pay one-half (up to $SOO~f the cost of a new appropriate door for Mock-Mays Jul 22 07 02:23a Michael Shealy 7177900180 p.2 .. i John, Sfifka -Faxed glazing types ~~ Page 1: i=rorr~ John SI'rfka To: Alyda ReitsnlHARB Issue Data: 7/21/20t?7 11:46:44 AM Subject: Faxed glazing types Happy Saturday Alycia: I faxed oMer the mus~onlgriHe profiiles exarr~-Iss. These are just ideas! starting point! 1) This its a wood single glazed TDL (True Divided Ute} 2) is a TDL- Insulated piece of glass that requires 1-3/8" mull~n. 3) SDL- Simulated Divided Lite option. We have to get the specific details of the door in question, and tin pursue the manufacturers who may be able to build this door. 1 will do my beat help you find a solution! This is new for rrre so please be patient as I team as l go a~ig Hope these examples make sense to you, h was the best !could find for now! Talk to you soon, let me know when you gel the green fight from Dr. Mock to inspect the e~dsting doors, that we wiN do our best 1p dupilcate! Hope you enjoyed your weekend! Regards, Jahn Slifka Dell- 576-2828 CC: Michael Sheety 7177~U "w T,., ..- Nlachae~ ghgely ~7 02•.~a . ~ '~ le pie -= 61p$ ~arlis 1?alp Sri. ~ ~~~ ~ eG~anicsb~• aA~Sp M "t4 1 ~~1 ~~~ r ~ . -- D gppte o~ SPA _~,~ _ Y~ane' (~ ~ ~~~SO Fes: c~ ~ ~ ~8~~°~r,~°m w•adya~`~e~s~ w~w ~ _ ~-- .,~ i.T 'a t '~ _~ N C• n 7 ° „~~ ~~ ~~~ ~. ~. ~. G ~ Ca p, CL y ~_ 1 "' mot= { .. { ' A a r• ~~ ~~ r G JUL-18-2007 03:14 PM M. W.BOOKAMER 1937 Maplewood Drive Carliele, PA 170 ] 3 IVLW. (71738-5258 ~V1100~VOAK~i Fax (717)x38-1430 ~ NAME/ADDRE98 ~ Ct.$.Mowery k 8oro inc. Perry P. Hoch 1000 Horu Creak Blvd. Ivhwhaniasbrr~{, PA 17030 71T 258 1050 P. 02 Estimat+~ilHork Order DA I'1': Walt Order No. 6/19V2007 7017 TERMS PROJECT 2% 10 Nat 30 $hunk DESCRIPTION QTY C08T TOTAL Pt+ovtde Cu~aa Door ~ 34.3"x81.3"x1.7S" (to your flnu its) 1~2i0.00 1,230.00 • t4 ba Csdar • 3/4" 1tsNtlseed Tempaed Ghm • $hnulaMd 10 l.~e W$h WlrOe 9ers 9atvneen Ghm sad 7H!" Pose MuMlns Intarlor and Bxterlor • MoetMm ~atd Tama Caroaruaw,n • S Yea Wrrwnty Aositmt Joint Pdlwe Nom: l no t-ulld ossarior doors and windows out of F{r. Spnnieh Cedar provides the wesshesand insect nrsisgiot cpgrlh3a, and prwttahility oC Mahoauny, at approxinadely ihs some mat ss tlm laser quaihy FIr. Nok: lternoval of more thm 3/4" of as~aial from tht top or lwttom of door (such ss daring iasW lotion) wi11 void door wmrnty. Place Mtd msasura to avoid thb possihlNty. Our owrent lad lino is ta12 weeks. Delivery of your door ovoid be aoeomp-Wtad within 1 week oisett of work... PMrre be adv~ad that ate inruiated 1i~ penal aay tune up b 6 weeb 1br t~itvery, 1f you would iiiis the to sd~dulo tide walk plpue dgn one copy of this pmpad and rapnn it td our o18ce wilt 73'K doposit. A 2°X. dlsoount will be ottMsd if bahnce is pahl within 10 days of dofivary yr tho bab~ctoe will be dne met 30 of delivery. TOTAL s1,2sooo >31t3NAT1,~E ~, Page 1 of 1 RMbn, Alyeia P. From: Reiten, Alyaa P. SAM: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:48 AM To: 'Perry Heath' 8ubJ~ct: Requested list Altachtnen~s: harb support list.doc Attached is a list of some of the folks that I've confirmed within the last day or iwo to share their contact info with you, in support of the HARB position on the door. In addition to the supporters of HARB, there was a message from Karen Rhody yesterday that I believe went to you directly, indicating support of your position. Please let me know if you didn't naceive that so 1 can forward it to you. If there is anything else, please let me know. Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manage-- 43 W. South Street Carlisle, PA r7or3 ~p) 7tTz4o'6933 7t7'249'S587 9/18/20E}7 List of contacts in support of HARB position of 47 W. Pomfret: (They have all confirmed that it was acceptable to share their information within the last day or so) Alan & Mary Duxbury -Carlisle House B 8t B maryd~thecazlislehouse.com , alduxna_,aldux.com Alyssa Looney -Ibis Appraisals, ibisasna,earthlink.net Bob Cianfichi - Cianfichi Scholl Ludwig Architects, 258-1700 bob~cianf~chischoll.com Chris Brown -Derck & Edson Associates, 626-2054 cbrownna-,derckandedson.com David Ison - TheraSound, 582-4914 Ison~n.therasound.com Deb Jussel - jusselncomcast.net Heidi & Mark Heeb; MHeeb _,blcompanies.com Janet Spahr ~anet(g~snahrstudios.com John Slifica -Advanced Sash & Door, 576-2828 ,~slifka~advancedsash.com Johnna Palm -Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority, 249-0789 jp~cchra.com Judy 8t Rusty Shunk - jeshunk(a,eartlilink.net , shunk(c~,dickinson.edu Karen Witherow - DCA, 245-2648 kazen(~downtowncazlisle.org Ken Levan -Levan Design kenCa~levandesign.com Lori Peters - DCA, 245-2648 lorina,downtowncarlisle.org Mary Roell -Bedford Street Antiques bedfordstreetantiques~eazthlink.net Matt Bookamer - MB Fine Woodworking mwbookamer~a ~a.net Robin ODonnell -Citizen, ,paxtangdinerna_,,yahoo.com Steve Berg -Patriot Surplus steve ~yatriotsurplus.com Tammy Bock - IRC & citizen ICR-Office(a~comcast.net Tom Fields -Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority, 249-0789 tfields(ir),cchra.com Tom Ludwig - Cianfichi Scholl Ludwig Architects, 258-1700 tomncianfichischoll.com Vanessa Fiorentino - DCA vanessandowntowncazlisle.org R~ibn, Ah-cja P. From: Bent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary and Alycia, Perry Heath (pheatl~~rsmowery.com] Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:14 PM Fitts, Mary Reiten, Alycia P. RE: HARB...10/12 life door I thought that I ought to clarify the R. S. Mowery role on the project. Mowery has ZERO financial interest in this job. There was no contract, no markup, no expenses charged or received by Mowery. All Mowery did was pay the tradesmen and then bill Jerry in a consolidated invoice to simplify construction loan draws. Again, Mowery has no financial interest and I acted only as a facilitator for the work and invoices. If you need additional clarifcation, please let me know. Perry Heath -----Original Message----- From: "Fitts, Mary" <mary.fitts@jgr.com> To: "Reiten, Alycia P." <AReiten@carlislepa.org>; "mary.fiitts@jgr.com" <mary.fiitts@jgr.com> Cc: "pheath@rsmowery.com" <pheath@rsmowery.com> Sent: 7/25/2007 9:12 AM Subject: RE: HARB...10/12 life door Alycia, Please forward these remarks of mine to all interested parties as well as the Mayor, Borough Council, HARB members, ONL members & Ed Schorp if you think appropriate. Perry very well knows my position. I still also, do not understand HOW Perry could state (under oath???/questioning????) to Borough Solicitor that he had no "financial, etc." interest in this property; Perry works for Mowery, presumably was PAID by Mowery & this would seem to mean he had a financial interest in the project. Question...could this be considered "purjury"? Maybe....... I am not a lawyer, but Perry most certanly has a conflict of interest, in my opinion. Does Borough Council (ALL of Borough Council?) know of this conflict? Not at the last meeting, I think, as I was told by one member that he/she had no idea that Perry was the project facilitator for Mowery. I will be at the meetting on the 9th to, once again, under the Sunnshine Law, express my opinion. The solution is an easy one. Mowery, as represented by Perry Heath, made the error...not Jerry Mock Mowery (& Heath) should pay to rectify the door. Mary Fitts Carlisle Citizen -----Original Message----- From: Reiten, Alycia P. [mailto:AReiten@carlislepa.org] Sent: Tue 7/24/2007 8:42 AM To: Reiten, Alycia P. Cc: Subject: FW: HARB Mr. Heath is requesting contact info of those persons supporting the HARB's decision regarding the 10 life door that was replaced with a 12 life door. As many of you have 1 provided many positive comments in support of HARB, I would prefer your direct consent to share your contact information with Mr. Heath, before actually doing so. If there is anyone that I may have forgotten, please feel free to let me know so I may forward to them as well. Thank you! Alycia Reiten From: Perry Heath [mailto:pheath@rsmowery.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:16 AM To: Reiten, Alycia P.; Don Grell Subject: HARB Good morning. As I continue to struggle with this HARB thing, I am reminded that you had told me that you had received numerous calls/emails in support of the HARB. Frankly, I have received no HARB-favorable comments at all. As a matter of fact, it's been quite the opposite. But I really want to understand better and have input from both sides of the issue. Can you supply me with names and contact information of anyone that I can call to get a perspective that is different than the one I have received? Perry Perry P. Heath, Director of Business Development R. S. MOWERY & SONS, INC. 1000 Bent Creek Blvd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone: 717.506.1000 Fax: 717.506.1010 www.rsmowery.com 2 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Community Service" April 26, 2007 Perry Heath RS Mowery 1000 Bent Creek Blvd Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dear Perry: Please be advised that your application for the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) will be reviewed at the meeting to be held Monday, April 30, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. The HARB will meet at Carlisle Borough Hall, 53 West South Street, Cazlisle. Your request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 47 W. Pomfret will be considered at this time. The Borough staff recommends you or a representative attend this meeting in order to answer any questions the HARB may have. An agenda will be available at the meeting. If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager xotificxtion I,e~er 53 West South Street, Cazlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ffiSTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ry, Apri130, 2007 5•.30 P.M The following is a list of routine items that do not appear to be controversial and probably do not require additional discussion, including requests for Certificates of Appropriateness for in-kind worl~ These items can be acted on with one motion. If discussion is desired on any particular item, any member of the Board or the public may request that the item be removed from the consent agenda and be considered separately. 1. Approve minutes from the Apri12, 2007 HARB meeting. 2. A request by Bertha Minnich for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 116 W. South Street to replace the existing standing seam metal roof and half round gutters and round downspouts in kind. 3. A request by William Hoffinan for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 201 N. Hanover to install 2 wall signs, 2' x 3' on each facade, that says Nancy Stamen's Art Galeria, Custom Framing, Art Restoration, Custom Art Work, Murals, 240-0551, www.nancystamm.com" in gold leaf lettering and border on a black background. 4. A request by Jason Kutulakis for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 36 S. Hanover to install a 3' x 3' double sided projecting sign made of wood. The sign will be mounted on an wrought iron bracket with gold leaf engraved lettering on a maroon background to say "Atom & Kutulakis, Attorneys at Law". 5. A request by Michael Maitland for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 237 S. Hanover to refurbish the second story side porch, replacing any unsalvageable pieces, completely in kind. 6. A request by Merideth Bucher for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 10 N. Pitt to utilize temporary banners for special promotions, complient with the sign ordinance limited to not more than 15 square feet in size for no more than 60 days in a calendar year, to be made of traditional sign vinyl, displayed on the southern wall of the establishment. Regular Aae~dx 1. request by Perry Heath on behalf of Mock Mays Associates for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 w. Pomfret to leave the 121ite front door rather than install the approved l O life. 2. A request by Frank Laquitara on behalf of Dickinson College for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 199 W. High Street (Denny Hall) to replace all 106, six over six double hung wood windows with Pella Architect Series Aluminum clad to match the profile and configuration of the original, including all trim. 3. A request by Joann McCrreevy for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 137 S. West for a complete facade renovation including removal of siding to reveal the original construction, removing the existing porch to reveal the original, restore window sills and trim to original sizing, replace gutters as needed, and any additional improvements to return the facade to its near original state. 4. A request by Rev. Scheneman on behalf of St. John's Episcopal Church for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 1 A North Hanover to install a roof overhang at the reaz of the property to cover the reaz entrance. The roof will be shingled to match the rest of the church and the side faces will be presented to replicate the same stucco and trim materials on the body of the church. 5. A request by Deborah Graeff for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 156 E. High to enclose the rear porch to make it a sunroom with vinyl double hung windows and aluminum storm windows and aluminum door, as well as add a sprawling deck with a new stair system to the back yard. The applicant also proposes to replace the windows from the upper level to match the new sunroom. Opportunity for boazd members to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. Other Items: Discussion for potential nominees for 2006 HARB Awazds BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ffiSTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Monday, Apri130, 2007 Members present: Craig Doll, Lee Scholl, Mark ee , alter Nichols, and Rebecca Hammell. Staff present: Alycia Reiten, Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. 1. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2007 HARB meeting. 2. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Bertha Minnich for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 116 W. South Street to replace the existing standing seam metal roof and half round gutters and round downspouts in kind. The standing seam shall be true standing seam or the snap panel replacement system, not agricultural, to be verified by staff. 3. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by William Hoffman for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 201 N. Hanover to install 2 wall signs, Z' x 3' on each facade, that says Nancy Stamm's Art Galeria, Custom Framing, Art Restoration, Custom Art Work, Murals, 240-0551, www.nancystamm.com" in gold leaf lettering and border on a black background. 4. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Jason Kutulakis for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 36 S. Hanover to install a 3' x 3' double sided projecting sign made of wood. The sign will be mounted on an wrought iron bracket with gold leaf engraved lettering on a maroon background to say "Abom & Kutulakis, Attorneys at Law". 5. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Michael Maitland for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 237 S. Hanover to refurbish the second story side porch, replacing any unsalvageable pieces, completely in kind. 6. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Merideth Bucher for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 10 N. Pitt to utilize temporary banners for special promotions, complient with the sign ordinance limited to not more than 15 square feet in size for no more than 60 days in a calendar year, to be made of traditional sign vinyl, displayed on the southern wall of the establishment. Re~lar A~dx 1. .Heath and Ms. Mock presented the case. The applicants previously received HARB approval to replace a l O life main entrance door in kind. The applicants stated that they were not able to purchase the correct door so they put in the 121ite. The applicant then stated the fitting of the door to the opening and the modifications that were needed. They purchased a larger door, cut it back and filled the jams to make it fit. Paul asked if they'd looked at having a custom door made. The applicant then stated that they only had 2 months to get into the building and it would have taken 6-9 months for a custome build. Perry Heath interjects from the audience and states that a custom door would have cost upwards of $3000 and that is not reasonalbe. Paul asked where that estimate came from and if any others were sought. Mr. Heath stated that his contractor gave him that figure. Some discussions back and forth about what is the dollar figure that would be considered acceptable for a project? Should the applicant be expected to spend such a huge amount of money? One of the board members mentioned that if the work were done correctly from the start there would have been no need to be back in front of the board, nor to have to consider spending additional money. The applicant wanted to know what the specific amount was to be considered reasonable. Staff intergects that one verbal figure is not sufficient for the board to determine whether a cost is exorbitent. Staff said that the estimate presented did. not seem appropriate and suggested a few alternatives be sought, as well as looking at a salvage yard for a possible replacement. The board referenced a number of resources and custom can be cheaper than rack purchase. Mark Heeb says the dilema at hand is multiple. The applicant says they couldn't get a door to match what was approved so they should have come back with a request for a new approval. Also, the door that was installed was not only different than what was approved but the opening was modified to make it fit. This violates guideline number 7. Mr. Heath asks what "in kind" really means then. That it is exact not just as close as possible? Yes, by Mark. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the board voted 5-2 (Craig & Walter against) to recommend Disapproval of a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 w. Pomfret to leave the 121ite front door rather than install the approved l O lite. 2. A r~uest by Frank Laquitara on behalf of Dickinson College for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 199 W. High Street (Denny Hall) to replace all 106, six over six double hung wood windows with Pella Architect Series Aluminum clad to match the profile and configuration of the original, including all trim. WITHDRAWN 3. On a motion by Walter Nichols, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Joann McGreevy for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 137 S. West for a complete fa.~ade renovation including the removal of insulbrick-siding to reveal the original rusticated siding, remove the existing awning and rebuild the porch, restore window sills and trim to original sizing, replace gutters as needed, and any additional improvements to return the facade to its near original state. 4. On a motion by Lee Scholl, second by Mary Fitts, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Rev. Scheneman on behalf of St. John's Episcopal Church for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 1 A North Hanover to install a roof overhang at the rear of the property to cover the rear entrance. The roof will be shingled to match the rest of the church and the side faces will be presented to replicate the same stucco and trim materials on the body of the church. The posts will be steel columns boxed in azek with a small lighting fixture and one sign with the Episcopal insignia sign next to the door. 5. Grace Gross on behalf of the applicant. She states that they would like to enclose the porch and add a deck with a graduated stair system to allow Deb to use the rear because there is no rail now and the steps are concrete. The request includes changing out the second floor sun windows with 2 vinyl to resemble those proposed for the first porch. The deck will be wood construction with typical lattice but the drawing is not to scale and doesn't communicate the actrual end result. Mark suggests that the windows on the upper level, if changed, should mimic the pattern as on the first with just one window over each of the first floor openings. The applicant is concerned that those would be too heavy to open and that's why they want 4. As an aging population, it is difficult for them to open and allow some fresh air. The boazd discusses further the elements of the porch enclosure, and the sheets provided by the applicant that articulate the aluminum panel system and insets aze a concern. The applicant says she'd at least like the deck considered because it sounds like the board is not in favor of the porch enclosure. The board discusses the proposed deck. The drawing says wood but is not scaled out and appears rather large. Some code information is exchanged about the rails and heights, that the rail must be at least 36" high, no more than 4" on center. The applicant then asks if the upper windows could be considered because the contractor already ordered them. The board is not satisfied with what is presented and would prefer the applicant come back with changes that are less contemporary and more consistent with the chazacter of the buildng. So the porch and windows are tabled. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Walter Nichols, the HARB voted 7-0 to recommend approval of a request by Deborah Graeff for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 156 E. High to install a wooden deck with descending stair to the rear yazd, constructed of wood, using a railing system that reflects the same characteristics of the neighboring porches, with traditional lattice. Allan Galbreith was in front of the boazd to discuss 150/152 W. Chapel avenue. He would like to demolish the structures. Craig Doll attests that the property is not safe and should be demolished. There are massive holes in the roof which have allowed water and rodents to penetrate for years. The building will likely collapse on itself in a short period of time and must be attended to. The board says they will defer to the Codes department for this demolition for safety reasons. Should Mr. Galbreith wish to pursue the purchase/demolition, he should return to the boazd with a formal application and the board would then formally act on that request. Awards to be presented in June: Alibi's -Commercial fagade 13 E. High -Commercial Painting 156 S. Hanover -Residential Painting Dickinson College -Mermaid address plaques Yarn Garden, 10 W. Pomfret -Sign 219 E. Loather -residential, not in the historic district 132 W. Loather -residential 162 W. Loather -residential 149 E. Pomfret -Residential, appropriate materials for new construction (owner & contractor) Respectfully submitted, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK Location of property: Applicant: Application date: Deadline for Council review: Prepared by: Date prepared: 47 W. Pomfret Perry Heath 4/5/2007 6/26/07 Alycia Reiten May 1, 2007 1. Ezterior changes to be made or the exterior character of the structure to be erected, iacludi~g the e~ct location or work to be done, general design, arrangement, tezture, material, and color of the balding, sign, or structure. The applicant has replaced the front door with a 121ite wooden rather than the approved l O life. 2. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district, the appropriateness of ezterior architectural features which can be seen from a public street or sidewalk, and the relytion of such factors to the g~enl characteristics and features of surrounding structures and other similar buildings or structures in the district. This office building is constructed of stuccoed brick with an added inset porch and Victorian details. The proposed changes are not consistent with the previous approval for replacement in kind. 3. How does this change comply with the Historic District Guidelines? The proposed changes comply with HARB Guidelines 7 l~toric District Guideline #7: The location, dimension and material of replacement windows, doors and openings shall be the same as the existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings. Existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings, including all components: sas lass transoms sidelights lintels sills frames. moldinQS shutters doors steps and hardware, shall be retained and repaired whenever possible. Desi¢n or material changes that are not consistent with the existing (or rneferab~ original, window or door components and which ayyear on a primary facade of a building shall be prohibited, except as set forth below. A primary facade is the elevation(s) of the building, which directly faces a public street or public thoroughfare; a building may have more than one primary facade. A secondary facade is the elevation(s) of the building that is (are) seen from a distant public street or public thoroughfare and substantially blocked from view by another building (such as the rear elevation screened by a garage or a side elevation adjacent to another building). Replacement windows or doors, or their components, which are on a building's secondary facade, shall be consistent in style with the existing (or preferably original) materials, but may be composed of other materials. Consistent with guideline number one, replacement materials on either a primary or a secondary facade shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably original) material. Date of Approved Work: May 11, 2006- to replace an existing 10 lite door in kind replace wood sashes where needed in kind clean the building exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind replace half round gutters with materials in kind replace shake shingles with materials in kind. replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. 4. Opinion of staff as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district. Recommend HARB forward this request to Borough Council recommending approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 5. Specific recommendations of the HARB as to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriahnesa. On a motion by Rebecca Hammell, second by Mary Fitts, the board voted 5-2 (Craig & Walter against) to recommend Disapproval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Community Service" May 30, 2007 Jerry Mock 47 W. Pomfret Carlisle, PA 17013 Dear Ms. Mock: Please be advised that your application for the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) will be reviewed at the meeting to be held Monday, June 4, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. The HARB will meet at Carlisle Borough Hall, 53 West South Street, Carlisle. Your request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 47 W. Pomfret will be considered at this time. The Borough staff recommends you or a representative attend this meeting in order to answer any questions the HARB may have. An agenda will be available at the meeting. If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager Notification Letter 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ffiSTORICAL ARCHITEC-TURAL REVIEW BOARD ~,,~-~' AGENDA \' Monday, June 4, 2007 5:30.. M. Coas~-t a~ndsu The following is a list of routine items that do not appear to be controversial and probably do not require additional discussion, including requests for Certificates of Appropriateness for in-kind word These items can be acted on with one motion. If discussion is desired on any particular item, any member of the Board or the public may request that the item be removed from the consent agenda and be considered separately. 1. Approve minutes from the Apri130, 2007 HARB meeting. 2. A request by Pat Kennedy for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 41-43 S. East Street to replace roofing in kind. 3. A request by Michael & Evelyn Pasque for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 104 W. South Street to replace side windows in kind. 4. A request by D.E. Lutz for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 163 W. South Street demolition of a dilapitated non-contributing shed. 5. A request by William & Gloria White for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 151 E. High Street to rebuild the bay window wall by reutilizing as many of the original bricks as possible, with mortar to match the existing. 1. A request by Jerry Mock for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 w. Pomfret to leave the 12 life front door rather than install the approved l O life. 2. A request by Patricia Pond for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 32 W. Pomfret Street a fagade renovation consistent with the Historic District Guidelines. 3. A request by Stephen Berg fora Certificate of Appropriateness at 15 N. Hanover Street for a lazge storefront renovation. 4. A request by Michael Adler for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 17-29 S. Pitt Street to rebuild window trim, soffit, and facia where needed, install replacement windows and repaint brick, woodwork, and rails. 5. A request by Deborah Graeff for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 156 E. High to enclose the reaz porch to make it a sunroom with vinyl double hung windows and aluminum storm windows and aluminum door. The applicant also proposes to replace the windows from the upper level to match the new sunroom. TABLED Opportunity for boazd members to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. Other Items• 2006 HARB Awazds to be given June 14, 2007 Alibi's, 10 N Pitt -Commercial fagade -owners: Four Dudes, LLC or Two by Four, Inc. Richard Bucher, 1104 Shannon Lane, Cazlisle, PA 17013, 448-0683 13 E. High -Commercial Painting -George & Shirley Richardson, 1105 Regent Court, Cazlisle, PA 17013 156/158 S. Hanover -Residential Painting -Judi Britten Dickinson College -Mermaid address plaques Yarn Garden, 10 W. Pomfret -Sign -Winn Properties, LLC, 26 Donegal Drive 219 E. Lowther -residential, not in the historic district -Dirk Madison, 3147 Spring Road, Cazlisle, PA 17013 1 b2 W. Lowther -residential -Calvin Smith owner, Kevin Hollowell contractor 132 W. Lowther -residential - Mazcus Key 149 E. Pomfret -Residential, appropriate materials for new construction -Richard Wood Owner-4 Laurel Hill Rd, Unit C, Greenbelt, MD 20770-7757; Brian and Eric Moseman contractors (Eric 226- 8347) BOROUGH OF CARLISLE ffiSTORICAL ARCffiTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Monday, June 4, 200 Members present: Craig Doll, Lee ,and Mary Fitts. Staff present: Alycia Reiten, Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager The meeting was called to order at 5:40 pm. 1. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the minutes from the Apri130, 2007 HARB meeting. 2. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a request by Pat Kennedy for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 41-43 S. East Street to replace standing seam tin roofing with standing seam galvanized roofing, not agricultural roofing, to be verified by staff. 3. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a request by Michael & Evelyn Pasque for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 104 W. South Street to replace side windows in kind. 4. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a request by D.E. Lutz for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 163 W. South Street demolition of a dilapitated non-contributing shed. 5. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a request by William & Gloria White for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 151 E. High Street to rebuild the bay window wall by reutilizing as many of the original bricks as possible, with mortar to match the existing. filar Armada 1 A request by Jerry Mock far a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 w. Pomfret to leave the 12 life front door rather than install the approved l O life. At the last meeting, the applicant requested that HARB permit the 12 life door to remain. After much discussion the boazd recommended denial of the request. The applicant was approached by many neighbors and groups with offers of assistance so they requested the opportunity to come back to the board once more and plead their case. Today, the applicant was prepared with a packet of documentation to support their request to permit the 121ite door remain. The packet included the timeline in which the original approval was granted, what the certificate of appropriateness said, work completed, enforcement, meetings, cost estimates for l O life door (as originally approved) as opposed to 121ite, and photos. The applicant also stated that the language in the certificate indicated an "as close to as possible" rather than exact for "in kind". They also stated that the board needs to consider the "reasonableness" of the requirement for replacing the new 121ite door with a l O life, because it is not appropriate for them to require such an expense. First Lee Scholl stated that had the process been handled differently by the applicant, ie: came back to the board when they found that they couldn't find the approved door, and presented the 12 life, maybe consideration could have been given. Mark Heeb then joined in asking if the applicant had sought the local woodsmith for an estimate. The applicant said they had relied on their contractor, and that was not one of the estunates obtained. Mark clearly stated the issues at hand as being the size of the door opening as having been modified and the divided lites being of a number other than the approved 10. He presented the cost estimate from Coyle lumber that he had obtained subject to the specifications provided by the applicants contractor. Mary Fitts joined in and presented a very strong statement as to the application, the process in which they have presented themselves by applying and getting approval of one thing but doing something else and then expecting the board not to find it a big deal when in fact it is a big deal because what was done was not proposed to the board and violates guideline number 7. She went on further with comments pertaining to a Council member representing an application that was given approval but that now they expect to be permitted what they did instead of the approved. She further stated that they should have at a very minimum, come to the board with their problem rather than just do what they wanted. Mr. Perry Heath responded with a statement that he was offended by Ms. Fitts comments and that the responsibility of the board, like Council, is to assess the reasonableness of a request and consider the cost associated with that replacement. As the applicant, he was disappointed to be put in this position and that the board would question his integrity. He further stated that what was being required of him as the applicant did not take into account the reasonableness of the requirement. Mr. Heath said that he would like the board to allow the door to remain and not be required to replace it. The board then voted on a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Lee Scholl, the HARB voted 2-2 (Lee and Craig no) to recommend DISapproval of a for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret Street. 2. A request by Patricia Pond for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 32 W. Pomfret Street a fagade renovation consistent with the Historic District Guidelines. TABLED 3. A request by Stephen Berg for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 15 N. Hanover Street for a large storefront renovation. TABLED Applicant to return with specific details for the storefront including door specs,. transom details, window details, kickplate, cornice info and so on. 4. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval of a request by Michael Adler for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 17-29 S. Pitt Street to rebuild window trim, soffit, and facia where needed, install PVC composite double hung windows on the first and second floors and six over one on the third floor of #21 to match the dimensions of the existing rails, styles, and exact configuration of lites, rebuild the oriel on the second floor; and repaint brick, woodwork, and rails. 5. A request by Deborah Graeff for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 156 E. High to enclose the rear porch to make it a sunroom with vinyl double hung windows and aluminum storm windows and aluminum door. The applicant also proposes to replace the windows from the upper level to match the new sunroom. TABLED Opportunity for board members to speak on items of concern not listed on the agenda. 2006 HARB Awards to be given June 14, 2007 Alibi's, 10 N Pitt -Commercial fagade -owners: Four Dudes, LLC or Two by Four, Inc. Richard Bucher, 1104 Shannon Lane, Carlisle, PA 17013, 448-0683 13 E. High -Commercial Painting -George & Shirley Richardson, 1105 Regent Court, Carlisle, PA 17013 156/158 S. Hanover -Residential Painting -Judi Britten Dickinson College -Mermaid address plaques Yarn Garden, l0 W. Pomfret -Sign -Winn Properties, LLC, 26 Donegal Drive 219 E. Lowther -residential, not in the historic district -Dirk Madison, 3147 Spring Road, Carlisle, PA 17013 162 W. Lowther -residential -Calvin Smith owner, Kevin Hollowell contractor 132 W. Lowther -residential -Marcus Key 149 E. Pomfret -Residential, appropriate materials for new construction -Richard Wood Owner-4 Laurel Hill Rd, Unit C, Greenbelt, MD 20770-7757; Brian and Eric Moseman contractors (Eric 226- 8347) Respectfully submitted, Vim.., ~,~- Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK Location of property: Applicant: Application date: Deadline for Council review: Prepared by: Date prepared: 47 W. Pomfret Jerry Mock 6/4/2007 7/19/2007 Alycia Reiten June 6, 2007 1. Ezterior changes to be made or the ezterior character of the strnctare to be erected, including the ezact location or work to be done, general design, arrangement, teztare, material, and color of the building, sign, or structure. The applicant proposes that the installation of a 12 life door remain in place of the previously approved 10 life. 2. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architeetural nature of the district, the appropriateness of ezterior archilrectnral fea~rea which can be seen from a public street or aiden-alk, and the relation of such factors to the general characteristics and features of surrounding stractarea and other similar buildings or atractares in the district. This is an office building constructed of stuccoed brick with an inset porch and Victorian details set in a ~ighborhood of predominately commercial uses in mixed style buildings. The applicant received approval of replacement of a 10 life door in kind (34" wood), and installed a twelve life smaller door (32 '/Z") in its' place. T'he applicant stated that the approval language using "in kind" did not mean exact but as closely as possible. The term in kind was described by the boazd as always meaning exact and a term used for years to mean just that with no other instances of the definition being questioned. When you refer to the images below to see the two compazed side by side, the 10 life door has two columns of five panes of glass covering at least 3/4 of the door, the 121ite has three columns of four panes of glass just over half of the door. The board discussed the proposed 121ite compazed to the original approval which was requested as a l O life door. The applicant said that they were not able to find a 10 life door for a reasonable amount of money so put the 12 life in because it was close enough. In addition, the applicant modified the size of the original opening to a smaller size to fit the stock door that was purchased. This is specifically contrary to guideline number 7. The applicant states that the board should look at the reasonableness of requiring the new door to be replaced because of the expense already incurred for the 121ite door. Had the correct door been installed to the language of the approved certificate of appropriateness, the applicant would not be faced with an additional cost. The applicant did not make any effort to contact staff or come back to the boazd with their predicament. Suggestions would have been provide to help locate an appropriate door, or someone to construct one as has been done now. The board is not responsible for additional costs incurred by an applicant that doesn't follow the approval as granted. If they wanted something different they should have come back. 3. How does ~ change comply with the Historic District Guidelines? The proposed changes DO NOT comply with HARB Guideline 7 Historic District Guideline #7: The location, dimension and material of replacement windows, doors and openinQS shall be the same as the existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings. Existing (or preferably original) windows, doors and openings, including all components: sash, glass transoms sidel~hts lintels sills frames moldings, shutters, doors, steps, and hardware, shall be retained and repaired whenever possible. Design or material changes that are not consistent with the existing (or preferably originall window or door components and which appear on a~rimarv facade of a building, shall be prohibited, except as set forth below. A primary facade is the elevation(s) of the building, which directly faces a public street or public thoroughfare; a building may have more than one primary facade. A secondary facade is the elevation(s) of the building that is (are) seen from a distant public street or public thoroughfare and substantially blocked from view by another building (such as the rear elevation screened by a garage or a side elevation adjacent to another building). Replacement windows or doors, or their components, which are on a building's secondary facade, shall be consistent in style with the existing (or preferably original) materials, but may be composed of other materials. Consistent with guideline number one, replacement materials on either a primary or a secondary facade shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, profile, configuration and properties of the existing (or preferably original) material. Date of Original Approved Work: May 11, 2006- • to replace an existing l O lite door in kind ^ replace wood sashes where needed in kind ^ clean the building exterior and repair a damaged corner with materials in kind ^ repoint chimneys where needed with materials in kind ^ replace half round gutters with materials in kind ^ replace shake shingles with materials in kind. ^ replace the concrete ornaments on the top of brick piers with replicas made of material in kind. The applicant was approved fora 10 light door in kind (34" wood). It was replaced with smaller (321/x" wood) 12 light door, which violates two of the specifications of guideline number 7. 4. Opinion of HARB as to the appropriateness of the work proposed as it will preserve or destroy the historic aspect and nature of the district. The door that was installed is not consistent with the character of the building and looks distinctly out of place with the two other l O light, 34" wooden doors. The installed door is smaller in size and contains two additional lights from the old door removed. 5. SpeciSc recommendations of the HARB as to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. On a motion by Mary Fitts, second by Craig Doll, the HARB voted 2-2 (Craig Doll & Lee Scholl voted against) to recommend disapproval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. r 1~ ` ~ 3 ~~i- ... *~ ~~ ~~ `.i i ~~ i 6 9 F ~; ~ ' 3y y~, { ~ ~ ~ ' . it f ~, ,~i aii ~ ~~t ~ :s ~~t .w,.'~ -r ». ._ ,~-^ Ta Carlisle Borough Council From: Jeny Mock, Owner . Dates July 12, 2007 Re: 47 West Pomfret Street Thank you for your willingness to consider my appeal from the recommendation of the HARB that my Certificate of Appropriateness be disapproved. Please consider the following: • The original application was heard by HARB in Apri12006, and a Certificate was approved by Borough Council on May 11, 2006. The project was completed in mid-June 2006. • The Certificate states that permission was granted to "replace an existing 10 life door `in-kind'" • The original door was rotted beyond repair (direct exposure to weather and lade of maintenance) • The original cost of the currently installed replacement door is $690. Painting and hanging were an additional cost which was incorporated in the painter and carpenter contracts. The door frame was fined to accommodate the stock replacement door but the passageway/door opening remains at 32". There is no apparent zoning code violation. • The door supplier had originally tried "4 to 5 door companies trying to match the existing door. "There are no stock doors available that matched identically ... the door that was selected was the only option." The selection and decision to do so was made in good faith and consistent with the published guideline "Replacement doors, when approved by HARB, should match the original as closely as possible." Again, I attempted to replace the door "in-kind." It is wood, painted consistently with the entire building, and has virtually identical hardware installed. • Following the direction/suggestions of HARB, cost estimates were received from three suppliers and were solicited by Todd Zeigler of Advanced Sash & Door for an exact replacement. He supplied a drawing and spec for the quote. (Documentation attached.) o Coyle Lumber $1400.60 uncertain lead time o Rogue Valley Doors $1821.60 6 - 8 weeks lead time o Lemieux Doors $1625.12 6 - 8 weeks lead time • NOTE: HARB solicited a quote from Coyle Lumber (and confirmed by Coyle to us) that was received at $992.59 with a 4 '/Z - 6 month lead time. This quote does NOT match the pre- existing door exactly. • Additional costs to be considered: o Priming/Painting by project painter. $125 o Drilling, mounting hardware, hanging door by project carpenter. $150 - $200 • Please refer to the attached photographs which clearly show that the differences between the doors on the building are discreet and worthy of your approval. Please consider. 1. The project has been completed for over a year. 2. Our interpretation of "in-kind" on the Certificate is just that ... as close to original as possible while being prudent and reasonable. 3. We have expended more than $700 for the existing replacement door. 4. The cost for an identical custom made replacement door is exorbitant (> $1700) and unnecessary given the similarity to the original door and the likeness to other existing doors of the installed stock door. 5. At the prior HARB meeting, there was discussion that noted the original door "was not historic". It was also noted by a HARB member that the differences are not significant. The pictures validate this position. 6. The current door is not out of place in the setting or inconsistent with HARB Guidelines. 7. It is noteworthy that the last vote of HARB was 2 - 2. According to parliamentary procedure, a tie goes to the affirmative for the motion. The two votes AGAINST the motion to disapprove came from Lee Scholl (architect) and Craig Doll (Zoning Codes Officer) - both of whom have obvious expertise and valued opinions. I will greatly appreciate your positive consideration. • Page 2 .,. ~, .9 , ~- `~ x ~ o d ~ ~~ ~- ,~ i ~~~ July 18, 800? Cow~cil President Grell called the m~'t~g-to-ord€r" at 7:04 p.m. Councilor Saoott led the Momeat of $i~en~ce and Pledge of Allegiance. After roll cs~ll by the Secretary, the following members of Council were present: Grell, CeooonQllo, Heath, Heineman, Kronenberg, Rankin, Scott, Student Ambassador Diamond a y 3 Mayor WiLon. Also present were: Finance Director O'Neill, Parks aad R+ecxeation Director Crouse, Public Works Director Keiser, Police Chief Marg~eson, Fire Chief Kennedy, Solicitoz Sclwrpp and Secretary Armstrong. C18 TO BE HEARD: n Traverse Ontiona• Mr. Frank Trooaell, 2 West Penn Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania requested permission to tray e 1 on Carlisle's streets with his motorised wheelchair. Police Chief MargBeon suggested a meeting with the Carlisle Police Department. Mr. Tieoxell agreed. CONSENT AGENDA On a motkan by Councilor Scott and seconded by Coun+eilor Heineman, Council approved the Consent Agenda 7-0. A Public Hearing 06--14-07 (Alley Vacxition} Public H+sarin,g: 06-14-0? (CDBG) Council Meetcn8: 06.14-07 tic FspeRatitslns as of dwie 8q 10d-1: Genen:l 141u~nd ;830,160.08 Water Fund ;169,815.58 Sewer Fund ;803,939.85 Pla~rrkin8l~nd ;l x,737.76 Solid Waste Fund ;77,834.40 DARE Fund ;0.00 Self-Insur+wwe Fund ;19,855.08 Reeroation Ana Fee Fund ;0.00 Fort Ls?'ort Fund ;0.00 Highway Aid Fund ;D.00 1 None D. ,jam,. APProuad tht ~arllowi~ng ~rna• 1. A request by I'bul ~ Deb Jussel for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 815 W. Sc~c:th Street to rrepkux eadating downspouts in kind. 8. A request by Bonnie Martin for a Certi~cote of Appropria~Eeness act 136 W. High Stre' ~~ to install a aiac fr~ot wood privacy fence. 3. A request by Jason Nedrow for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 153 E. Pbmfre t to r~plaa ataedding seam roof with incre4eed pitch by one ~bot, aced repkwe standing sE ca m; replace basement doors, and side storm moor with uwod. ~. A request by Chester Scott fvr a Certificate of Appropriateness at 154 W. C1wpE .~ to remove flat rubber roof a~yatem and replarce with a 4/18 pitch asphalt shingle with r {',ge vent; install 4" ~ 8" blocks to bring walls up to carp height. The building is a ~ ra -n- contributing aeceasory atructu~. 6. A request by Bob Leonard on behalf of tlu Radeuelopment Authority fivr a Certifieaa a of Appropric#eRess of 89 S. East for a large scale i~nprotaec-ient p%~ect including rood.:. ~g, rot fu. fascia, window r+epiacements, porch railing-a. 8++ttera, d.oivnapouts, parping ~~ nd pointing consistent with the plan presentea- 6. A request by Terry Swans on behalf of Lydia Wainer fora Certificot- ~ of Appropriateness at 137 L~'. Pbmfret to replace windows on aide to a proper pat r, ern configur+o~ion using Anderson woodcvrsght replw;ements, odd wood Biding as needs ~i to fill in g~opa once old windows removed, and r~tace roofing in kind. 7. A request by Stephen Barg for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 16 N. Hanover j :> • a full scale faQaade reator~aition including doors and transoms, Anderson woodw~i,tht replacement cvindowa for the upper levels and a storefront consistent with the ~ r. an presenteat ~ A request by John Wain for a Certificate of Appropriateness of 157 S. West to repJc c ~ a Loon wood door with a wood 4 panel door, or a 8 over 1 wood or re-install the Luau r., wt was Cherie. 9 A nqueat by Dennis Gotthard for a Certifu~ate of Appropriacteness at 30 S. Hanove ~ for structural repairs at the rear of the building to stabilise wind secure the property. 2 10. A request by Lee Scholl on behalf of 3T Investors for a Certificate of Appropriatenea s of Il ? N. Hanover to inatali awnings and canopys as well as a new ramp at tlu lost :i ng dock consistent with the plan presented. 11. A request by Lee Scholl on behalf of Dave Zimmerman fora CertificotE of Appropriateness at 3436 N. Hanover to renovate the fa~ode including wins ~ rw replocencent, atarefront system, entrance, and doors consistent with the plan presentee ~. 1. Council appointed Mr. Michael Keiser as Interim Borough Manager retraactiv, ~ to June 15, 804?. Iw, C.nwuiu~aity Planni~N~a~r of Life Corrernittee.• 1. Council approved a requtst submitted by Hubert Gilroy on behalf of AMB Plop ~. ~y Corporation to extend by 93 days (until November 9, 8007) the deadline for recordin8 i he final land development plan. G lG!..,rt.~. f n..~..a~s..,.aP~?~~;.~. ~"a.•~i~atia.~ C-~~.~s3#~,~• 1. Council accepted the resignation of Mr. Mark Heeb from the Historic Architect~~r•ad Review Board (HARB) of fective immediately. 8. Council amended its June 14, 8007 approval of Mr. Richard Ocker to the Cary ~ :le Borough Sewer Authority whereby Mr. Oicker'a term is effective June 14, 800?and s• M:11 expire D~eexmber 31, 8011. (Original motion erroneously stated December 31, 8018 acs the expiration date). H ~ .~~.... +e • ., 1. Council approved the following staff and council positions os authorized b :s Kk signatories for the Borough's Orrstown Bank Regular Business Account, Money Mc :1:er Checking Account and (;antral D~epoait Account: Council President, Council ~ 'i ;e- Pr+eaidint, Borough Monoger/Interim Borough Manager, Assistant Manager/IntE r :m Assistant Manager, Director of l~'inance and Assistant I~li,nanoe Director. S. Council opprov!al the following Staff and council positions ass authorized signatories , or the Borough's Md~T Cemttery ?}ust Fund Acxount: Council President, Council ~'i:e- Pr+esident, Borough Manager/Interim Borough Manayger, Assistant Manager/InfE r im Assistant Manager, Director of I-cnance and Assistant Flinanoe Di.rector. 3. Council approved the following staff as authorised signatories for Carlisle Borou ~ h~'s Penna~-lvania Local Government Investment Trust (PLGIT} aweounts: Council Preaiai a wt, Council Vine-President, Borough Manogerllnterim Borough Manager, Director of Finanoa and Assistant I+~nance Director. 8 I. P_~ubiic 3afiet_y Caeainittee.• 1. Council authori~xed flee cloning of Courthouse Avenue and the first block of West F ~;h Street for flee August 3, 8007 'drat Flrida4y"and "Welcome Jarn 8007" events and ua t en any fees aasocia~Eed with said closures. The first block of Weat Ifigh Street shall c i se betaueen tha hours of 6:00 p.m. -9:30 p.m, in order to host the United Stolen Army F ~ ld Band'n "Vduntesrs". Courthouse Avenue shall be cloned at approadmately ADO p.r ~ - 9:30 p.m. in order to accommodate the "Volunteers"equipment/vehicle needs. 8. Counca outhorised the closure of W. High Stree= between Cotlega Street and Cherry Street on September 89, 8007 from ~ 30 p.m. - 7 00 p.m. for a Dickinson College Capi F, d Carnpay~n Celebration contingent upon submission of a Certi ficate of Insurance ream: ! g the Borough as an additional in8ured. 4 1. the following, Council voted 7-0 to table a request until August 9, 2007 by Jerr: ock ~ a Certlfi,Cate of Appropriateness at 47 West Pomfret Street that the installatlan of a 12-life door remain in place of the previously approved 10-lite door. (RaaldnlBcott) Mr. Daniel Mennitti, 617 South College Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania spoke on beht l' of Dr. Jerry Mock. Mr. Mennitti presented a memorandum to Couaoil regarding the historq of block's renovation at 4? West Pomfiret Street (copy attx~ed to these minutes). Dtu1vgcce took place regarding the front door, which according to Mack's contractor was impossible to repair and quite oost~y and timely to replace since the d o ~r supplier did not have ident~ica110-life doors in stock. Since the HAZE Csrt~ficate ata :E :d that permieaon was granted to "replace an ezisting 10-lite door in-load", Ms. Mock ~ t.d her contractor r+eplaaed the old deteriorated door with a door that they Felt matched ~ t .e original as closely as possible. Specific emphasis. and disausaion toot pleas on the de$taition of "in-kind", which according to Mr. Mennitti, means "similar to". Council was informed that the newl3- installed doer is wood, painted consistent with the remainder of the building and features identical hardware. Councilman Boon questioned Solicitor Schorpp on HARB's last vote, which was split : -2 Solicitor Schorpp explained that a split vote maintains a statue quo vote, which in tt i; cii+ctimstance means a negative vote. Councilman Heath esplained his personal relationship with the applicant, Ms. Mock According to Heath, his wife is retained by 11+Is. Mock as an independent contractor a ~~ d the firm that Mr. Heath is employed was retained for contractor services. Solicitor Schorpp inquired whether Mr. Heath had any ownership in said property a~ t i whether his compensation remains the same. After Mr. Heath responded that he had no ownership in the property he then prates i• ~d to comment on his respect for HAR,B and the di$icult situation before Council. Councilor Kronenberg remarted that those HARB members, who are experts in thei particular fields (i.e. architect and codes), voted in Mach's favor to allow the 12-life d o ~r replacement. Mr. Grell clarified that the original Certificate of Appropriateness stated a 10-lite do a r in-kind. Mr. Scott emphasised the need for Historic District owners to use HA.RB and staff a~ resources when renovating properties in Carlisle's Historic District. b Ma. Jerry Mock introduced herself to Council and the audience stating she had follo~ ; 3d the guidelines in good faith; it never occurred to her to go back to HARB about the 1: !- life door replacement. According to Mock, the 12-life door was replaced over a year a ; ~. Ma. Mods vraa not informed about the door until Ba~rough staff'visited the property o ~ take a photograph of the renovation (which according to Mock was being considered ~c r an award). In closing, Ms. Mock noted the definition of "in-kind" as "aimilac''. Councillor Rankin apologized to Ms. Mock and suggested that she may have been misguided Mr. Rankin asked whether HAR.B and Borough staff had worked to Beek H resolution. PlanninglZoning/Codes Manager Reiten replied. that estimates were sought from reputable, local individuala/artisans and provided to the contractor. The estimates w ~ ce noted as lower than those stated by the applicant. Mr. Heath clarified that the contractor had sought quotes from the door supplier. Th r 3e quotes far cuato~m made doors were received ranging from apprarimately $1,400 to $1,800. According to FIeath, HARB's specifications were not truly identical; thus, the reason for HARB'a lower prices. Mayor Wilaoa ezpreaeed the issue involves reasonableness. According to the Mayor, :I ~e applicant did everything in good faith. bleat Pomfret Street is taking on~a life of its c a'n and these types of issues discourage future growth. Ms. Mary Fitts, 131 East High Street, Carlisle stated she is a HARB member. According to Fitts, she 5elt personally attacked by the contractor and that the issue itself was quite disconcerting especially given the fact that Mr. Heath has a conflict ~ 4 interest. Mr. Grell earrected Me. Fitts stating the conflict of interest issue was addressed by t :~ 3 Borough 8oliccitor. Ms. Fitts stated that the applicant should have come back before HARB when a 10-1 t door could not be located. Me. Fitts also noted the door frame was altered, which is r ~: t permitted. The Old Neighborhoods League has offered $500 (fiv+e hundred. dollars) toward a new door. Mayor Wilson questioned whether Ma. Fitts was speaking on behalf of HARB or as s private citizen. Solicitor Schorpp darified that under the Sunshine Law any citizen/taspayer has the ; right to speak on any issue. Couna'I has the right to ask and determine how much weight to great to the epeakerrseue. Mr. Kronenberg revisited HARB's 2-2 split vote. Mr. Heineman asked Ms. Fitts if changing the entry 5rom a 10-lite to 12-life door changed the period, 6 Ms. Pitts replied she could not 8ay". Mr. Heineman then asked whether changing the entry from a 10-lite to 12-lite door changed the architecture. Ms. Fitts replied, pI would say not". Mr. Mennitti expressed disenchantment with the HARE process and inquired wheth there was a book of procedures. bolicitor Schorpp explained the information can be found in the Code of the Borough ~_ f Carlisle. Ms. Rsitsn added that when requested, she could provide a book of procedures. Mr. Rankin asked Borough staff if there was any way to resolve the issue. Ms. Reitsn replied that she was not in the position to make a policy decision but notE c . the Old Neighborhoods League's $800 monetary gift toward a new door. Ms. Mock noted that a new door plus mounting would coat approximately $1,280. Mr. Rankin noted his personal dilemma. Mr. Daniel Tedesco remarked on the Princeton, New Jersey Historic District and the is guidelines which essentially allow maiifications if the period or architecture does no change. Mr. Rankin naked Ms. Mock if she would agree to a 30 day extension. Ms. Mock explained that she has put $68,000 (sixty nine thousand dollars) into the renovation and is not interested inputting moace money into the project. She then agreed to defer for 30 days. It was at this time that Mr. Heath and Mr. Kroaenberg withdrew theiac original moti :~ z, which recommended Council approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 47 West Pomfret Street. Mr. Ranlrin subsequently made a motion to table the request until August 8, 2007; h :~ ~. Scott seconded the motion. 1. Council voted 7-0 to remove from the table a request from Dichunaon Township to allocate up to one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per day of sewer capacity to Dickinson Township for a combination of businese/rommercial, office, and industrial development in lands adjacent to and near the Borough's west end. (Bronenberg/Heineman) 7 After the following, Council voted 6-I, Councilor Scott dissenting, to approve a requee c from Dicitinsoa Township to allocate up to one hundred thousand (100,040) gallons p~ ~~ day of sewer capacity to Dlickiaaon Ta~vnship for a combination of buainess/commerci~ ,l, office, and industrial development is lands acyaoent to and near the Borough's west e ~ 3. (7~ankin/Cecoonello) Mr. Rankia remarked on the Chesapeake Bay irritiative and the Borough's NPDFS permit. Mr. Keiser stated that the capacity r~egquest would not affiect NPDES requirements relating to sewer upgrades. If Council apprmrea the capacity sale and Snd later that t Y a capacity is needed, the Agreement partners can be asked to sell 1~e capacity back to t ~ e Borough. Mr. Scott ezpraased concern with the economic impact of the capacity sale and how it relates to the warehouse and trucking problems in the area. Mr. Rankin $elt the risks were minimal and that the issue lends itself to municipal cooperativeness. Solicitor Schorpp noted his conflict of interest and therefore would not provide legal advice. Mr. Kaiser provided information on the process. Mr. Bob Livingatw~, Dickinson Towaahip, thanked Council and stated the Township's willingness to continue working together on regional initiatives. 2. Council voted ?-0- to remove from the table a request from the Carlisle Retired Police Offisoers As+eoeiatioa for a 2.b96 coat of living increase for 13 (thirteen) retired police of~aers. (Cecoo~lla/Kronenberg) After the following, Council voted b-2, Meath sad Kmnenberg dissenting, to deny a rsgvteat from the Carlisle Retired Police Officers A~aaociation for a coat of living incres e ~ for 13 (thirteen) retired police officers. (Cecxonello/Seott) Mg. Ceeconello explained that a Dopy of the actuary study had been delivered to the Association. Mr. Kenneth G~oasert, 1111 Franklin Street, Carlisle and a member of the Associatia :, noted the actuary's 5ndings but also explained hie pereoaal visit with retired Police Chief Giordano who requested Council's conenderation to provide the (:OLA. Mr. tea a rt noted that the program was first implemented by those officers now retired, who slat did not pay into Social Security. Finance Director O'Neill noted that extra o~-iea of the actuary report were available :c ~r inspection. The report states that the Police Pension Plan is under-funded by ~ 193,0(( ; the Borough's contribution will be $148,000 with a 14 year commitment. Mr. O'Neill 8 then provided iafarrmatioa on annual State aid amounts and th,e Borough's five-year smoothing method for its non-uniformed and police pension plans. Mr. Ronnie Nester, 6 Flagstone Drive, Carlisle and member of the Association, inquir ~ i whether the State aid monies went specifically into the police pension fund. bir. John O'Neill replied that the Borough's practice is to give sank fund (non-unifora c d and polu:e) their respective MMO allocation. Mr. C,lrell noted that an audit is performed every two years and that both funds were overfunded far years, which helped pay the Borough's yearly share. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the police now pay into Social Security. 3. Council oantinued tabling authorising the Borough Solicitor to dra& and advertise an anti-idling ordinance, which would limit the amount of time vehicle engines could idly within borough limits. 1. Council voted 7-0 to authorise Acting Borough Manager Keiser to develop an RFP fo: with Ciaafichi, Scholl and Ludwig Architects to analyse the Stuart Ccaanmunity Cent 3 c for the possible future locatvson of Borough Hall. Ia addition, Council voted 7-0 to authorise Acting Borough Manager Kaiser to obtain appraisal Ps'~ Proposals from qualified firms far the future appraisals of Borough Hall, b3 West South Street and ~ t.e Chapel Avenue Parking Lot. (Cecoonello/Soa-tt) B. Mavor's Ranort: None A. Cnity PLnninslQuslity of Li6e Cammlttes: 1. Council vote ?-0, by roll call vote, to approve an Ordinance (2075) to vacate an unopened alley situated off of Franklin Street between Trail 1 and Ttaot 2 of Tax Parcel 0&19-1643-392, owned by Mitchell S. (3elbaugh and Heather A. Barbour. (Soott/R,ankin) 2. Council voted ?-0 to approve modif cations bo previously approved 2004 and 2005 CI -: 3Qr budgets to reallocate $35,433.78 ($5,b00 and $29,833.73; respectively) for the progra m activity titled, "Rehabilitation: Historic Preservation: Commercial Facade Restoratic r ". (ScotitJRsnkin) 9 3. Council voted 7-0 to authorize the appointment of the Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County as Secondary Payee 5or the receipt of CDB(1 funds on behalf of t: ie Borough of Carlisle. Pursuant to the designation, the Redevelopment Authority mss request draw downs directly from HUD rather than muting them through the Boroi;E;h offaes. (8eottlRankin) 4. Council voted 7-0 to approve an agreement between the Rsdevel~ment Authority o:' Cumberland County and the Borough of Carlisle to permit the Authority to adminis :E ~r and execute the Borough's Fiscal Year 2007 Community Developm®nt Block Grant (CDBG) Program in aooorda,noe with all applicable 1~a1, state and federal Laws, ruff and regulati~s, as they may apply. (Boott/R~ankin) b. Council voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to approve an Ordinance (2078) amending the Cc d e of the Borough ~ Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance 2032 and thereat~er amended, witl respect to Chapter 28b, Zoning, to modi~r the coning ordinance to permit additional portable freestanding signs in the C-1 Central Business District and to modi$- parki r. g requirements for hotel, motel or bed and breakfast, and dwelling unites in said dish i~:t. (3cottlRsnlEin) The Mayor requested time to speak to the owners of Courthouse Commons regardin their concerns expressed during the eveningrs previous public hearing. 6. Council voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to approve an Ordinance (207'>~ to change the duration of time for sidewalk c~ and sales and display permits to one calendar yea (ScottlRaiilrin) 7. Council voted 7-0 to approve a Preliminary SubdivieyodLand Development Plan submitted by PennTerra Wiring, Inc. on behalf of S&A Homes, Inc. for Chesterl3teld Phases 2B, 3A, and b subject to the conditions proposed by staff and agreed to by the applicant with a signed copy attached to these minutes. (Scott/Ranl .i a) Representatives from FennTerra Engineering showed Council a schematic of the revisions proposed. They agreed to the conditions proposed by staff. 8. Council voted 8-0-2, Councilors Heineman and Beath abstaining due to coon9icte of interest, do approve a Final 9ubdivision/I.and Development Plan submitted by Breh~ n- I,ebo on behalf of Mooreland Mewe fior the conativation of 22 (twenty-two) single-fan .i ly, detaclud dwellings and associated site improvements (lt-S Traditional Residential District) subject to the conditions Proposed by staff and agreed to by the applicant w i1 h a signed copy attached to these minutes and providing the recording of the stormwa~ ~ r and easement maintenance is recorded and agreed to by the respective owners of Lo :~ 1 through 5. (Scott/Rankin) Solicitor Scharpp expressed eonoern if the owner's do not agree to be responsible for a. ie stormwater and easement maintenance for Lots lthrough 5. 9. Council voted ?-0 to approve a waive request by Steve Rhineamith on behalf of Carli ~: e Foods, Inc. subject to the conditions Proposed by staff and agreed to by the applicant with a signed copy attached to these minutes. (ScottlRankin) 10 In addition, Council voted 7-0 to approve a Final Land Development Plan submitted t y Stave Iihinesmith on behalf of Carlisle Foods, Inc. for the cronstruction of a 2,880 squ a re foal building addition (I-1 Light Industrial District). (Scott/R,anldn) 1. Council voted 6.0 to appa~int Mr. Brent Sailhamer to a partial term on the Carlisle Borough Municipal Authority. Term. will become effective immediately and shall exp i~ •e December 31, 20~. (HeinemanlCeooonello) Note: Mr. Rankin was unavoitable for th~ vote. 2. Council voted ?-0 to approve a contract with Hinton and Associates, Information Technology Consultants, to per6o:m an analysis of tl~e Borough's current informatioi technology infrastructure with tlm goal of ideati>`ying current and future in£ormatior technology demands Eor the next three to five years and evaluating the Borough's current leased line phone service at a total contract price not to exceed $7,875. (Heineman/Cecooaello) C. Fla~ym~ap~e: 1. Council voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to adopt an Ordinance 0078) amending the Codc if the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance #2032 and thereafter amended, with respect to Chapter 120, Fees, to establish discounts of ~b.00 per month &~r advance biannual payments in the East Lowther Street North Parking Lot sad the Liberty Avenue Parking Lot. (CecconellofKronenberg) 1. Council voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to approve an Ordinance (~79) amending the Cc c .e of the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance #2032 and thereafter amended, wit: i respect to Chapter 244, Vehicles and Traffic, to add one on-street handicap Parking space. (Hronenberg/Heineman) 2. After the following, Council voted 7-0 to table marking an existing crosswalk on Noy t h Hanover Street at Locust Avenue. (Kronenberg/Heaeman) Mr. Kmnenberg expressed concern $or remarking the crosswalk. Mr. Heath explained that the Redevelopment Authority would be in favor of remarking the crosswalk due to the new Farmer's Market. According to Heath, Mr. Culotta has requested the Borough to take the risk and remark the crosswalk. Mr. Kronenberg countered by stating there have been no accidents since the crosses ~: k markings were removed. Mr. Heath acknowledged the ea8ety issue however stated the Borough may have an obligation to create Safety for the Farmer's Market patrons. Mr. Rankin surmised that more pedestrian traffic will occur once lighting is enhanc :: i. l1 Mr. Heath requested tabling the matter to see how the Downtown Ianpravement District initiative is received by the public; one of DID's highest priorities is a traffi study. Student Ambassador Diamond recommended remarking the crosewallc. 3. Council voted ?-0, by roll call vote, to adopt an Ordinance (2080) authorizing an Interg~wernmental Cooperation Agreement for Special Fire Police Mutual Aid and Emer~cy Assistance between Cumberland County and the Borough of Carlisle. (Kronenberg/Rankin) NEW BUBINEl~: None BEPOItTS FROM COUNCII.: i. Ms. Rankin enjoyed reading the PP&L Savings Report authored by Acting Borough Mane-~er Keiser. 2. Ms. Ceocanallo asked that the downtown interest gmups/stakeholdere collectively p a together their Vision for the-downtown. 3. Mr. Heath thanked staff for their hard work during the pool's renovation. 4. Mr. Beath commented on the DID focus group meetings which have prioritized thei A concerns to marketing, traffic aad aesthetics. b. Mr. Grell thanked staff for their hard work. 8EFO8T8 F8OM STAFF: 1. Solicitor Schorpp noted that an ordinance will be required to amend the Local Servi ~~ 3s Ta~c to inooarporate changes made by the State Legislature. Council President (bell announced that Executive Sessions had taken place on June 19 and June 26, 2007 for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. ..2 D. Armstrong Borough Secretary (Seal) Donald E. (~rell Council President lS ~ ~ ~ dN_,~,,~ ,~hrMd'M~~e~eR'~ 10wdoArd ~~~rrr~ ~ ~~ 1o w~~ ~ ~,. r"W ~~r+i.~~. ~ ~~~~„~+,p~+ tr•~pi0~ ,,,red s+d `~co~ t ~- aP~' o N1~ ~ ~„ Ir ~n~'~b+~n"~ • ~. a~ • /ldd~lonal aoete b ba oorNidra~ o pthb+plpaY~p dy piojoQ paUdec it26 o t>dMtp,nlounYnptw+d~w~+a.henphpdoorbyprojeotaar~dM: =160-t~00 • PMaee n~Mr b tea aYaolMd ppMerraphe wMotr oMad~ Marw fhet t11~ ettbne~oea taebwen ttr daaw on h txiiq aw dko~atand woAy d your;p~aal. 1. Tha pojeE7ttNe t+aan aon;ifard lbrarara year. 2. Our kMNparbn d '1Ndnd' an tfie Cartt#oi k JuM fhet ... ss aio~ b aipMwl as poaebM MAia bell ptidrdand faaao~~etrM. 3. VMe daMe wipnded mow Mn i7i00 tqr h aidelnp wpYonnent door. 4. 11a oat for an idolMl0u1 aiMtxn node rapMoenr~t door t; a~Ollnt (> t;f7~00~ and uaNOalea~ awn fr ahity b t#r owl door and b• tlwnat b olnr ari~np doors dbr hMelad Moon door. S. /It ttn pb ti11RS eneel~q, tMw was dkourlon thet nor! Iho alanol door tieaa not iNtto~la'. R sas aieo nelad by a FWq~ rdonibrr tM tis dtl~wwse aw not abnlbant Ths pk~ase vsldllefhlspoewon. 6. Tha ounsnt door k not out d pka h 6te sMkq a hoowiMrd ~Mt MAIIB Qiddnea. 7. h k norwp~-1hM trio Mot vo4 d MIIAB was 2 - 2 llmobnp b Prey 0~, a r ~eae b fha a~nrlw tr ttr molon 1'!is f*o voles /YQAN~T h melon b dte~fpow oanw fpan L+aa 8oaol (ad~IMoQ and Qaea Dol t"Odes OAoer~ t~olhdwhorn tnvsabvta~saxpaAeaa~dvalwd~N. ~ wll paely appsdMs ~' t~s eonidaallon. •t~z t6 ~k: J~ ~S ~•~. ~*~! e 1 • i ^#- ;,~ ~i~~ ~ ~~~v~ ~qh ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~; dne iM~ ~~ °p' tar r+~'°rd~n0' ~ ~ p~~ dt ltts t~ ~ ~~~~,iD~~S ~~ p ~ {pr rte' ~ w °~ a~'~ `"~~~ ~"` ~"°~ ~"' c~ ~ s~ ~~, ~"~'r~` r cam, 5. ~ ~ ~~aa pN~iP~' iart- ego ~ ~ ~,. ~ .~ ~ d~ ~ ~'~. W ~I~y' " ~ ~ ~ 011 2 ~,ip~"' t' t~e+ ~nt+tM'~ ~ ~ gu ~ b~ o ~,~~cm, ~~ppa ~ can d ti. Punppnt b ~2Zd-Z5 Of YI! SYbdiMI~i01f aeK! Lrld Del~bpll~nt Ond~ , tl19 appNrfrrt shad add s t nols b ttre piss Thal ~ drMnaoe eassrrrent at e a is a Non-buld~bM a~ (ono +rt~e+M~.1V~no~ Pool. siwds~ elc.~ 10. P~pMrrt b ~ PribMc Wales 8PecSbatlorrs~ the appMcrant shM eerrroae two irsndicsp rsrmps: on tiro weer side d New GrMe at fire irrrsrssoMars of ~ iew ~'.~~ and Wirr©abn; as IMd~''ii the crre ioclid ~ ~ nertir aloe Of $U3faX DiUf al file M1Oft of BrlMerc and New t~adla. 11.Pursusrrt b >tre Cods at fire Borough d CadhMh the appliosr~t ahal anrrohsb 3 firs piNr that. aPProwl d This plan by ore of GarMsl~ corslrMbts~. no roprasentMtiorr or wrnrlnEy ~ tiro ~ptaePnp iM er~SbNifir d the ~roa for bsssmerrle a <xaMM apses a~ea~r an ~ k wieles to tdph pourrdw~bsr. My bs~trrrsnt a arawi sPaa msy eogs•rierroe fbotNrro. t2.PuAUSrit b ~edion Silo of the P+errrraylwenia Il~tiidpaltlisa Phnrri<r8 Gods ~rrK! 8aailon ~1 of the tovlydh~MbM.and OsvNaprewrt Ordinsnoe, the deMrl Baer hhM1 pest the tigtidd 1Ntr~oiM sser iPr aN new put~ic krrpraeenrenls sh c wn on the PMn and enNt Mrb an ~ a~nasanrrrt wldr the Mr a tone aoospVbis b the 8a~ptr SeMpllo' 11~r ~b NnPrarenregt aoreer lent ahaN tndude the coal of aN ngw~d ~! ~ Public ~rrls. f ardr an sprwrmsnt ~IaN tn~ ArrsrrdM sscutl~- 1br all unoorrri7lsrd p ~ ~fc impaMerrwrts. 13. Pursuant b f 2Z8,~4H d Mre 8ubditihiar and Land Oewloprnerrt a~nas iw ~olrnt sh~1 provide srd~tslo a4hl tenors and arssir of vNw fi+se t r xn Olr~ilOtbfM ahaN be p10Al~d ~ aN ~e of ahlMlf snd spays. M Uf10be11lri~d Yie1M aaoee ~ bir~ir wDrtlrsd ~ JoirM'ro poirrls of irMMSectrg cu0ires rrraaarxad sit last dlsdrrt abnp >tre oubMne lbown tlrs irrlaiaectb ~ of two a6aee4 acrd of 30 tyet dishnt along lire fhonr tfre infwreeotlon sF a stet and spry is rrquiAd. ~ siDNrrp irebw. I herebtr attaal that t hdnAa read the above and do urrdsralarrd and sa r=pt these oorr~tlons tier approwi oftheabova rrfierenoad plan. //> a s _. L ar~ ~a A ~~ Nams or s t9 ~ ~ovp z. ro ~~ wn~ ricr~ ~+ ao awl ~. ~~ ~,di 2. P ip ~r~ ~ ~ 2Z~1Ci ~ ~ ~" ate' ' on '~° ~' b '~' 8~` i 3. P ~ ~ CM~M~p~OI~~ M- • ~~ !MM-~ i . ~~~~yl~l M~~ ~~t-~ ~ k ~ ~~~• mo'd' .r+d .~'•~ ~ ~~~ p~ ~ ~ ab~ ~, do .- _ ~ ~ h . , "' ~d 1 •~ ,,, C „~Mts~D't fin. sue, Pub ~~ao~n+~~,,.~K. ~'~b'd' ~ , trre ~~ ~ ~• '~ ceoa"atRq. ~ ~ ~~re~ ~ dry' `~~e~r+ P+` to $~~, ~ ts~ tt~s ~"R'',~,,~. ~n 2 ~ std ~n,v ~ 8h u~ a~nt~°P'' ~ ~, 8 ' a~rM a ~y ~ ~ ~'°1'sa~M-'tl` ~ , die ~ ~ 'p-~e'' ~~ i mu an ~~;1~ boy f ~cr s ~;`+red l~ nom' ~ 't"' ~` ffi ~°"' ~~~ ~ pe~~ ~~~a,d~ ~~r ~~ s ---'"'~~ ~'p -f.~ or D~ ' Page 1 of 1 Ruben, AlyciA P. From: Reiten, Alycia P. 8fM: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:18 PM To: 'Don Grell' Sub]~ct: architectural info for doors 47 W. Pomfret At the Council meeting a question was posed to Mary Fitts about the architectural style of the door that was replaced compared to the one that was put in. She could not speak to a difference in styles and the impact on the architecture but I believe it is necessary to provide the answer. This is a commercial building, roughly 1900, of the French Provincial/Neoclassical style. The door that was removed was clearly a French door. Balance and symmetry are the ruling characteristics of this formal style. Doors and windows are symmetrical and perfectly balanced with glass used in abundance. The replacement door is of a much earlier period. It is a Federal style design. There would often be 12 very small panes because it was very difficult to make larger pieces of glass. Glass was still very expensive during this period so it was used sparingly. When computing the two styles we have multiple factors to consider. The rows of glass, size of panes, overall amount of glass and symmetry are all different. These are very distinctive differences which very clearly cannot be considered similar and therefore does alter the appearance of the overall architectural character. Please let me know if there is anything else. Alycia 12eiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager 53 W. South Street Carlisle, PA r7or3 ~p) 7r7`24o`6933 (~ 7rTz49'5587 7/24/2007 MINUTES BOROUQrH COUNCIL August 9, 2007 ~ Council President Grell called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. Councilor Grell led the Moment of Silence and Pledge of Allegiance. After roll call by the Secretary, the following members of Council were present: Grell, Cecconello, Heath, Heineman, Kronenberg, Scott, Student Ambassador Diamond and Mayc Y Wilson. Also present were: Acting Borough Manager Keiser, PlanninglZc~ning/Codes O~ice~ Reiten, Solicitor Schorpp and Secretary Armstrong. Note: Councilors Heineman and Kronenberg amved at 7:20 p.m.; Mayor Wilson arrived at 7:26 p.m. Ms. Vanessa Fiorentano, Downtown Carlisle Association Retail Coordinator, One East Higl Street, Carlisle, Fennsylvania introduced herself to the audience, ezplained her hiring and :: the High-I Partnership, and updated Council on her retail recruitment work and atrategieF over the past eia months, which included visiting 15 (fifteen) cities and over 160 (one hand .E d filly) businesses. Ms. Fiorentino provided a marketing brochure and a listing of current vac F nt downtaam properties. While reviewing the handout material, MS. Fiorentino indicated that North Hanover Street has been identified as a venue for antiques and arts. As such, an out . ~f- town gallery owner has been contacted who may be willing to curate a future show in Carli 3 e. Mx. Rusty Shank, Downtown Carlisle Association President, O~ East High Street, Carlisl Pennsylvania requested Council's oansaderation to amend the Code of the Borough of Carli:.] s with respect to zoning to permit specific additional temporary baaaers/signs. The amendm~ -: rt would Focus on comsaerciel designations' advertising of "grand openings" and "coming soon ;pis the use of banners. If approved, these banners would be in addition to the already permitte ~i temporary banners for commercial bweiaesse8 that promote particular functions or events. ~.s a board member of the Downtown Neighborhood Connection (Carlisle's Elm Street Prograr :.: , Mr. Shank also requested that in addition to the commercial banners, consideration be give ~~~ for use of Signs at Elm Street projects similar to the permitted exempt real estate or contra :tor signs. Informat~n on these particular signs would be limited to the Elm Street Facade Improvement Program funded by its Residential Reinvestment Grant (copy of Mr. Shank's request attached to these minutes). Council President Grell remarked on the restrictiveness of the Borough's current ordinance . Solicitor Schorpp asked whether the request was exclusive to the Elm Street Program and i' eo, Council was cautioned on discrimination of others. Mr. Grell stated that the ordinance would allow all businesses to utilize the signage. 1 Conaen8us of Council agreed to amend the Code of the Borough of Carlisle. Zoning Hearing Board Procedures: Mr. Ran Clipping, 3:51 West North Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania expressed concern over Carlisle Borough's last Zoning I~eariag Board Meetin ; . 8peafieally, the last meeting"a docket had eight (8) cases of which only two {2) cases were heard. Mr. Clippsnger asked whether the Law would permit advertising these meetings ae commencing on two su«;esaive days and times particuletrly when the docket is heavy. Council President Grell asked whetd~er the Zoning Hearing Board Mara the cases in the or~ ,~•:r received by Borough staff PLutningt'Loning/Codes Manager Reiten answered that the cases are normally taken in the order ra:eived unless an agenda change is agreed upon by all parties. Solicitor Schorpp explained that the law requires Zoning Hearing Board cases to be heard within 60 (sixty) days. Mr. 3ehorpp further explained that Council did not have the author ry to dictate how the Zoning Hearing Board, a quasi judicial board, should conduct rte Pgs• M8. Reiten added that future meetings may begin at 5:00 p.m, instead of 6:30 p.m., which should help when Dore is a simeabLs docket. Ii'urthermore, if the time i$ modi$ed, the meet t.gs will be advertised aocwrdingly. Mr. Clippinger questioned Council's decision to contract with t a e Par Group for the recruitment of a borough manager and the .associated of costs for said we r k. Councilman Heath replied that the contingency appropriation, which totals x30,000 {thirty thousand dollars), is all-inclusive. The Par Group will perform all necessary background ai c. reference checks, psy~ogical profiles, travel expenses, etc. Currently, the Borough is challenged to write the appropriate job description and the ability to advertise in all the necessary national journals for said position. The Borough anticipates receiving a significa: ~ ; response through the national ads. In closing, Mr. Heath eati~mated the position could be fi l:d within an eight {8} to twelve (12) week timeframe tlwaugh the use of a professional search firm. Mr. Heath then asked whether staff had received any applications. Secretary Armstrong replied that there had been several inquiries but no formal applicatic i~ s received. Acting Borough Manager Keiser concurred. Mr. Grell noted the Borough's past policy, which is to search nationally for senior level personnel. Council Vice-President Ceoconello commended the Borough's Search Committee. Z CONSENT AGENDA On a motion by Councilor Heineman and seconded by Councilor Cecooaello, Council appmv ~ i the Consent Agenda 6-0. A. Public Hearin,~• 07.18.07(CDBG Budget Modifications Public Hearing: 07-IS-OT (Zoning Amendment) Public Hearing: 071 -OT {Alley Vacation) Special Meeting: OT-1E-07 (Borough Hall Renovation) Council Meeting 07=18-07 R. Aa~,~,sad 1~ EZpend#urns ass ~ General Fund Water Fund Sewer F4~nd Pbrking Fund Solid Waste Fund DARE Fund Self-Insurance Fund lecreation Area Fee Fund Fort LeTort .F~nd Highway Aid Fund C. Att~ot~ Aoaroval~ ~f July 31, !0®7: x880,839.59 5181,198.83 x891,184.64 x85,130.49 x150, 539.00 x777.50 ,6,805.88 x0.00 xo.oo x0.00 1. Lab Supervisor David Runkle to attend PWEA Nutrient Removal Technology Confer ~ ace in Lancaster, Prennsyluania from September 5 through Sepkmber 6, 2007. 2. Public Works Field Operations' Crew Leaders Ron McClintock, James Reese and Joy Tobn aRd Supervisor Rodney Garner to attend Metrotech Water Leak Detection 1~aining Seminar in York, Plennsylvanra on September 12, 800?. 3 Planks and Recreation Director Crouse to attend a PA Department of Agriculture Cor and Category 24 Recertifuation Seminar in Grantville, PLncnsylvania on September : ~, 8007. D..F~.- Apprnved the follozaing itanss.• 3 1. A request by Pbud d~ Ikb Jussel for a Certificate of Appropriatenes8 at 815 W. South Street to repoint the front fagade with "?ype N" mortor. S. A request 6y Sally Bobb for a Certifiea~e of Appropriateness at 134 W. High Street to install odheaive window lettering on the storefront that says '?'he Clothesvine" in fad ~cg hues of green. 3 A request by PBri~cia Pend for a Certificate of Appropriateness art 38/34 W. Frimfret ~ ~^~et to modify the front facade subject to the plans presented. 4. A request by Grace Gross for a Certifioote of Appropriateness of 156 E. High Street tc enclose a rear porch using cement fiber booed }6r siding with Andersen Woodwright double hure,Q windows. ?fee proposal denies the installation of new viny siding on the first floor, but does permit the upper level existing vinyl to be replaced in kind, left a~ .s, or with cement fiber board; reploee the second floor windows with Anderson Woodwr ~!ht double hung and install the same type on the first floor. 5. A request by Barbara She+affer fora Certificate of Appropriateness at 132 S. Bedford Street to replace rotten wood with new cement fiber board siding and install a new uwoden screen door. 6 A request by Gloria and William White for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 148 E. High Street to disassemble the rear bowed brick wall and reassemble with new point ~~ using the original bricks. The atone wall will be repointed as well. The front of the he c •ae will have paneled shutters re-hung and the existting pooch will be removed, exposing ! he divided life windows which will be restored. A new stair to match to original (from photo) will then be reconsructed ojwood. 7. A request by Lee Scholl for a Certificate of Appropriateness of 54 S. Bedford Street fc - a full acok renovation including an addition r~eplareement to house an elevotor, windot replacement8, door replacements, and trim as needed using Windsor Legend Series windows, Axek trim, os well as gutters, downspouts and repairs throught the buildi~ 4 ~ as needed, in kind subject to the plan presented. 8. A request by Bob Cianfich for a Certificate of AppropriatenesB at 89-35 W. High Stre ~ to replace existing deteriorated wood windows on the second floor front facade and all second and third floor windows as visible, to be reploced with Windsor Legend Serie ~ in kind. The applicxint also. proposes to install a new 20"x30" Fj+pon louve in the rear gable to match the existing louver on the west gable. 9. A request by John Thompson for a Certifioate of Appropriateness at 189 S. Hanover ~~ replace rotten wood headers and 5" wood rosettes as needed with new wood to match ~ n size, p~sofile anal configuraction. 10. A request by Seth Allen for a Certificate of Appropriatenss at 119 E. High Street to demolish a deteriorated neon-contributing garage. 4 fIL! xr r i ;.+ r 1. Council approved a professional consultant Services contract with The Par Group for tlu recruitment of a borough manager and approve a ~O,000 (thirty thousand dollar) coxtit~,gsncy' appropriation froth, General ~d Reserves to pay for the recruitment contra :,~t, oduertisitt,g and interview costs of succesafui candidates. F. Fitne Ca~tntn~ttte: 1. Council approved a residential lease between the Borough of Carlisle ("~ondlord'~ atw David and Jody Kirk ("tenant's for the residence known as the Gatehouse situate in Thornwald Pork on Walnut Bottom Rood in the Borough of Carlisle. 1. Counal continued to table authorizing the Borough Solicitor to draft and advertise a ~- anti-idli~ ordinance, which would limit the amount of time vehicle engines could id E within borough limits. ,~ 2. Council voted &0 to remove from the table a request by Jerry Mock for a Certificate ::f Appropriateness at 4? West Pomfret Street that the installation of a 12-life door remain in place of the previously approved 10•lite door. (CecoonelloJHeineman) After the following, Council voted 3-2-1, by atoll call vote, Councilors Heineman and Krnnenberg diseeating, and Councilor Heath recusing himself from all discussion ai c. voting, to deny a request by Jerry Mock for a Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W : at Pomfret Street that the installation of a 12-life door remain in place of the previousl •~ approved 10-lite door. (Scott/Cecoonello) Mr. Grell noted that since the July 12, 2007 Council Meeting staff eacplored funding assistance to help pay for the replacement of Ma. Mock's existing 12-lite door. MoniE E are available through the Community Development Block Grant Program and also t F e Old Neighbarhoods League. Mr. Grell surmised that the funds would solve the pmb: e m with the current door's compliance without any scat to the property owner, Ms. Moc ~c . M$. Jerry Mock, 47 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, Fennaylvania appealed to Counci I. for approval of the existing 12-life door. According to Ms. Mock, the door should be con8idered "in kind" and a reasonable replacement for the deteriorated 10-lite door. Mock noted that there are currently eevera112-life doors installed within the Carlif :, community. Council was informed that the contractor did not alter the interior door opening during installation and therefore, the existing 12-life door should be viewer is an appropriate "in kind" replacement. Council was reminded of HAR,B's 2-2 split vo E ~. Ms. Reiten countered that the door is in violation of the Uniform Construction Code since the size of the door opening was reduced. Ms. Mock responded back that the Borough's code officer had found no code violatic n . Solicitor Schorpp questioned Rsiten whether the door (if replaced) will still be in violation of the UCC. Ms. Reiten replied that if replaced, the replacement door will be in compliance. Councilor Heineman asked for specifics on the code violation(8). Ms. Reiten responded that the door opening is currently in violation ae the Unifom Construction Code does not allow for a smaller door opening. 6 Mayor Wilson remarked that a Borough code employee found the door in oompliaace and questioned whether Reiten had visited the pr~erty and measured the door opening. Ms. Rsiten stated she had used the numbers previoua~y provided to make her determination. Solicitor 8chorpp explained that if Council should approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and the door remains in violation of the UCC, then the issue will g~ before the Zoning Hearing Board for resolution. Solicitor Schorpp clarified with Reiten whether the door's width and passageway we ~ ; the issue under the UCC. Ms. Reiten responded "yes 3. After tip following, Council continued to table marking an existing croeawalk on No ~~ ;h Hanover 6treet at Locust Avenue. Mr. Eric Kliaedinst representative for the new Carlisle Farmers Market, expressed concern Sor the issue's tabling. Councilor Scott cautioned Mr. Klinedinst that if prematurely removed from the tabl the issue may not have Council's support. Acting Borough Manager Keiser briefed the audience on the area and its history of pedestrian accidents along with information on the need to remove parking spaces i ~ order to meet PennDO'I's current requirements for marked crosswalks. Mr. Klinedinst reiterated hie opinion that the crosswalk be remarked for pedestriar safety and the opening of the Farmers Market. Mr. Grell assured Iflinedinst that Council was not attempting to delay action rather there are several outstanding projects that may impact the downtown such as the streetscape plan. Council wanted to be thorough in its review and action of the pro ect list including the crosswalk request. Ms. Ceooonello added that a traffic study is also on the proposed project list at a coF r, of approximately $60,000 {fifty thousand dollars) to $60,000 {sixty thousand dollars). Borough staff recently met with PennDOT officia]s to review a proposed traffic stuc ;~ . Downtowrn stakeholders have been salted to come together with a collective vision f :~ downtown. Mayor Wilson stated that since the removal of the emsswalk markings, no pedestri ~ i accidents have occurred. 7 A. Praaidant'a Benu~rt: 1. Council voted 7.0 to approve an agreement with the architectural firm, Cianfsrlu, Sc ~~ ~ll and Ludwig Architects, for design Services to analyze the Stuart Community Center F ~r the permanent location of the Borough's Municipal BuildiAgJadministrative offices. Additionally, Borough Council authorized appraisals of two Borough properties (Municipal Building and the Chapel Aveaue Parking Lot) by Diversified Appraisals Services. (Hei~man/Ceoconello) Mr. Grell ezplained that the agreement is merely a Study and action does not consti~ ~~te an approval to relocate Borough Hall to the Stuart Community Center. Mr. Keiser mentioned the community center's loss of revenue. Specificalis-, the eeeo: c. Boor had been leased for many years b-y the Capital Area Intermediate Unit (CATCH Unfortunately, the CAIU broke its lease, which resulted in a loss of appmzdmately x85,000 (eighty-five thousand dollars) in lease payments. None 1. Council vote 6-0.1, by mll call vote, Councilor Beath abstaining due to a conflict in interest, to approve an ordinance amending the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance 2032 and thereafter amended, with respect to Chapter 255, Zoning, to permit mid-rise stacked flats as a Use by Right in the C-3 General Commercial District, and to establish standards ~ such use. (Scott/Heineman) Mr. Christopher Rice, Martson 8; Associates Law Firm, 10 East High Street, Carlin E , Pennsylvania summarized the development plan, which is situated near Giant. Mr. Grell clarified that the amendment will apply to the entire C-3 Commercial District. 2. Council voted 6-0 to authorize the Council President to execute the appropriate loaf ~. documents to provide $70,000 (seventy thousand dollars) in 200? CDBG funds to Hanauer Street Senior Apartments, LP in order to refurbish and complete appro~amately 2,128 (two thousand one hundred twenty-eight) square feet of retail space at the property commonly referred to as the "Molly Pitcher Hotel" situated at :1- 15 South Hanover Street. (ScottJHeineman) Mr. Christopher Culotta, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County, 114 North Hanover Street, Carlitsle, Pennsylvatia explained ~ t e 8 need to complete the retail unit, which will lease for approximately ;12 (twelve dally M a) per square foot. Solicitor Schorpp noted that the loan is considered aNon-Recourse Promissory Note 3. After the following, Council voted 6-0 to approve a preliminary subdiviaioa/land development plan submitted by Gannett Fleming on behalf of Penn State University Zadckinson School of Law subject to the conditions presposed by staff and agreed to by t he applicant with a signed copy attached to these minutes. (Soatt/Heineman) Council also voted 6-0 to waive the recreation area fee and the requirement to subm: t a traffic study. (Scott/Heineman) Mr. Hubert Gilroy, Manson & Associates Law Firm, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania introduced Dickinson School of Law repreaeatatives. Mr. Gilroy explained that the plea had been approved by the Zoning Hearing Board with the variance unanimously granted. It was also noted that the original conditions were modified and the applicant agreed to the modiScation. 4. After the following, Council voted 6-0 to authorize the Council President to sign a Cooperation Agreement with the Redevel~ment Authority of the County of Cumberland (RACCO for the administration of a Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) Q~rant in the amount of ;28,004,040 (twenty-five million dollars) tc ~e used for renovations to the Carlisle campus of Penn State Dickinson School of Law situated at 180 South College Street, Carlierle subject to the Solicitor's satisfactory review and approval. (ScattJHeineman) Ia addit~n, Council voted 8-0 to authorize the Council President to sign an Indemnification ,Agreement with the Pennsylvania State University to indemnify a~ .~[ hold harmless the Borough of Carlisle from and against any and all liability of the Borough to reimburse the Commonwealth £or any ezpeaditures found by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be ineligible for the Pena State Dickinson Schoo ~. of Law Renovation Project subject to the Solicitor's satisfactory review and approval o said agreement. (Scott/Hei~man) Mr. Christopher Houston, Redevelopp-ent Authority of Cumberland County, 114 N~ ~~ th Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania briefed Council on the Grant's stipulations which require the municipality to enter into an agreement with the RACC. Solicitor Schorpp noted that he is currently reviewing the agreements. Dean McConnaughay, Penn State Dickinson School of Law, 180 South College Stre ~ :, Carlisle, Pennsylvania briefed Council on the donations received and the renovatio i a of Tri,ckett Hall. 5. Council voted 6-0 to direct the Borough Solicitor to draft and advertise an ordinanc .3 and schedule a public hearing on October 11, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. amending the Code c f the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance 2032 and thereaf~tter amended, with respect to Chapter 255, Zoning, to amend the definition of Community Services any I. ~~ Rescwroe Centers to include one or more community roams held open to the public o~ ~ a regular basis fnr conferences, programs, clinics and the like and may include administrative offices devoted to the use and at least tvrenty-$~ve (259G) percent of th habitable floor space shall be devoted to a community room or rooms and to permit t i ~a as a Use by Right within the INS Inetitutbonal District. (Soott/Heineman) Solicitor Sehorpp outlined the ordinance amendment. ;~ ~"'~ 1. Council voted &0 to authorize the Solicitor to draft and advertise an ordinance to incorporate changes made to the EMS tax by the State Legislature that are to take effect in 2008. (Cecconell,olKronenberg) C. F~tionJGitl_~n P~*ddoation Conumittae: 1. Council voted 6.0 to appoint Ma. Nancy George to a partial term on the Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB). Term becomes effective immediately and ahal . expire on December 31, 2010. (HeinemanlCeooonello) Ms. Janet Spahr, 1b0 West South Street, Carlisle, Penntylvania ezpressed concern with the Borough's selection process and questioned the rationale for selecting Ms. George aver other candidates such as Mr. I}aniel Carney. Councilman Heineman replied that he was not aware of Mr. Carney's interest. Secretary Armstrong interjected and apologized stating. Mr. Carney's letter was received and i8 currently filed in the "Candidate Bank Pile". Councilor Kmnenberg acknowledged Ms. George's longstanding in the Carlisle community. D. ~yhiic V orlcs Committee: 1. Council voted 6-0 to approve a request from Ms. Christine Hockenamith and Mr. a :~d Mrs. Michael Kutz to continue the joint use of their eaiating sanitary sewer aervicci for properties located at 42 and 44 West Willow Street, Carlisle. (Kronenberg/Heinem :~ n) NEW BUSINE&9: Nose REPOR'PS FROM COUNCIL: 1. Mr. Seas Diamond announced his return to class. 2. Mr. Scott expressed concern with M8. Spahr's statement and the public's possible perception that Council is "stacking" new appointees against other HARB membe:'e . 10 3. Mr. Krooenberg thanked Mr. Keiser for hie hard work as Acting Borough Manager. 4. Mr. Grell announced the Joint Township Meeting scheduled far ?:30 a.m. on Augus~ 10, 200'1 at Borough Hall. 5. Mr. Grell further announced that as executive session had taken place on July 12, 200? for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. 6. Ms. Cecconello reiterated the need for the community to Dome together with a collective vision for the downtown. 7. Mr. Heineman aommeaded Mr. Keiser and Ms. Armstrong for their work during th E interim period (without a borough manager). 8. Mr. Heath commented on the DID focus group meetings which have prioritised the: r concerns to marketing, traffic and aesthetics and added that Ma. F`iorentino'a posit` •: n as retail coordinator is a crit~al component of the DiD. Mayor Wilson stated that t t .e DCA may have to reconsider its mission and focus more on retail recruitment than downtown events. 9. Mr. Grell thanked staff for their hard work. $EPOSTB FROM l~AFF: 1. Mr. Keiser announced that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec r;. on had declared a drought watch therefore, the Bomugh of Carlisle has terminated it spray pool usage. Council President (lrell announced that Executive Sessions had taken place on June 19 an :l June ~, 2007 for the purpose of discussing personnel issues. There being no further business, the Council Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Donald E. Grell Council President 3 D. Armstrong Borough Secretary (Seal) 11 cox~t~rv~'~v~ei£uxrnu~rs a~or~r~v='rl.,uv,~rt~rr;~ 11778 RiC: PA $TA1'ld U~1~iIV6RSH'Y DIQDN60~NI SC~DtN, OF LAW ~ Camsit p~evar tin pez~faaty s~3vLioolfeod deye)opasent pi~m, ~yb~a t 1. Ptusasnt to ¢ 1fS-47F of the t~elkk Zoe Ordianot:, do spp~lipant shill provide ~ t e ooe'sset tear setback rstpinmart ~ tlw Zaains Data Table and tefisct the dtae of tie Zan n g Fiasriai Hard varhmoe. ~. Ptresuaos to ¢126-2QA(i~6. of the Subdi~bion and Lam! Dava)opa~t Oe~taoc~ k e appiiot~st shad oaouaot the 4 iach damesdc and 6 iaf fro watx service: to the i 1 inob wa e r maw an N. Colis~e 3teaat. 3. Pursuant to ¢216-ZQA(>hb. of ffis S~di~riCioa +md Lmd Develq+rnmst Ord~ae~oa nil • 4 e Botron~t's PsiHe Waela Spedlfo~iorts. the applioaot eMtl eb0*- ati ioestioee c f water aril eevnr liner for the ruasd dotsntlorite aril TtloiNt IiaN and ~ dre abaodor r 9 sanitary sevrar lisss at the property bettndsey aloes N. Coltya Sttwt. Abattdoesd ovabr In t s thil bs tstroiasted at the main. 4. Pursust-t tD the Watts~anx Atuhocity Tappias Foo Raehrtion, the tdnp petyvide .: e EDU calculWons to detamioa tin saaar tlpi>i fees dus to tie aew onmection to ~ ~~e saedtaey sewer mein. lie aental ooanaotia lbss wiH bs pttid prior tb t+aooedits tie fhtai pit r . S. Purwant m ¢ 126~2tiC of the SttbdEvrldos and I.sod Dswiopraait Oribtmos. the appiiaa t ~ provide a eohdon as the dtNd plse that the she stay ba aadsrh>iu wilt oaebooate ra i s (Iimsstooe and dolomNes) aad peoride as to tin petaotia! Ru sioldrohti, c ~~ 1, whsro a pondtid f6c siol~hoiss ~- t1a appdiant shas liurdsh iaFarmsdion r b spec i ~ 1 c~oaatettotion peoaudtrt+se that w}lil M tt~ b pravatl aobddaoe, 6. Pursasat b PttWit: Worb Speod~aaioae. tlta R+e dapatbneut oatmaction detail drawing sk s 1 be a 5" Starz typo camection. T. Ptsrsnsnt to 5aexioa 226.17 of the Sttbdivisiau and i.attd Devdop~aat Ordissuo~ the s~plicaot tdtali ptovids for the Hatottrit Solicltors r+cview. the deeds of oonwli~iott and then reoaed the dotarmaeb. By aisais~ blow, I hereby sstnt that I have nail tics abars and do wdertaaad and acxept thre aorrditioaa for approval of the above r+eHneetoed plea. S _A ,~7~~~- _, a s Rtpuesastatiw Date ~,~~scy 1.a,,~1 car~«~r ~ssT ~, ~oM~~/~s~r;.,~l riasr a[Applkant or s Rapasetttstiva 12 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Community Service" August 1U, "lUU7 Jerry Mock 47 W. Pomfret Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Certificate of Appropriateness at 47 W. Pomfret Dear Ms. Mock: Pursuant to the Historic District provisions of Article XVII of the Carlisle Zoning Ordinance, at its meeting on August 9, 2007, Borough Council did not approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the 121ite divided door in place of the previously approved 10 lite. As such you are required to remove the 121ite and replace it in a timely fashion. I previously supplied you with paperwork for grant funding that is available to offset the costs to you. In addition, the Old Neighborhood League is still offering $500 toward your project. I have contacted a number of contractors on behalf of the application, all of whom are ready and willing to submit bids and see the project through completion if they are chosen. The facade grant requires a minimum of three estimates. Each of these contractors will need to take measurements independently. If it is of any assistance, and I may have your permission, I will continue to work through the details and minimize your inconvenience as I do for all projects. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to move towards the next step. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. sincerely, Alycia Reiten Planning/Zoning/Codes Manager cc: HARB file 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 ~~~ Michael Keiser Interim Borough Manager 53 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 20 August 2007 Dear Mr. Keiser, As I prepare to fill out the grant forms and replace my door, I writing: 1. The reason(s) for denial of the Certificate of Appropri received a letter stating "Pursuant to the Historic District the Cazlisle Zoning Ordinance, at its meeting on August ! not approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the the previously approved 10 life." I want to know exac.~y 121ite door. -+~.. '7 ,ra ~R r~ t~ i ;.~ ~, , A1!G 2:~~ 2007 , , ~ ~ ~ s. f.. ,'iG ~. .. .. first like to know in iten~ss for the present door. I pz~visions of Article XVII of ~,~2007, Borough Council did 12 life divided door in place of what is inappropriate about the 2. The function of HARB. The voting record of each member of the Borough Council on all matters involving HARB. 3. The procedure I follow if I decide to go to the next step in this process. 4. Alicia Reiten's role on both HARB and the Borough Council. Although she is the Zoning Codes Officer, she is not on either board, yet she appeared to be on both. At the first HARB meeting, it was Ms Reite {who informed me of HARB's definition of "in kind". She is the person who prese ed me with the Facade Restoration Grant. And, at the last Borough Council meeting, ' seemed perfectly acceptable for Ms Reiten, one minute before the final vote, to ' rrectly accuse me of a "Codes Violation". I thank you for responding to ese questions. This has been a very disturbing experience forme as I am truly baffled b both the process and the results. Sincerely, Jerry F. Owner, West Po ' et Street BOROUGH OF CARLISLE "Committed To Excellence In Community Service" August 22, 2007 Jerry F. Mock 47 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Request for Information Concerning Carlisle Historic And Architectural Review Board/Certificate of Appropriateness For Property at 47 W. Pomfret Street Dear Ms. Mock: This letter is in response to your August 20, 2007 letter requesting information pertaining to the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for your door on your property at 47 W. Pomfret Street. Although your letter of August 20, 2007 does not so state, it appears that you are requesting certain documents under the Pennsylvania Open Records Act. I will respond to your numbered paragraphs accordingly. 1. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness was founded upon the written report from the HARB to Borough Council. I have attached a copy of that report for your information. 2. The function of the HARB is set forth in Article XXI in Chapter 255 [Zoning] of the Cock of the Borough of Carlisle. A complete copy of the Article is attached. The Borough does not posses a document which compiles the voting record of members of Council. Your request is very broad and as such, I must deny your request for the voting record of members of Borough Council on HARB matters. 3. Under the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law, you have the right to appeal the decision of Borough Council to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County within 30 days of the date of the decision. 4. Alycia Reiten is the Carlisle staff member assigned as liaison to both the HARB and Borough Council on Historic District matters. Her role is to present to both bodies, the factual background of actions taken by her department and the reasons for those actions. She is not a member of the HARB or the Borough Council and has no vote on those matters. I regret that your application did not receive the approval you sought. However, I trust that I have appropriately responded to your inquiries. Sincerely, Michael T. iser, P.E. Interim Borough Manager/Public Works Director MTK/lh 0822.1 cc: Property File 53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. (717) 249-4422 CERTIFICATIC)~l'lA.TTE~TATION I, Swsan D. Armstrong, Borough Secretary of the Borough of Carlisle do hereby certify and attest that the attached is a true and correct Dopy of the following meeting minutes: • Carlisle Borough Council Meeting of Devembex 12, 200.2, which were approved by Carlisle Borough Council on January 9, 2!003. assn D. Armstrong Borough Secretary September 20, 2007 ~~~) 2' ': ~~~~ CARLISLE BOROt1t~rH COUNCII. MEETING Det;ember 1S, ~OOZ Predidient P'i+ebtztan called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m, Councilor Giordano 1sd the invocatixm and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. After roll call b9 the Secretary, the Iollawing members of Couacii were present: Ferman, Gossert, Giordano, Heineman, Kronenberg, Rasl~in, Swtt, and Student Ambassador tlrant. Also pr+srent were: Manager Bean, Assistaat.l4lanaRer Moonis, Finance Director Graham, Parka aad Recreation Director Crouse, Public Woks Director Keiser, PlanainglZoning-/Codea Manager Womack, Solicitor Schorpp, Police Chief Margeson, and Secretary Armstrru~. CONSENT AGRNDA On a motion by Councilor Kronenberg, second by Councilor GiordanA, Council voted 7.0 to approve the Consent Agenda. ,'~~ - Historic District Guideline Committee Meeting of Qctober 30, 84QS - l~nanae Committee Heating of November 1t, SOOS-O~stside A,aenciea - Public Heoring of November 14, 8o0S-parry Street Yoeatiot - Council Meeting of November 14, 5008 - Flircarcce Committee Meatirig of November 18,19, 80, 8008-Budget Haoringa R Anetr+oval of Della and Investment 1'i~anaaationa E~gpendltr~rea oa o,~Nova~nber 80, t008 General F1~nd ,~681~ 158.69 Water F}~nd SIS7,D69 49 Seiner Fund ,f188,891.76 Aarrki»gFiind ;14,317.98 DARIs Fiend ;138.38 Sel,~-Inaur+a~nce ~Cnd ,~1, 56717 litecreation Areo Fee Frond ;0.00 Fort LeTort Ftcnd ;0.00 xighw~o~-Aid Fr~ncl ao.ov c. 1. Code Enforcement OJjioers Michael Landis and RaEy Allen to ofteraai ~idsntial Ensrgy- Inspector/Plaara E~caminer Certiftco~tion training and leafing in Hc:rriairurg, Pennsylvania from January 9-Januay Il, SiD08. 8. Approval for an obi) to attend the P1~ysiool Aerforma~neae Stoneatards fir Law Eirfareen~t Seminar in Leas Vegan, Nev+aata from January 88 - Januay p8, 81008. Attend.se(a} will bt aeleettai cut s+ehadute cmd acxrila~bility erittria D. AppN-vat ojthe following: 1. A request by Dr» dahn Bombaro for a Certiheote of A,pprnpriatanase of 8U1 S. CAtT~e Street to irwtall we appmximately 88 inehew wide by 8S inche~r dus+ap~y (u+aod facsimile}sign on a new woodan sign poet to Hu=tch the t~aati~- sign pwt fsr+~ject to a varieanee by the Zoning Hearing Board), or o an:aller of the sane ~xaMsrials not to eaa~d two square text which eaomptiea with Zoning C-rdi~tanoe raquiras:entee. T1`s has black lettering on a white baclk8raund and reads: "'?he John Naevton Inkrno#ional Center for Christian Studiex, Af f 'die=ted with the Cowper c~ Newton Museum in Olnq-, England,"and includ~ts the hawse nwnber. 8. A request by 2~mothy D. Liraely for a Certificate of Appre~priatentas at 166E. Pboefr+et Seroet to enclose a aeaond floor porch on the rear of the property with cinder blocks to match the /crst floor 1840'e addition and to install 4 wood window on the south elavo#orc to match the e~ciatratg ant ovtr one porch window. The new block wow will be painted to match the existing black uxill. 3. A request ?~mothy D. Lie~ely for a C.ertificote of Apprnprioteness of 178 W. Pbnefht Stroet to.• ~ Rtmove inaulbrick jrom the west elevation of the middle seetioh of the property and More the original wood siding underneath. Should this aiding 6t defedivt applicant wi11 replace the sieiin,g with Hardil'Ia~nkO tap siding to r+eaalreble the existing wood siding. On the same elevation, remove the center top window and add one additional lower wood ruindow to match the existing tower window. Reptax other existing windows with wood replacement winelows of the same style and configurotwn. - Remove the siding from the rtar upper pardon of the wear eltvotiat and ~+eptaex with HardiPlankC tap siding to match the niiddte section wood siding or nptoc~ed siding. Restore the lower brick wall and replace the ecaisting ruindow with o siz over slat wood window. Y Replace the upper floor rear door on the east elevation with a nine light door sad replace aU windows with six over a:z woe~d windows to match the existing 4. A request by ?bm Orluaky for a Certifioa~te of Appropriatemesa of SS S. Pitt Street to replace windows on three sides of a rear porch with vinyl clad casement windocus to match the original windows destroyed in a recent fire. 2 5. A r~ueat by Lee Scholl repr~essnting g1"Inveatora for a Certi,~warte of Appro~ioteneas ©t 4&56 W. Fligh Street (the Cenknary Building anai arc~aoant tot) far the deto:rli and eleua~tion plena provided with the joltowing modiona: ~ On the west ekuartion, neptoex existing double window on the lower floor with a atngle window with the top tr®atment to match the aristing lower floor wiuclo~ws. ~ On the west elevation, eliminate the singlt aide light and canter the door. Applieartt wilt continue to explore options to maintvin the a:+chiteo;ural feature of this entr~rwgy door, transom and parnpet while making the entrance compatible with building code access requirements. i For the new eonatruction (Hy~h 3trbet elae~r>sona}, madifj~ wi~ndcw~a to be raa~rowe~~ and lonrgtr and remove the shutters to melee #ham more compatible wick Gnlsnary+ building wwaaTows; explore options for additional windows to the new addition aa~jacent to the theater. ~ For both near additions, reduce the numbsr of pones on all windows to either two over one or one over one. 6. A r+squsst by Lea Scholi representing Hometown Ikuelopment Corporation for o ~'~ of AppnQprioteness at 1 ¢SO N. Horwver Street (the woolwarth lkaild~ f w' tke details send elevation plain provided E. .I. Reappoint Allen Loomis to o second full krm on the Carlisle Borough lllrunicipal Authority Board. Term will arpire I,~etaember 31, 8007. S. Reappoint Jef f Berg jamin to a f rst f all term on the Zoning Hearing Booed. T ~-m will er,pire December 81, 8007. F: 1. Authorise a contingency appropriation (;YB,St?0) from the Self•Ineuronce Ftcnd to caner expenditures that occurrod in 8005 era a result of insurance claims and/or accidents. 8. A,~prov~e a Resolution (18-18-OS Ol) to require employees working for employers within the Borough of Carlisle to complete a Certifccate of Residence (COR) when starting a new job or having a name and/or address chan,~e after December 31, 8008 3 1. On September 12, 2002, Council tabled a request by Carlisle Area OIC Soy one (1) fifteen-minute parking meter in feoat of Carlisle Area OIC. 2. On October 10, 2002, Council tabled the adoption of an Ordinance an~nding the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance lb?B, and thereafter amonded, with respect to Chapter ~, Zoning, to provide elariRiCation oa requirements for setbacks from residential. property and di~ricts and bo continue the objective of compatible land roses across municipal boundaries. 3. Council voted ?-0 to remove a tabled request by J. Kenasth Warner £air a CertiB:cat$ of Appropriateness at 119 3. East Street. Applicant repLced an ezisting wood and single glass pane door with a metal, six-panel door (top two panel containing glass). Issue was originally tabliwdd on October 10, 2002 in order to allow ample time for the appli~eant (Barney) and HARB to agree upon installment of as appropriate, HARB-reoomzaended door. Qoseert/Iieineman Coun+cii voted 7A to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness request by J. Kenneth Warner at 119 S. East Street. Applicant repLced a non-cs~ormnS metal, siz-panel door (top two panels containing glees) with an appropriate, HAR$-recommended door. GoesertlKronenberg Councilor Scott thanked HARB and Mr. Berner for their diligence in resolving the door dilemma. - A. Pt+esident's Report 1~ Auer the fallowing remarks, Council voted ?-0 to apprnve and adopt a revised set of Historic District Guidelines with the addition of the sW~geeted, reoomamnded revised languago to Guideline #4 and Guideline #?. (Copy of revised guidelines attached to these minutes) Kronenberg/Goseert Mr. Fishman e~plaiaed that (ludeline #Te tezt "public thoroughfare" would be changed to "public way", which would be consistent with the terminology used in other sections of the Borough's ordinances. Ma. Ellen Hughes, 160 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, requested that Council malts a distinction between aluminum/vinyl replacement over stone or brick compared to wooden buildings. It was suggested that language regarding wooden buildings be eliminated from Guideline #4. Mr. Fishman concurred with the request. 4 2. Council voted 7-0 to approve the 2008 Council meeting schedule, maintaining the second Thursday of eacia month, with the M~- 2003 meeting scheduled t4 begin at 8:00 p.m. $ronenberg/Heiaeman A preliatinaty reoommeadation w-ae made to hold the April Council meeting on the first Thursday, due to Manager Bean's scheduling conflict. Mr. Kronenberg requested that Assistant Manager Moonis replace Mr. Bean duri~tg bis acdzeduled absence i+n Apri12003. S. Council voted ?-0, by roll call vote; to adopt an Ordinance (1976) to eztend the term of Com~cast Cable Communications, Inc., Franchise Term until June ~, 200ii. ScottJHeineman B. Mayor's Report E;,~1~ A 1. Alter the follavviag briefing, Council voted 7.0 to sutlmrirs the Council Pre~tdsnt and Borough Secretary, to e~cecute a Mortgage Sub~dinatian A6rsement, aoeep#able to the Borough Solicitor, to subordinate the mortgage held upon the premises at 14 20 North Hsu~over Street, Carlisle, in the orsginsl principle amount of ~I70,IXKl.O(1, to a mortgage fmm a private lender in an amount sot Eo ex~xed $800,Ot1p.00 at a variable interest rate (initially 6.6096), with an amortisation schedule not to exceed 25 years, and further to subordinate the Carlisle Area Economic Development Corporation loan in the original amount of ~t78,000.00, at a variable interest rate (initially 3.816) with an amortisation schedule not tQ ezoeed 16 years. Kronenberg~Rieineman 11~r. Chris {lulotta, Director ~ the Redevelopment Authority of Cumberl~ Coun1T, briet~ed Council on the permanent financing subordination. Council was inEo~rmed that the project's oonstructaion phase would proceed is dannary 2008. It was pointed out that the interest rates stated would be variable rst~, with crate-bck placed on the permanent SnanGing for three (8) years. In addition, the CALDC interest rate (8096 of prime) and (8.896 initially) could be adjusted o~a a monthly bs~sis. 2. Alter the following remark, Council voted 7-0 to approve a final aubdivisic-n/land develc~ment plan submitted by J. Michael Brill 8c Associat+®s, Ise., on behalf of B.T. Group, to construct a nine thousand one hundred seventy-five (8,17b) square foot electrical supplies retail afore and associated service area, along with associated parl~ing and public improvement at the southwest intersection of Rinser Highway (SR 11} and Meadow Boulevard {R-2 Medium Density Residential Di~triot}; subject to a cry of signed conditions (attached to these minutes). Kronenberg/Heineman 6 Mr.l~imothrj- Diehl, J. Michael Brill do Associates, Inc. Representative, remarked that his company agreed to all conditions. Mr. Iivenuaeth Womack, PlanniaglZoning/Codes Manager, concurred raoeipt of the e~ned conditions. 3. Council voted ?-0 to waive a preliminary plan, submitted by Brehm-Lebo Engineering, Inc., submitted on behalf of Dennis A. Knaub, liar a Srtal subdivision plan for the tract of land identified as b18~b26 South Hanawsr Street (C-4 Neighborhood Commercial I}istrictlR-2 Medium Density Res~identiai bistrict). Kronenberg/Heineman Council fitirtlser voted 7.0 to approve a request, submitted by Brehm-Lebo B,ngineering, Inc., submitted on behslf of Dennis A- Knaub, a fi~ subdivieiset plan for the tract of land identified ss b19~b28 South Hanover Street (G4 Neighborhood Commercial Dstarict/R-2 Medium Deaszty Residential Di,strict}; subject to signed conditions (attached to these minutes). K.ronenberg/Heineman 4. After the following comments, Council voted 6.0.1, Councilor Fishman abstaining due to a conSiat in interest, to grant an extension of time far final rseolutinn of the Opus preliminary land developmentJsubdivision plan as requested by the developer, Opus, Inc. Kronenbsrg/Heineman Councilor Kronenberg commented that the Borough has eonsietently granted tints extea~on requests eimiLtr in nature to Opus, Inc. Furthermore, the said extension would be granted through February 20, 2005. Mr. Bill Barker, Member of the Association for Coacerrmd Citiae~ of West Penneboro Township, addressed Council on the Opus East time extension request. Solicitor Sehorpp interjected that due to the absence of 4pua reprseentatives, Mr. Barker's comments would need to be for the sole purpose of the said request and not the subdivision plan's merits. Mr. Barker was further informed that should Council decline Opus' request for an extension, then comments could be made on the plan's merits. Mr. Barker oancurred and informed Council on the association's opposition to the time extension request. Mr. Barker stated that under Carlisle's Qrdinanoe Section 26b-228, Orpus gave no rationale for said extension request aid that the special exception clause would be considered null. Furthermore, Council was asked to consider the health, safety and welfare of the oammunity; specifically, referring to Article Z, Section 226.2. Mr. Barker appealed for the requirement of environmental and traffic studies relative to the proposed plan. Councilor (3ossert interjected that it had been past practice for Borough Council to grant extension of time requests. Furthermore, the Borough's engineering staff was competent in researching environmental concerns and traffic situations. Mr. Gossert further stated that Mr. Barker, and the association, should voice their coaeerne at the appropriate time. 6 Mr. Barker explained the necessity for the asaocdation to have said concerns made part of the record due to Opus' past and present absence. Councilor Kronenberg interjected that Borough Council would address both Opus' and the association's concerns at the proper time. Councilor t3~ia~rdano asked the .Borough 3oliGitor to clari$- the extetu~n of time request and whether Council had the legal authority to extend. Solicitor 9chospp eapLsined that Borough Council had the diuecretion to grant the extension of time or decline. If declined, then Mr. Barker would be ~r1e to addra•s the plan's merits. If Council approved the extension of time, then any discussion on the plan's amrits should be postponed. Furthermore, t~ 9tl-day time period placed on Borough Council by the Legislature was for the purpose of not delaying and considering a developer's plan. When a devw~loper conies begaae Cowwil, requesting an extension of the 9E)-day time period, then Borough Council ie obligated to "deal in good faith' with the developer, aoneequently, grantingldaclining the eate~ion and dealing in good faith. Councilor PSahman asked far any further comments and received no rasponae. 1. Council voted 7-0 to adopt a Resolution (12.12.02.02) to reduce member oontributioas to the Borough of Carlisle Police Pension Plan from the p Ant 600 contribution rate of b% to 1% for the period of January 1, 2008 to December 81, 2003. Heineman/(3ossert 2. Council voted ?-0 to adopt a Resolution (12-12.02-03) suthori~ing the personnel complement $or 2003. Heineman/Goseert Manager Bean remarked that the Borough was operating under the same number of employees as in 1989. 8. Council voted 7-0 to adopt a Resolution (12-12.02.04) that would est specific guidelines of employment for Police Officers who are not members o[ the Police Bargaining Unit (Police Chief and two Lieutenants). Heineman/t3ossert C. ; 1. Council voted ?-0 to appro~v~e the 2003 Budget Resolution (12-12-02-0~. R~snlrin/Giordano 2. Council voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to adopt the 200$ millage rate Ordinance (I877), that set the real estate Property millage rate at 2.Sb mills for fiscal year 2008. Rsnkin/Giordano Mr. Fishman remarked that the millage rate increase would cost the average homeowner as additional $29.00 per year. This figure was ba$ed on an avoerag~e valued home of $100,000. 7 3. Council voted ?-0, by roll call vote, to adopt an Ordinance (1878), amending the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, sdopted by Os+diaanve ~t16?6, and thereaffier amended, with respect to chapter 187. Sewers, to pmvide for modifications in the charges under the metered rate schedule. R,anisin/(~iordano Mr. Bean aasameabed that the sewer rate table would be modi$ed and aubasquently, large users would see substantial increases in their sewer bills under the newsy adopted Ordinance; whereas, low users would be slightly impacted. 4. Council voted ?-0, by roil call vote, to adopt an Ordinance (i9?9), amending fire Code of the Borough of Carlisle, adopted by Ordinance #lbZ6, and therealDer amended, with respect ~ chapter 2b 1, water, to provide as mass in monthl~- charges. RaahinKliordano Mr. Bean orated that water rates had been law cad the increase adjustment was necessitated by Federal and State clean water regulations. 6. Council voted 7-0 to adapt a Resolution (12-12-02-06) which set in place the structure to compensate all non-uni8ona full time and permanent part time employees, aging with the Chief of Police and two Lieutenants of the Carlisle Police Force. R,antCin/Giardano Mr. RaniCin clariS~ed that the ealary/wage compensation increase would be one-half percent (.896} general component increase, o~ and one-quarter percent (1.2b%) grip component increase, and one and one-quarter percent (1.2b96) individual merit component increase. 6. Council voted 7-0 to approve the 2008 Non-uni£o~rmed Part-time Salary Resolution (12-12-02-0?), ~eetablishing oompensati+on in tb~e form of ealari~es a~ wages £ar all ten-uniformed part time salaried Borough employees. R,anlanKiieordano 7. Council voted 7-0 to draft and advertise as Ordinance, amending the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, (Chapters 244 and 124), with respect to fps for parlan~ violations, sidewallr/curb permits, and final water/sewer bills. Ranlcia/Qiardano 8. Council voted ?-0 to approve a Resolution (12-12-02-08) which would adjust swimming pool fees. RankinlGiordano D, p~d~und.8~: 1. Council voted ?-0 to endorse a grant application 5ram the LeTort Authority to DCNR, which will improve the water quality of the LeTort Stream. Soott/Ranl~in E. Public Safety 1. Council voted ?-0 to direct the Solicitor to draft and advertise an Ordinance to eater into as Intergrnrernmental Cooperation Agieemeat with Cumberland County for the purchase of 800 MHz Radio Equipment. Gossertl!{ronenberg 8 Mr. (3ossert inquired whether a timeline had been established fbr the equipment's implementation. Assistant Manager Moonis replied that no timeline had been given, and that the Borough's goal would be to install a~ implement when the County was fully aperational. 2. Councdl voted 7-0, by roll call vote, to approve an Ordinance (1980), amending the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, adopted. by Ordinance X1676, and tleeseafler amended, with reaped to Chapter 244, Vehicles and Tre~lflc, to provide a new handicapped parking apace at 116 Went Penn Ste+eet. Goseert/Sronsnbsrg 3. Council voted 7-0 to adopt a Resolution {12-12-02-08) authori~ the selection, aondsmnation and appropriation of four (4) small, irregular tracts ~ land owned bg Pennsylvania Lines LZJC (Norfolk: Southern liailroad), which surround the former "Chilton" Property on Lincoln Stc~eet, for nee in vonjunction with the Borough's new police facility at that location. GossertJKronenberg 4. After the following summarization, Council voted 6-0-1, Coun~eiloor Scott abstaining due to a conflict of interest, to approve a request by (:eurlisk Theatre for the closure of the first block of W. high Street from Pitt Street to Fiaaover Street from 12:00 noon on May 10, 2008 until 1:00. am on May 11, 2005 in ordeir to hold a gala ball event. Approval is subject to completion and receipt of oerti8ae-te of liability insurancx form and all other pertinent information regarding said request. (leossertlKronenberg Mr. Jimmie George, 162 "A" Street, Carlisle thanked Borough Counc0 far their previous support of the Carlisle Theatre. Mr. George introduced E.S. ~eitsel, Chairperson of the Carlisle Theatre Qrala Committee. Ma. Weitsel summarised the event and the rationale fpr the fundraising effort. Funds acquired would be used for marquee repair and theatre sound impra~vement. Borough Council was informed on the event's schedule. In addition, the (lal+a Ball would pay all coats incurred Sor street closure. (Copy of letter of request and special event application attached to these minutes). F. Puddic Works: 1. Council voted 7.0 to award a contract to U.S. Filter/Stranoo, Inc. for the purchase of a High Resolution Chorine Controller System for the automatic control of chlorine at the Wastewater Treatment Facility. (liordano/3cott 2. Council voted 7-0, b3' roll call vote, to adopt an Ordinance (1881) amending the approved 1889 Drought Contingency Plan for Carlisle Borough. {liordaacJ3cbtt Mr. Been ezplaizied that the State of Pennsyh-ania had requested that municipalities update their respective drought plena. Mr. Gossert inquired whether the Borough of Carlisle was currentlvy consadersd to be in a drought emergency. 9 Mr. Keiser replied that the water table was still considered to be "below normal". 2. Mr. Bean proposed that the Community Pianning/Qualitp of I.i~'e Committee meet with the Planning Coxnmisaion in January 2008 to review the ~oniug Ordinance. Subsequently, the Planning Commission would meet in Febnury 8008 to review the Ordinance; with Borough Council ultimately approving in March BOOB. 1. President PSahman aanounoed that an eascutive session had tal~ea plane at 6:00 p.m. ~ the purpose of discussing personnel smilrtigation math. with no further action taldan. Furthermore, Borough Council would adjourn to e®ecutive session sitar the Council meeting, with no Further action anticipated. 2. Student Ambassador Grant ancmunced that he would not be in attendance at the January 2003 or February 2003 Council meeting due to his college break. There being no ftnrther business, the Council Meeting at~journed at 8:19 p.m, Q~ Susan D. ~irmatmng Borough Secretarq (Seal} Steven J. Fishman Council President 10 GUIDELII!1ES FOR THE PRESERVATIf,~N/RESTORATIfJN AND REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF CAItI~.ISI.E Adapted by Borough Cooncit, Decambor 12, 2002 Hide Ditrict Giide~e Ni: l~xioratsd material au the exterior of a baiidi~ tlnll bo repaitred or rtplaaed with rnat~l that replicates the exi~rg (m' p~etabiy oe~eal) at alaoely m paea'bh3. The foilowit4g material shall be permitted ualas ~uawise provide! for eisat~e in theca guadeliues. artificial brick, artificial crt:tone, vinyl, or ~. On reaormlmnsadatioa of the HARB snd action by Borough Council, oth+ar material may be eiemr:od ~~ tvhare the ate of offer notarial at ma~tariala rnplicatioa flue d~alail, profile, confiigunu'on ar:d propart~s of the exuding (or preferably original) material. Sirlorlc Dittrkt Goideliae *Z: All buikl~ should be reoogniaed as pendtwb of their awn time. Alteration that have na hiatDrioal baaia are not permitted; provided hatvever, on reccnnrrumdatFon of the HARB and action by Bow C~n®cil, alters a:ay be deoamed appe~riate whore the ase of raid maticriais nplicatcs the detail, profile, aon}Eguration, and properties of existing (or preferably original) mtteeiat. HiMoaie Ditbict GoideYae fi3: Fnn-iwn changes to a building, which have avquired sigaifieaux in tl:air own right, shall b-e rooogmmae~d and r+especxed. Hht+atrk Dlt#rlat Gnideiiae ~Wt: Aluininwn of viiryl tiding aver brick, , ar nosoary is Atumintmn or vinyl siding over wooer buildings shall be peohibited tvlore it aaa be readily seen t3~om a public street or public way. If almniaa~n or vinyl tidingis permitted ~ : repiac~k for e~cistiag aluminum ~ vinyl siding, the new aluminum or vinyl siding shall not be layered over the acistmg aluminum ~ vinyl aiding. Hislork Ddtrict G'idaBne gS: The method of claming brick, scone, oroth~r raronry atruct`ues stnll be by the gentlest means posa'bk. It is rocsfmmandtd that b~--preaura water cleaning with a mild detergeast be tried fiat prior to any alher type of cleaning andiuod. Abcaaive claming of baidc or other marosiry materials shell cot be allowed uuldts it is neveasary fiw the rvatyon~ofthie hieratic structure. Chocnical aping ofbriak or otha~r mao®ry marteeiala :ball only be allotted whore it can be Chown that the chemical win not ~ ds~e to the building surfa<x, will not be harmful to the eavironcnant, and will be used in a ea~'e roamer. AU chaaaieals used snd the method of cleaning must first be approved by the Borough F.nginenr. The cleaning ofbaildinga wiU only be allowed on a caso-by-case bit. As an active to chemical or abrasive cleaning, it is rocommeaded that n~ be oonddarad to ptvtect the historical sigaificnnce of the building. Hisbark Diatrkt Gee *6: the reataval ofdutiaguiahing architectural tiaatnr+es shall not be permitted. In cases where such feabu~es have dotarioratad beyond saving, they shall be replaced with materials that rcpUcate the ddail, profiler c~nfigauation and properties of the g (~ Pro~IY ~8~) mata~ial. Ht~srie llitriet ~iaddeliae #7: The toation, dune~ion socl material ofropiscwzndowe, dovas snd app shall be the asap ss the earistiag (or pa~efenbty originsq window, doors and opsm:t®s. Existing (or prefaubly origirni) windows, door and openings, iach:din~g alt coaapanoa~s: sash, ~+ tiraosoans, sidelights, linto~„ ~ fr:mtes, moldia~t, 'a. doors, and hudwat~+~, shs~l be retard cad repaired whanevcr popt'bk. Dosi~t oc malarial that ore not coos~aat with the aristigg (a' ~lY origiost) window or da~oc and which appear oa a primulr fade of a baild~g, shall be pr~bited, eocoept a: se# Earth beloa-. A primary facade is the ~evation(s) of the building, which d~ectly faces a pablic street or public tlaoa~augh~ a bui may hove more thsai Dare pc~gary fiartie. A socaa~y facade is tho devotion(s) of the building that is (ue) soon ~ a dist~t public street or ptd-lic tltorou and ty blanked :Bann view by anomer building (sash as the reaa~ derma schaeeal by a ~rra#e or a soda elevation a~jaceat bo Lothar buildding). Rsplaoem~ent windows ~ doors, cc thrar componaas, which are oa- a buiidiu~'s seooadary facade, shall be coadislaat iA slyk with fie g (m' preferably origin m~atids, bat may be oorapused of other n~Derials. Conte wid: gaideline Wombat ot~o, roplac matoaia~ on either a pc~ry ar a seoandary KCOde shall be permitted if they replicate the detail, prafilq coaefguration and prapertias of the exi~iag (~ pmtY ~8~) . Hi~orle District (~idsEate ~: The original material and architecgnal faatn+es of porabea, and hand rails inclndiug betusteas, colurmta, cad braclcds; maf de~ndians ofrMOOd, cast iron, t~s-cotbt tik, gad hoick slauld bt retained whoa poribk. Such ma~ariak ~1 be rapair+d or r~aplaced rvit5 malarial that r+eplicstes the existing (ot pmlY ) m closely as poss:'l~e. 8is~rk rkt Gee M9: Roof shape and pitch shell be presacved. 'The rnatierial sisil be r+~ited or roplaced ~iti material that ~ the ezstit:g (or preforably original) as closely as poap'ble. If the coat of a peetieular naatarial is prohibitive, such as riete, tear or motel, sn assthetie fxa~k recorimrnen~d by tla HARB cad approved by Borough Council may be utilizod. Sisrsrk Distrkt GdielYe #10: Unless modified herein, the B~osrd shall utilize the most t~eoeut vetxion of the Secz~ary of the lnteria's it: ncommwd~ion:. Aielas~c Ditrkt G'arMsYne #l l: Signs should be integrated iato the particular aa~aiaiectural e.hatactaor of the builder cad r~ghborhood sayd follow the Hisoocical District pteeedeaot in ibrm cad is placanead on me burg. Sigra should be atthor conasteat writh the period of the burg or clearly oor:tey to enhancx old/new i~r-r~elario~hip. Sim should a~pr+oxitnate the goslity of materials, deagm, and worlaauoahip of anmuading architecture cad should be linked to particular building colors and/or nnaurials. Bistmic Ditrkt t~sddelin #1Z: Signs should be primarily podo~ritat orie~ed. Letberbrg should be elan, kgbk cad in character with the architecture or history of the bwikling. Signs should integrate hudware~ appropriately irdo sign dosign. The lighting of rigns is b be oansidared as put of t#a ~ rumination of the overall displayand/or uehitiecture. The ill:mai~aatian should be subtle, pedestrian oriented, ssul not in coa~etition with adjacxnt iUtnmi~led sa~gns. NEON SIGNS ARE PR~H>B1TF,.D IN THB HISTORIC DISTRICT UNLESS 'THEY 13Lffi~tD IN WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OR HISTORY OF THB BUlI.D1Nt3. y. ]?/6/2002 9:~0 P!1 FROM: Fax Borough of Carlisle TO: 9, 691-765 PAGfi: 001 OF 002 CONSENT TO FINAL SUBDIVtS14N~.AND DEVELCiPMENT PLAN APPROVAL WITH COND/TIONS Rf: Fi'NAt StJ~DMSIC?MIi.ANfl 0lVELOP~ENT PLAN HITS ELECTRIC COtA~AIVY Rlttter H~ghwsy ind 1Noadbw 8oulrvar+d Staff recommends Borough Council approve the final subdivisionfland development plan, subject to the following eondAlons: 1. Pursuant to §226-2fA(8j of the Subdivision and Land ievelopment name, firs plan shall Include the name, address, signature and phone number of the owner or applicant. Two (2) copies of the.pian shad be signed by the owner or app cant. 2. Pursuant to §226-2t B{9) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordnance, the applicant shall provide to the Borough, prior to recording the final plan, a tee of 62,000.00 (Two Thousand) to access Borough stormwater management fac~iAes. 3. Pursuant #o §226-181 of the Subdiv~ion and Land Development Ordinance, the appliccant shall provide a copy of any hiyhavay occupancy permit appAoatton fNed or proposed to be Alad with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportatkm (Penn DOT}. 4. Pwrsuarrt to §2't6-19J of the 3ubdivlsron and Land Development 4rc#nanae, the appAcant shaN,provide, for review and approve( by the Borou~ 5didtor, a deed of consolidation for the consoNdstion of tots shown on page 1 of the plan. 5. Pursuar~ to §226-19M of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, the applicant shall provide an easement agreemenrt or other ren~dy to address encroachment from the lot ~lentifted as nowJformeriy Owen E. Meats. 6. Pursuant to §226-19M of the Subdivision and Land Development arc~rtarx~e, the appiicsM shalt eiimtnata the page numbering specify for reeording purposes. as shown on pages 2-5 of the plan and include the entire plan as submitted for recordhig. 7, Pursuant to Section 509 of the Pennsylvania Muntcipa~ies Planning Code and Section 228-20 of the Subdivision/Land Development Ordinance, the developer shall, prior to Anal plan approval and recording, post the requVed Snanciai security for all pubic improvements shown on the plan and enter into an improvement agreement with the Borough in a form acceptabte to the Borough Salidtor. The required improvement agreement shat( inck~de, but not be 1mRed to, the cost of all requked and anticipated public improvements and/or improvements required by the Pennsylvania Departmen# of Transportation under Hna AOr..mant -Fite 12/6/2002 3: ~0 P!! fA~[: l~ex Borough of Carlisle T0: 9, 691-765 PALL: 002 CF 002 anY ~D~y ~Pa~Y permft(s) a amendments uAlmately issued, improvements required as a result of DEP andVa Cumberland County's issuance of an E 8 S and an individual NPDES pem~it and sny new fire hydrants required pursuant to Section 226-36 of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. 8. Pws~tat~t to Section 226-31 of the Sion and Land Development fiance, five percent (596)'of the tract or 0.052 awes, shall be dedicated to the Borough fat' puWk recreatkmai purposes. Suds land must meet the recreation area location criteria established in Seater 226-31 (C) artd shah be shown on the flt-al plan. In Neu thereof, the Borough may, upon agreement by the applicant as established In Section 2Z6-3't (E), aoc~pt construction of recreation facNi6es, payment of fees ih Neu thereof, the prlva#e reservation of land for recreational purposes, or a combination of the foregoing. Upon such agreement, the fee to be paid in lieu of the required dedication of land shat! be Z7~.00 (Seven Hundred Eighty Donate) payebie prior to recording the ftrtal plan. By signing below, I hereby attest that I have rid tha above end do understand and accept these conditions for approval of the above referenced plan. Signature of Appl Applicant's Representative .tif ~~„ ame of Appflaant or Applicant's Re esentative 1 ~~~ Date coivsEtvr ro ~-~ac. su~v~s~v~puy ~a~ovac. wiry caNfl~iroivs aE: ~,.r sw,dw~rt~ ~ t a S1ili~5YS S. -farwrar ~rwt Staff reroorrwnertds Borough Counal approve the final subdivision pin, subject to the folfoyrt~ng oondi>ions: 1. Purst~artt fio X226-21A vi the St~diViaiotr and Larx Dev~eiopme~'tt Ondinsrtce, the -~,shoil ewe the ~nrd "~INnor' fiom the title of the pin and a# nsferertoes to the tine of the plan. 2. Pursuant to §226-19J of the Subdivision anti Lid DeMelop~nent tNdir~noo, the arrt shah pride, for review and approval by the Bor~gh Solidtor, a deed of c~orrsdidation for the consoiidrrtivra of Iats shown on page'! of the phm. By signing bsbw, I hereby attest that I have read the above and do underamnd and accept these oon~ons for approval of the above reteronoed plan. Sign of at"s Represerrlative tote Q ~~~hd Marne of Appt or Applicant's Representa#~e ~ Ap.rnMne - wMUs BubaNM~oeidoc November 20, 2002 11dr. Fred Bean Muni~at Building 53 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Special Events Application DarMaaag+er Bean: The Carlisle Theatre f3~ala Committee is in the midsCofpLaaoing a lOs` Antrivettiary Ball to be held on May 10, 2003 ax the Th+satro. Ot~e bf the options we are coming is a black-tie, tented red carpet reception tQ be hrsld outside on High Street between Hanover and Pia Streets. This reception will stint at 6 PM followed by a perfarmffiae isuide the Theatre add than resume after the coauxat. . The parpose of flue letter is do formally request that the fast blvclc of Waat High Street be closed from $ AM in the morning to 1 AM the following morning for the purposes of this event. We would also h'lce this item to be placid on the regular Council agenda for your December 12'a meeting. Should yon have any sdditional questions or have suggestions as to other options thatt Wright be avail~le to ua, please do sot hasitste fp contact me at my work, G~mabm'land County Human Resairce Departmeant 717240.7878. I look fo`ward to ---- ---------_.. -wadd~~wlth y+~r-~tti~~iit~rE"6~"dii8~iiolfCt~e atci"ltiig pm~ec~ for~he3ow-nlaarn of Carlisle. Sinoarcly, ~~ E. K Weitzel Gala Chairpcraon cc: Borough Council IKayor Kids WiL~on Carlisle Police Chief Marg+eson 1 SPECIAL L~'VENTg APPLICATION APPLICANTS ATAME:~I:~t~ lijlera.[ ~clo+twE~t Mtt3 Ce~,at+u APPLICANTS ADDRESS: ~4 H,i~t S~itttt, Cd+tL~iLt. Ps. 11013 APPLICANTS P'SONE: 717Sr.~~±1~ p~„717- 53-066 NA1wtE OF PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL EVENT tENTI'fX'S REPENTATIVE): E K Mt~itZt.C ADDRESS OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY: /tS ~~-t p.,~ ~ttt. r..~.~ ~- i71t3 PHONE OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY ~-t~~.._ - i!e-7373 PURPOSE OF SPECIAL EVENT: ~ Tbt. 14dtartt~ l3sLt Eat tlet Cdtlt Ott . T~tauGrs est s ~~d ~i~tit~ cvrt~,t. . DATE: +,~ t1-x,13 TIME EYB'r1T BEGINS: . 6 a 00 Pll . TIME EVENT ENDS:- 1~# AREA ]~' WHICH THE SPECIAL ~EVEIv"T WILL BE HELD(Street, Sidewalk. etc.}: Tits .BtJC~tt r1~t+ts OL o~ -- ME~t Nigk St~tt~t ~+tw. pi#,t to Nau~nt~r.. If this 3pplieatioa is approved, it is subject to all of the follo~cing conditions by <chich the Applicant and Responsible Party intend and agree to be legally bound: Upon recommendation of the Borough ArIaaager, with input from the Chief of Police, the Borough Council may impose such conditions relating to peraonnel.:upplies, equipmeaL, casualty insurance and other matters as it deems neceaaar~- to protect the general-pubic and Special E1en! Participants. It is the policy of the Borough of Carlisle not to subject its ta.~tpayers io pa;-ment of costs associated with any special event not sponsored by the Borough t: cancil. Therefore. direct costs incurred by the Borough shall be borne by the Applicant. Costs shall be limited to direct out-of-pocket expea3es incurred 1}y the Borough =uch as, but not limited to, wages paid to Borough employees, special fire police •~ ages. and the cost of temporary sign and barricade rental.. do approval shall be issued until all costa for prior special events approved for the Applicant shall have been paid in full. - 3. Lnaitations as approvd. No approval granted hereunder:hall authori~ ar excuse say. breach of the law or say trespass upon the rights of others or reader the Borough of Carlisle liable for any damage committed or caused under color thereof. 4: Applicant hereby indemaiSes and holds the Borough of Carlisle, its elected officials, appoiatsd offiieials, agents sad employees har~nlea Troia and against any and all claims aril Iiabiliity far P~~ may. Pro'P~Y damage, dom. loss, deficiency, claim oz other (inchsding reasonable attoraelr's fees sad other costs sad expenses iaa~eat to say claim, suit, action, or prooeediag) asserted by or on behalf of aAyeae, in any manner Wither directly or indirectly arising out of the activity for which this approval is granted. 5. Applicant agrees to conduct this 5peeial Event is accord with all applicable ordiasances, statutes, sad raivlations of the Borough of Carlisle, the Commonwealth ' of Pennsylvania, and the United States of America, and no activity shall violate say of the foregoing. 6. Appra~rai is granted for the purpose set forth above, end no other activity shall be cm-ductsd excep# upon further approval of the Botnugh Council. ?. Applicant-agrees to conduct the 3pecisl Event so e~s~not to become a nuisance to the general public. or the neighborhood in general, sad ao as not to disturb the peace and - - good order of the Borough. . 8. Applicant apses to conclude the Special E~re~nt by the time specified sad shall.' promptly restore public areap to the use of the ge~nersl public. 9. Applicant agrees to be bound by all of the terms and. conditions sat forthin.Section 244-6 of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle. Z0. Revocation of approval. The Borough Manager, in his sole discretion, may at any time revoke any approval ifthere shall have been committed any breach of the terms and conditions under which the same was issued or a violation of the terms and - conditions of Section 244.6 of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, upon giving to the ---------_:pereon.la~rl~:.the-a~rsa~al-was-issded-~t[cs-afanchrevoclitit~-~om~he8ine off'-_~~ - such notice of revocation, any act done under color of suchapproval shall subject the person doing, or allowing it to be done, to the same penalty as if he or she had done such act without such approval. - 11. Penalties for offansea. Aay person who shall violate any of the provismns of thin section shall, upon conviction thereof, for each end every violation be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than three hundred tS300) dollars. Each day's violation of an}• of the provisions of this section shall constitute t feparate offense. I!v W3TNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound hereby. the Applicant has caused this Special Events Application to be executed the date indicated. Bti signing this Application oa behalf of the Applicant, the responsible party represents that he or she has full authority to submit this Application and commit the Applicant to the terms and conditions set forth above. , YklV..~~ ~a0~ Date Signature of Appli tlResponsihle Party CERTIFI CATIUN/ATTESTATION I, Susan D. Armstrong, Borough Secretary of the Borough of Carlisle do hereby certify and attest that the attached is a true and correct copy of Chapter 255, Zoning, Article XXI, Sections: 255-145 through and including 255-164, of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, as duly adopted on March 10, 2005, by Ordinance 2032. Said Article continues to be in full force and effect within the Borough. usan D. Armstrong Borough Secretary September 20, 2007 (Seal) Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 PART 11: E3ENERAL LEGiSLATi~1 /Chapter ZiIS, ZONING / AR'T'ICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) ARTICLE XXI, NP Hhtoric Preservation District (Overlay) CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANW, v1 Updatrd 05-01-ZOOS / PART. 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZONNG /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Patbn District (Overlay) / § 255-145. Establishment; relationship to zoning districts. § 255-145. Establishment; relationship to zoning districts. An historic district, to be known as "Historic Cazlisle," is hereby created, within the requirements of Pennsylvania Act 167 of 1961, as amended. This HP Historic District shall serve as an overlay zoning district. This overlay district establishes additional requirements and procedures that apply in addition to requirements and procedures of the underlying zoning district. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 I PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) I ~ 255-146. Boundaries of area. § 255-146. Boundaries of area. A. The area included within Historic Cazlisle is that as shown on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, which, together with all explanatory matters thereon, is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be pazt of this chapter.EN(1) B. Boundaries. Said district, as shown on the aforesaid map, includes the azea bounded by the center lines of Louther Street on the north, West Street on the west, South Street on the south and East Street on the east; it also includes the azea bounded by the center lines of South Street on the north, Pitt Street on the west, Walnut Street on the south and Hanover Street on the east. It also includes an azea bounded by the center line of Louther Street, between College Street and LeTort Run, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet north of said center line of Louther Street; an azea bounded by the center line of West Street, between Louther Street and South Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet west of said center line of West Street; an area bounded by the center line of South Street between College Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows Street and Pitt Street and between Hanover Street and East Street, and lines opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet south of said center line of South Street; an area bounded by the center line of Pitt Street, between Walnut Street and South Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet west of said center line of Pitt Street; an area bounded by the center line of Walnut Street, between Pitt Street and Hanover Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet south of said center line of Walnut Street, and an azea bounded by the center line of Hanover Street between Baltimore Street and South Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 85 feet east of said center line of Hanover Street; and an area bounded by the center line of East Street, between South Street and Lowther Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet east of said center line of East Street. It also includes an area bounded by the center line of Lowther Street, between College Street and West Street and between East Street and LeTort Run, and lines opposite and parallel thereto 75 feet south of said center line of Lowther Street; an area bounded by the center line of South Street, between College Street and West Street, and a line opposite and pazallel thereto 75 feet north of said center line of South Street; and an azea bounded by the center line of Hanover Street, between Baltimore Street and Walnut Street, and a line opposite and parallel thereby 85 feet west of said center line of Hanover Street. It also includes an area bounded by lines 85 feet east and 85 feet west of the center line of Hanover Street, between Penn Street and Lowther Street, and opposite and parallel thereto; and an area bounded by lines 85 feet north and 85 feet south of the center line of High Street, between East Street and LeTort Run, and opposite and parallel thereto. C. Map. The Historic Carlisle Map shall be identified by the signature of the Mayor, properly attested and bearing the seal of the Borough under the following words: "This is to certify that this is the Historic Cazlisle Map referred to in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1197 of the Borough of Cazlisle, Pennsylvania," together with the date of the adoption of such ordinance. D. Changes to map. (1) If, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, changes are made in Historic District boundaries or other matter portrayed on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, such changes shall be entered on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map promptly after the amendment has been approved by the Council, with an entry on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map as follows: "On (date), by official action of the Council, the following (change) changes were made in the Official Historic Cazlisle Map: (brief description of nature of change)," which entry shall be signed by the Mayor and properly attested. No amendment to this chapter which involves matter portrayed on the Official Historic Carlisle Map shall become effective until after such change and entry has been made on said map and until such change, if it involves the addition of an area to the district, has been approved by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission by virtue of a resolution certifying to the historical significance of the new area. 2 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows (2) No changes of any nature shall be made in the Official Historic Cazlisle Map or matter shown thereon except in conformity with the procedures set forth in this chapter. Any unauthorized change of whatever kind by any person or persons shall be considered a violation of this chapter. E. Official Map. Regazdless of the existence of purported copies of the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, which may from time to time be made or published, the Official Historic Cazlisle Map which shall be located in the office of the Zoning Officer shall be the final authority as to the current historic status of buildings and other structures in the Borough for purposes of this chapter. F. Uncertain boundaries. Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, the following rules shall apply: (1) Boundaries indicated as approximately following the center lines of street or alley rights-of--way shall be construed to follow such center lines. (2) Boundaries indicated as parallel to, or extensions of features indicated in the above shall be so construed. (3) Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, or in other circumstances not covered by the above, the Zoning Hearing Boazd shall interpret the district boundaries. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 PART i1: GEI~RAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 25l~, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) / § 255-147. Certification. ~ 255-147. Certification. The existing Historic Cazlisle District has been duly certified under state law by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Prior to any changes in the Official Historic Cazlisle Map, all required certification shall be received from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, under Pennsylvania Act 167 of 1961, as amended. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 / PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION/Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE 70(1, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) / § 255-148. Intent ~ 255-148. Intent. 3 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows The intent of the HP Historic Preservation District is to: A. Protect that portion of Carlisle which most strongly reflects the cultural, economic, social, political and architectural history of Cazlisle and also Pennsylvania. B. Encourage greater interest in local and state history. C. Promote the use and reuse of portions of Cazlisle for the culture, education, enjoyment and general welfare of citizens. D. Strengthen the economy of Cazlisle by improving property values and economic activity in the historic district. E. Provide for new buildings and alterations that will be harmonious with existing historically and azchitecturally significant buildings. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENN3YLVANW, v1 UPde~bed 06-01-2005 I PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION 1 chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP H~toric Pr+seervation District (Overlay) ! § 255-449. Definitions. § 255-149. DeSinitiona. For the purposes of the Historic Preservation District, the following terms shall have the following meanings: BOARD -- The Cazlisle Boazd of Historical Architectural Review. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS -- An approval by the Cazlisle Borough Council, which certifies the appropriateness of a particular request for the construction, alteration, reconstruction, repair, restoration, demolition or razing of all or a part of any building within a historic district and authorizes the issuance of a building permit for said request. CONSTRUCTION -- Any or all work necessary forthe erection of any building or structure from a combination of materials to form a safe and stable structure. DEMOLITION -- The dismantling or tearing down of all or part of any building and all operations incidental thereto. RECONSTRUCTION -- Any or all work needed to remake or rebuild all or a part of any building to a sound condition, but not necessarily of original materials. REPAIRS -- Any or all work involving the replacement of existing work with equivalent material for the purpose of maintenance, but not including any addition, change or modification 4 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows in construction. RESTORATTON -- Any or all work connected with the retiuning to or restoring of a building or a part of any building to its original condition through the use of original or nearly original materials. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 / PART II: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chaffer 255, tONM16 /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Prosenratlon District {Overlay) / §..255-150. Board of Historical A~hitectural Review. § 255-150. Board of Historical Architectural Review. A. A Board of Historical Architectural Review (HARB) is hereby established, to be composed of seven members appointed by Council, one of whom shall be a registered architect, one a licensed real estate broker, one a building inspector and four additional persons with a knowledge of and interest in the preservation of historic districts, two of which additional persons must reside within the historic district and be property owners in the Borough, and one of which additional persons should be a professor or teacher of fine arts with a knowledge of and interest in the preservation of historic districts. B. Each member shall serve for a term of four years. C. The position of any member of the Boazd appointed in his capacity as a registered architect, a Licensed real estate broker, or as a building inspector who ceases to be so engaged shall automatically be considered vacant. D. An appointment to fill a vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. E. HARB members shall disqualify themselves from voting on any project in which their own financial interests are directly or indirectly involved. F. Board procedures. The HARB may make and alter rules and regulations for its own organization and procedure, provided that they are consistent with the Laws of the commonwealth and all provisions of this chapter. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 PART II: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZONMIG /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) / § 255-151. Responsibilitiss of Board. Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows § Z55-1S1. Re~poasibi0tie~a of Board. A. The Board shall be charged with the responsibility of review of the historic district limits as outlined in this section of this chapter. B. The Board is farther chagged with the responsibility of developing and continuing an effective program of landmark recognition and preservation. C. Within such district, the Board shall approve any survey which designates areas, places, buildings, structures, monuments, works of art and other objects having special historical, architectural, community or aesthetic interest and value and worthy of preservation. D. The Board should be available to provide informal advice to building owners on methods of preservation. E. The Board may sponsor public relations programs to promote public interest in preservation. CODE OF THE BOfiOUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updatisd 05-01-2005 PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION / ChapfiOr 265, ZC7MIiNG /ARTICLE XXI, HP Hisficiric Preservation District {Overlay) / § 255-152. Counseling by Board; procedures. § 255-152. Cou®seling by Board; proc~lurea. A. The Board shall give counsel to the Council of the Borough of Cazlisle regarding the advisability of issuing any certificates required to be issued pursuant to the State Historic District Act of 1961 and this chapter. Such counsel shall at all times be consistent with the provisions of all ordinances of the Borough. B. For this purpose, the Boazd may make and alter rules and regulations for their own organization and procedure, consistent with the ordinances of the Borough and the laws of the commonwealth. C. A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum, and action taken at any meeting shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of members present. D. The members of the Boazd shall serve without compensation and may make an annual report of their transactions to the Council. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANU4, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 6 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows / PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chapier 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Hi:~oric Pnssnratlon D~trict (Overby) I ~ 255-153. Applications and permits. (Amended 3-10-2OOS by Ord. No. 2031, approved 3-10-ZOOS] § 25S-iS3. Apglka and permits. [Amended 3-10-2005 by Ord. No. 2031, approved 3-10-2®t-S] A. For the purposes of this article, the words "application," permit" or "building permit" shall mean any application for a certificate of appropriateness or permit issued by the Borough Zoning Officer, including but not limited to building and sign permits. B. Upon receipt of an application for a certificate of appropriateness or building permit for work to be done in the historic district affecting the exterior of a building then existing or to be built in said district, the Zoning Officer shall act in accordance with the procedures presently being followed in that office, except as those procedures are necessarily modified by the following requirements: (1) The Zoning Officer shall forward to the office of the Board of Historical Architectural Review a copy of the application together with a copy of the plot plan and the building plans and specifications filed by the applicant. (2) The Zoning Officer shall maintain in his office a record of all such applications and of his handling and final disposition of the same, which shall be in addition to, and appropriately cross-referenced to, his other records. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v4 Updated 05-01-21105 I PART fl: GENERAL LEGISLATION I Chaptier 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) 1 ~ 255-1 S4. Certlflcatie of appropriateness required. § 255-154. Certificate of appropriatencas required. A certificate of appropriateness is required for any erection, reconstruction, exterior alteration, restoration, sandblasting, demolition or razing of a public building then existing, or to be built in this Historic District, where such work will affect the exterior of the building, accessory structure, fence or any exterior sign which can be seen from a public way. The Zoning Officer shall not issue a permit for any such work until the Borough Council has issued a certificate of appropriateness. These HP District regulations shall not apply to graves, tombstones or burial monuments, or to required public utility connections. 7 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows CODE ~ THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 t~daied 05-01-2005 I PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION l Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXi, HP Historic Pre~nration D~ict (Overlay) / § ZSS-155. Is®rrnit application review by Board. § 255-135. Permit application review by Board. A. Upon receipt by the Board of a notice that an application for a sign permit under this chapter or building permit for the erection, reconstruction, exterior alteration, restoration, sandblasting, demolition or razing that would affect the exterior of a building or buildings in the Historic District has been filed in the office of the Building Inspector of the Borough of Carlisle, the Board shall at alegally-advertised meeting, consider a recommendation to give to the Council of the Borough of Carlisle. B. The person applying for the permit shall be advised of the time and place of said meeting and invited to appear to explain his reasons therefor. C. The Board shall also announce to and invite the public to attend its meeting, notice of which shall be given in accordance with the Sunshine Act, Act of July 3, 1986, P.L. 388, No. 84, § 1, 65 P.S. § 271, et seq., as amended.Ex(2) D. The Boazd shall submit its recommendation in writing to the Council of the Borough of Cazlisle within 45 days of the date of the application unless the applicant grants a waiver to extend this time. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANW, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 PART II: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chaptier 256, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Pr~enration District (Overlay) / § 265-156. Buildings unfit for habitation. § 255-156. Bniidinga unSt for habitation. In the event that the subject building has been rendered unfit for habitation because of fire, explosion or other similaz causes, the terms of this chapter may be waived by the Zoning Officer to the extent that the applicant can be issued a permit at once to proceed to render the subject property habitable under the terms of the Zoning Officer of the Borough of Cazlisle provided the structure is rebuilt as it originally was constructed using the same materials ;any changes made to the subject property must finally be approved under the terms of this chapter, and if they aze not so approved, the expense of remedying them so as to obtain approval shall be borne by the building's owner; the permit issued by the Building Official should so state, but any failure to so 8 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows state shall not excuse the owner from bearing such expense and obligation. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updatsc105-01 2005 I PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chaptsr Z55, ZONING I ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Prsservatlon District (Overlay) / ~ 205-1 S7. Review criteria. § 255-157. Review criteria. In determining the recommendation to be presented to the Council of the Borough of Carlisle concerning the issuing of a certificate of appropriateness, the Boazd shall consider only those matters that, aze pertinent to the preservation of the historic and/or azchitectural aspect of the subject building or lot and its historic setting. The following criteria shall be considered: A. The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district. B. The appropriateness of exterior azchitectural features which can be seen from a public street or a public way. C. The compatibility with Historic District Guidelines adopted by Borough Council which outline accepted methods, materials and techniques for the repair, restoration, erection, alteration or reconstruction which will change the exterior appearance of any structure within the Historic District. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 / PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXi, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) / ~ 256-168. Disapproval by Board. § 255-158. Disapproval 63' Board. A. If the Board, on the basis of the information received at the meeting and from its general background and knowledge, decides to recommend against the granting of a certificate of appropriateness, it shall indicate to the applicant for a building permit the changes in plans and specifications, if any, which in the opinion of the Board would protect the distinctive historical character of the Historic District. B. If, subsequent to disapproval by the Board, the applicant determines that he will make the suggested changes, he shall advise the Zoning Ofl"icer prior to the meeting of Borough Council where the application will be reviewed and acted on by Council. 9 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 PART Ii: GENERAL LEGISLAT~N /Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Histiaric Preservation District (Overlay) / ~ 255-159. Submission of Board's recommendation. § 255-159. Sabmieaion of Board's recommendation. A. The Boazd, after the hearing provided for in § 255-155 above shall submit to the Council of the Borough of Cazlisle, in writing, its recommendation concerning the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness of authorizing a permit for the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or razing of all or a part of any building within the historic district. B. The written report shall set out the following matters: (1) The exact location of the area in which the work is to be done and the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the building or structure, and the relation of such factors to similaz features of buildings or structures in the district. (2) The exterior changes to be made, or the exterior character of the structure to be erected and the appropriateness of exterior architectural features which can be seen from a public street or public sidewalk. (3) The effect of the proposed change upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district and general compliance with the HARB Guidelines adopted by Borough Council. (4) The opinion of the Board, including any dissent, as to the appropriateness of the work proposed and any specific recommendation of the Boazd as to the issuance by Council, or its refusal to issue a certificate of appropriateness. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Upcbtta105-01-2005 i PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chaptier 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Hhtoric Preservation District (Overlay) / § 255-160. Review by Borough Council. § 255-160. Review by Borough Council. A. Upon receipt of the written counsel of the Boazd as provided in § 255-159 above, the Council of the Borough of Carlisle shall consider at a regular or special meeting the question of issuing to the Zoning Officer a certificate of appropriateness authorizing a permit for the 10 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows work covered by the application. B. The applicant shall be advised by the Borough of the time and place of the meeting at which his application will be considered and shall have the right to attend and be heard as to his reasons for filing the same. C. In determining whether or not to certify to the appropriateness of the proposed erection, reconstruction, alteration, demolition or razing of all or a part of any building within the Historic District, the Borough Council shall consider the same factors as the Board of Historical Architectural Review set forth in § 255-159. D. If the Council approves the applicant's request, it shall issue a certificate of appropriateness authorizing the Building Ofl~icial to issue a permit for the work covered. E. If the Council disapproves, it shall do so in writing, and copies shall be given to the applicant and to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. F. The disapproval shall indicate what changes in the plans and specifications would meet the conditions for protecting the distinctive historical character of the district. G. The Council shall not consider any matter not pertinent to the historical aspect and nature of the district. H. Time. In any event, the Council shall render its decision no later than 60 days from the date the HARB renders its recommendation for a certificate of appropriateness. The applicant should be notified in person or in writing at his last known address not later than 10 days after the Borough Council makes a decision. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-2005 I PART !!: QEl~RAL LEC#lSLATION /Chapter 255, tONINt3 I ARTICLE XXI, HP Htetoric Proservation District (Overlay) / ~ 255-161. Demolition. § 255-161. Demolition. A. Intent. The intent of this section is to ensure that valuable historic resources aze not permanently destroyed unless there are no reasonable alternatives available. B. This section shall apply to any existing building or portion of such building within the Historic District that the Borough Council determines, based upon the recommendation of the Board, is highly important to the historic character and continuity of that portion of the Historic District or is by itself a highly important architecturally historic resource. C. No building defined by Subsection B above shall be demolished unless one of the following 11 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows is satisfied, in the terms of the Borough Council, based upon the recommendations of the Board: (1) That the applicant proves that the demolition is needed to clear the land for a project of special public benefit 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 demolition would greatly result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updated 05-01-Zf~05 / PART 11: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZOIBNG /ARTICLE XXI, HP Histioric Prseervation District (Overlay) I § 265-162. Disapproval by Beard. § 255-162. lliaapproval by Board. Upon receipt of any written disapproval of the Council, the Zoning Officer shall disapprove the application for a building permit and shall so advise the applicant. The applicant may appeal the disapproval as provided by law and the ordinances of the Borough of Carlisle. CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, v1 Updabd 05-01-2005 / PART It: GENERAL LEGISLATION / Chapbr 255, 20NING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Histiuric Preservation District (Overlay) / ~ 256-163. Enforcement ~ 255-163. Enforcement. The Code Enforcement Officer shall have the power to institute any proceedings at law or in equity necessary for the enforcement of this article in the same manner as in his enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code of the Borough of Cazlisle as presently enacted and as the same may from time to time be amended.EN(3) CODE OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANU, v1 Updated 06-01-2005 PART ll: GENERAL LEGISLATION /Chapter 255, ZONING /ARTICLE XXI, HP Historic Preservation District (Overlay) / §255-164. Violations and penalties. § 255-164. Violations and penalties. Any violation of the foregoing provisions relating to the Historic District and not punishable 12 Borough of Carlisle PC/Codebook for Windows under any other Borough ordinance, as the Building Code, shall be punishable as a violation of this Zoning Code Ex(4) 13 Boraugh of Carlisle PC/Codebook for A'indows Endnote$ 1(Popnp -Popnp) Editor's Note: A copy of the Historic Carlisle Map is on file in the oi~ice of the Borough Secretary. 2 (Popnp - Popnp) Editor's Note: Said Act was repealed 10-15-1998 by P.L. 729, No. 93. See now 65 Pa.C.S.A. § 701 et seq. 3 (Popnp -Popnp) Editor's Note: See Ch. 89, Building Construction. 4 (Popnp -Popnp) Editor's Note: See § 255-243. of this chapter. 14 ev -u ~;~- cn ~~`~ p ~ : - r' ;_ ty ~~ -~ a ~' t7 ~_. ~ ~ :2 ~-; ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r JERRY MOCK APPELLANT v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 2007 - 5354 Civil CIVIL ACTION -LAW Response to New Matter AND NOW comes Jerry Mock, Appellant, by and through her attorney, Daniel J. Menniti, Esquire, and responds to the New Matter as follows: 9. It is admitted that a building permit was not obtained for the work on the property in question. It is denied that a permit was required by the International Building Code which has been adopted by the Borough. First of all, the Petitioner in this matter did contact her contractor who informed her that the Building Code did not require a permit. Secondly, he also informed her that the authorities of the Borough had corroborated his decision not to obtain a permit. Moreover, Petitioner is at a loss to determine the relevancy of the permit to the issue of a proper door. The building was inspected by Borough authorities, and to the extent that the inspectors acted illegally, the Borough is hereby requested to take appropriate action. Even if a permit were required, the timeliness of such a charge by the Borough bespeaks of laches and the principle of laches would in turn trump the necessity for the permit. 10. See response to 9 above. Because Petitioner believed that the work done did not require a building permit, no occupancy permit was required as well. 11. J It is denied that Petitioner claims economic hardship. Petitioner believes that no new door is necessary and that any public funds she would accept bespeaks of waste of public funds by Borough authorities. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court to reinstate the Certificate of Appropriateness. ~~~ Date: ~a/~~- /~~ ! Darnel J. Me ti, Esquire Attorney ID 18729 517 South College Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-258-6014 Attorney for Appellant 'Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Response to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein aze made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~ C~ G Je ~ Mock JERRY MOCK APPELLANT v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF CARLISLE APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 2007 - 5354 Civil CIVIL ACTION Certificate of Service AND NOW, this 5 day of October 2007, I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Response to New Matter in the above-captioned matter upon all parties of record by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Date: ~ U ~ ~/~') Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire 35 South Thrush Drive Carlisle, P 7015-7652 "~~ Fo aniel J. Menniti, Esquire A rney ID 18729 51 South College Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-258-6014 Attorney for Appellant ~J _ . ~,..._ 3 • ~,~ i _ - f ' ,. - { __ 1 _~'_ -;1.. C.' ~ ~~ ~'. _._..t ~ t'~.7 r' ~-~ C-..= JERRY MOCK , Plaintiff v. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CARLISLE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY No. 207-5354 Civil PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued. r Daniel J. Menniti S.Ct. I.D. # 18729 517 S. College Street Caarlisle, PA 17013 717-258-6014 Attorney for Plaintiff c- ~ ri~~('.r. ._; ,, ~ ~ -T, HC• "~ ~ ~ , u..~ 5..~ } ~) .LY ! ~. ~ ' `r