This time around, the Bradford Historic Architectural Review
Board will not recommend the demolition of the house at 20-22
Chautauqua Place to Bradford City Council.

In a unanimous vote, HARB members decided they could not find
anywhere in the ordinance describing a situation that would allow
the board to take into consideration the application for
demolition.

Reading from the ordinance, Chairman Brian MacNamara said “…the
developer needs to show good cause that the building cannot be
preserved.”

After repeating this, MacNamara paused to say, “It is not
dilapidated. It poses no risk to public safety … but there is an
exception in a case where the structure is identified as a
non-historical or non-contributing building.”

At this point, Main Street Manager Diane DeWalt, who is also a
member of the board, explained that in 1999 David Taylor, a
historic preservationist, reviewed the properties in the historic
district and they re-evaluated the district.

“He looked at several buildings and described this one as a wood
form vernacular, arch style with a gabled roof built in 1900,” said
DeWalt. “It was listed as a contributing building and removing it
would weaken the historic character of the district.

“It is not condemned and the applicant has shown no proof it is
deteriorated,” she added.

DeWalt made the motion to deny the application and before there
was a second, members of the board asked several more questions
about the ordinance.

MacNamara seconded the opinion and the board voted
unanimously.

When the vote and discussion occurred, neither Debbie Cavagnaro,
senior warden for the Church of the Ascension, nor Bill Tremaine,
junior warden, were present, but they walked in soon after the
discussion, apparently confused about the meeting time.

At one point, MacNamara was introduced to the two and he asked
the minutes to be read and again stated the areas in the ordinance
that reject the building from being able to be demolished.

Cavagnaro said she obtained a copy of the historic district map
and took a tour for herself and realized there were some buildings
within the historic district that are located within it, but not a
“historic” contributor.

“So what’s the purpose of having them?” she asked the board.

DeWalt asked, “Who decides?”

Cavagnaro responded that their own map indicates the house they
have is in the district but has no historic value and described
others the same way on the map as well.

MacNamara said the issue will now go before city council and
it’s for them to decide.

Cavagnaro asked, “So it doesn’t really matter that you are
turning us down?”

MacNamara said, “No, we are suggesting after reading the
ordinance. It is up to city council and you.”

After using the Star Garage demolition as an example of tearing
a historic building down by Cavagnaro, DeWalt explained the Star
Garage building was labeled a safety hazard.

Member Sally Costik said the historic value could be in the eye
of the beholder.

MacNamara again explained the board did what it had to do under
the ordinance.

DeWalt took offense to MacNamara’s excuse to Cavagnaro and
Tremaine and said, “It’s a good recommendation, don’t discount
it.”

Tremaine reminded the board that four months ago, they had
agreed to the demolition recommendation.

Board members reminded him that there are now new members on the
board as many of the board at the time resigned around the same
time the first application came through. Apparently, the
application the board reviewed Thursday was different from the
first application submitted in September.

Cavagnaro and Tremaine left the meeting and the board continued
to talk about issues raised by the two, including the tearing down
of the convent and rectory of St. Bernard Church to make room for
the Tops Friendly Markets supermarket.

“We can’t answer to mistakes made in the past, it’s not our
fault,” said Costik.

In other business, the board discussed providing historic
district members with copies of the ordinance to thwart any future
confusion on what their steps should be if they are looking to
replace or change anything to their structures.

City Councilman Tom Riel was also present and asked the board
members to use judgment and common sense while they review
applications.

He wanted to know if they planned to change the ordinance as it
reads when it comes to replacement windows, as he will be coming to
the board with two window replacement applications and wanted to
know what more he might need to do.

MacNamara said they would not be making any changes yet, but
added that he looked into wood replacement windows that are energy
efficient.

Riel asked about cost and MacNamara explained that as long as an
applicant gives them something to review, and that the applicant
looked into all avenues, the board could make a recommendation for
the applicant.

The board will also look at the applications that are given to
those interested in making a change to their building and see where
they might be able to make them easier to be filled out.