Heidi -

Funny you should ask about that "what if."

In the particular case that sparked this attempt at
revision, the demolition was ceased (when about 1/3 of
the building remained), and there were negotiations
prior to the Zoning Board hearing about taking down the
remainder in a careful fashion so that pieces could be
re-used and/or replicated in the new building, which was
one of the proposals in the first place.

Before any good will/damage control could proceed,
however, Hurricane Floyd came to town and the remainder
of the building was demolished due to public safety
concerns.

There is much more to this saga than I am relating here,
but let's just say that there were a few visits by the
applicants to the Design Review Commission, some
successful, some obviously not so successful.  In the
end, I think most everyone came away more than a little
bitter.

To (finally) answer your question about re-installation,
that is a mandated solution, or in some cases even a
preferred one, but it is certainly not out of the
question.  This is something that would be determined on
a case-by-case basis like most everything else.

>
> And what would happen if, in the appeals period, the permit was rescinded,
> but the owner had already started or completed work? would the now
> non-permited work have to be re-installed?
>
> Sounds to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Why grant the permit until the
> owner can go forward with the work with assurance? It doesn't make sense.
>
> I think you are very wise to pursue changing this.
>
> -Heidi