Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BP - "lapsit exillas" |
Date: | Tue, 23 May 2000 16:58:01 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This would also cost a fair amount of dough to back up.
Just determining the color scheme to put into the
ordinance seems like it would be a deterrent to doing
so. And if it were left to owners to have their paint
analyzed on their individual building before they could
paint it, well....sounds like a recipe for a nightmare
to me.
And what about adding our own unique color layer to the
history of the building? I wouldn't recommend anything
radical to that end, mind you. Imagine the cross-
section one day for the buildings that have gone day-glo
purple! Ouch!
- Johnette
p.s. Like in Ann Arbor, Wilmington's Design Review and
Preservation Commission cannot regulate color. They can
and do RECOMMMEND, however. I don't think they've ever
been shy about that.
> In a message dated 05/22/2000 5:06:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > Any personal experience out there with this policy? Is it followed in every
> > case?
> I definitely think that paint color clauses in HP ordinances spread more
> ill-will than any other preservation issue. ("You people aren't going to tell
> me what color to paint MY house!") Having said that... microscpic analysis is
> the way to go, if one is going to try and enforce a paint clause in an
> ordinance: one has to be able to scientifically and historically substantiate
> the authenticity of the required paint scheme. I've heard of many legal
> problems with paint clauses in HP ordinances.
>
> -Heidi
|
|
|