From the Riverdale Press:
Alderbrook (pictured), the Percy R. Pyne-Elie Nadelman House at 4715 Independence Ave., was approved for landmark status by Community Board 8’s Land Use Committee Monday night. Two other buildings, 6 Ploughman’s Bush and the Greyston Gatehouse, 4695 Independence Ave., were not approved. Decisions made by the community board are not binding, but have had an influence on the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission in the past.
The Greyston Gatehouse, which is part of the Dodge estate, was not approved at the request of its owner. The gatehouse is owned by the Cleveland H. Dodge Foundation, which would like to sell the house and donate the proceeds to youth-service organizations around the city, said William Dodge Rueckert, president of the foundation and great-great-grandson of the gatehouse’s eponymous builder.
Landmark status reduces the value of the property by about 10 to 20 percent, he said, mostly because new owners are limited in changes they can make.
a) That's a favorite excuse of the anti-landmarking crowd, but it's not true. Just ask anyone who lives in a landmarked district.
b) A community board is supposed to work in the best interest of the community, not concern itself with the bottom lines of individual homeowners.
c) What will the preservation community's response be to this?
Now let's have some fun and examine the other building at 6 Ploughmans Bush...
The LPC claimed that the building represented “a rare example of a 19th Century rural, bracketed, board andbatten estate outbuilding.”
It does look kinda nice. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a screenshot of the front, but even from the back, it's pretty unique.
But CB 8 did not find that reason enough to approve the building, said Mr. Moerdler in December, “because it wasn’t a landmark. There was no real pedigree. The building had been partially destroyed.”
...a proposal to make it a landmark was not approved by the committee in 2006, and it was soundly defeated again Monday night.
The building was not approved last time, Mr. Moerdler said at the meeting, because the owner objected, and stated at the time that she was in the process of making alterations. After being damaged in a storm, the building was carefully restored.
WHOA! There it is on the left. As per Mary Beth Betts' previous determinations, it's been "altered beyond recognition"! How did this obvious candidate for rejection via form letter get past her?