Agenda - 12-17-1996 - 8g - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i 2 BACKGROUND: property owners opposes such a designation.) Letters of interest, along with National (continued) Register information, were mailed to the twenty-five(25)Cedar Grove crossroads area property owners (see Attachment#3). The letter invited landowners to attend the October 24 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission, which was held at the Cedar Grove United Methodist Church. Five (5) property owners, representing eight (8) of the thirty-two (32) properties within the crossroads area, attended the meeting. The HPC presented information about the historical significance of Cedar Grove and the process of listing on the National Register. Planning Staff and HPC members also answered questions from the attendees. Following the meeting, another letter was mailed on October 30 to each Cedar Grove crossroads area property owner (see Attachment #4). This mailing included a "straw vote" response form on the question of National Register listing. (A postcard reminder was mailed on November 21.) Responses were received from seventeen (17) out of twenty-five(25)addressees. Eleven(11)responses were in favor of listing of Cedar Grove on the National Register, and six(6) responses were not in favor of the designation. The two churches within the proposed district, Eno Presbyterian and Cedar Grove United Methodist, returned petitions in support of the National Register proposal (see Attachment #5). Although the "straw vote" confirms the HPC's view that the Cedar Grove crossroads community generally supports the National Register nomination, it should not be construed as the decisive vote on National Register listing. After submission of a nomination to the National Register Advisory Committee, there is a formal process for objecting to a proposed listing. An earlier report prepared by Planning Staff, which describes previous efforts regarding the Cedar Grove National Register nomination, is provided as Attachment#6. Pending Board approval of the Request for Proposals, it will be distributed to a list of historic preservation consultants approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Planning Staff will review the RFPs received and forward them to the Historic Preservation Commission for review at their January 22, 1997 meeting. The HPC will then forward their selection recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. RECOhEMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Request for Proposals.