The baffling ARB

It gets more and more difficult to come up with printable words to describe the ridiculous and baffling nature of our Architectural Review Board. Their latest meeting featured the affront to City Administrator Chris Eldridge and his family, in refusing to allow them to remove asbestos siding from their home. This is a prime example of what a counterproductive board they have become. By now, HardiePlank must be considered as an obscene word to a majority of the ARB. The proof lies in bids being taken to safely demolish the old Eagle Electric building and to contain the dangerous asbestos within.

It is hard to believe that the City Council voted to approve guidelines that make it mandatory to keep a potentially hazardous material on the sides of your house, depending of course on which historical survey they choose to go with at the time. How can an acknowledged dangerous material be acceptable, and another that is safe be refused?

As well-intentioned as the ARB claims to be, it is hard to believe that the aesthetics, durability, and economics of HardiePlank is never discussed. Equally amazing is the board has already approved the evil planking on two homes of similar age to the Eldridges', as well as one that is significantly older. It would be interesting to know if a newly constructed home would be approved for asbestos siding. Evidence points to an illogical though favorable vote, as common sense is a quality that is not respected or tolerated by this board.

My sympathies go to the Eldridge and Huell families for the unnecessary aggravation caused by the ARB in the latest meeting. Chris is fortunate that his home was originally covered by only one obsolete material. My still unfinished house on Cannon St. had four.

To rake the Huell family over the coals with obscure and unexplained examples that have nothing to do with the blighted properties they have transformed is inexcusable. What specific project on Front St. that 'got out of hand' were you referring to Mr. King, and what does it have to do with the Huells? There are many residents who would like to know what your innuendo actually meant, and if it's a personal issue, why was it brought up during an ARB ---meeting to browbeat an uninvolved applicant? If you won't provide an answer, then there is no choice but to respectively request City Council to get to the bottom of your meaning, and what place it had in this forum.

What was the reasoning behind Mr. Bonnoit making Barbara Huell endure his lengthy pontification over issues that had little or nothing to do with her request? Some people purely enjoy the sound of their own authority, imagined or otherwise. Mr. Bonnoit needs to be reminded that he no longer sits on the bench. His responsibilities and authority as a member of the board are to facilitate and guide the requests of homeowners to lawfully improve or change something on their property, to help people with guidelines, and it ends there. The enforcement of restrictions belongs to Building and Planning or with the City Manager.

“Judge” Bonnoitt’s bombastic approach might work in a courtroom, but has no place in a venue with a citizen who is not accused of anything criminal. It surely sounded like that was how he was trying to make her feel. The reasons for his appointment to this board are understood by more people than might be realized. Even so, it is without precedent for bullying and berating to be an appropriate component of any volunteer job description. Failure to view this principle in any other way is more than adequate reason for him to step down, and deservedly so. A gentleman might also offer an apology.

A friendly warning and tip of the hat is also in order for Mr. Vernon. Fairness, due process, and equal treatment are not the order of the day for the ARB, despite Zoning Ordinance 300, which makes the word 'shall' mandatory, in that the Guidelines "shall apply to all the houses in the historic district", not just the ones the ARB picks and chooses for their favorable attention. Dick Newcomb was dismissed for flexible and common sense thinking much like yours, Mr. Vernon. In my opinion, being voted off this board would be an accolade anyone could be proud to have on their resume.

As the ARB seems to have no accountability to anyone, we can expect the faulty logic and remembrances of Sally Gillespie to be the ruling criteria when it comes to decisions the board must make. Depending on how well her memory works, it sure looks like that's the way it's going to be. It was disturbing but much more understandable when decisions were mostly based on specifically who was seeking their favor, and who was favored by them. Their function seems to be more political than anything else, and their qualifications as lacking and uninformed as ever.

The only person that comes to mind as being as able to keep up with the ill will, negative feelings, and dubious talent for alienation as Ms. Gillespie, would be Mayor Scoville. It is incredible and stupefying to me what business either of them has in the public sector. It is not surprising how many others feel the same way towards them. It's time to turn over this board's misguided authority to the department of Building and Planning. Most ARB members could certainly make more productive use of their time and service.

Standing by,

Steve D. Rothrock

Georgetown