" Yes, let's set some records straight. 1) Despite assertions to the contrary, there is nothing historic whatsoever about Webb House. It's a nice house. A pretty house. It was built circa 1905 and I'm sure many of us would be happy to own it. But that doesn't make it historic, nor is it unique. It's a common, vernacular design from that era--not at all Victorian (which would make it more valuable)--and in fact there's a house identical to it--done by the same architect I believe--right down the street. No one argues that Webb House was worth saving *if feasible and sensible.* But not at the expense of destroying another structure that is also worth having. 2) Lake House, the apartment house which would be demolished, is NOT a structure of "no appreciable use" as stated in the article. Assertions are also repeatedly made that Lake House is beyond saving--assertions which are completely mistaken. Aurora is too short on affordable housing already; Lake House has four apartments which could be lived in again easily. 3) Locating Webb House on the site currently occupied by Lake House can in *no* way benefit the look of the neighborhood and would certainly not benefit anyone's view. In fact it's the worst possible place to insert a house as large as Webb. The "cluttered look" this would create--with the Masonic Lodge, Holland House, and Lyon House all within a few feet of the proposed site--would only leave us with a dense *block* of buildings totally negating the view of the lake for those living nearby. 4) The parties wishing to move Webb House to the Lake House site have (as far as I can tell) repeatedly failed to bring proper, scaled drawings and plans to show the boards. (they've brought drawings but none have shown true scale or measurement). It's been made clear to them that many people aren't happy with them simply submitting a "wish list" proposal for such a serious project, asking us all to "imagine" what it would be like with Webb House placed on-site. One would think that if you were presenting a controversial and difficult plan that you'd like to have passed, you'd do everything in your power to have VERY detailed and VERY professional plans made--plans drawn up by professionals, showing scale and exact, true measurement. But so far the drawings presented have been ad hoc sketches and little more. There has also been no survey made of the site as far as I know. Apparently expense is the issue. 5) But if it's a question of expense, then one wonders how anyone can afford to buy Webb house, have Lake House demolished, and move Webb into its place. Rest assured all this will cost heavily. Not only is there the cost of demolishment and moving, but there is the fact that Webb House has been up on blocks--and NOT level--for THREE years now. No blithe assumptions should be made as to the structural health of that house, therefore. Any engineer or honest contractor will tell you that you can't just have a house up on blocks, esp. off-level, for that long, without some negative effects. That'll cost. And placing Webb House on site also means diverting the flow of a creek as I understand it--a further cost. And then there's the extensive grading of the land that will need to be done to complete this "vision." Webb House simply isn't worth it. "

" The structure is too tall, as is, and they have plans to bring in 6 feet or more of fill that will elevate the structure far over the existing building. That is setting the record straighter. "

" To whom it may concern, In his story on the Aurora Zoning Board meeting concerning Webb House, your writer (Jason Gabak) misquoted me and mispelled my name. In an effort to keep the record straight, I wanted to supply the following information. We are asking for a height variance of 6" above the 35 feet stipulated in the code: that equals a 1.43% difference in height, not the 10% difference as quoted in the article. At the meeting I suggested that a 6 inch height difference of the roof line as seen from the street (130 feet away) would be virtually imperceptible. The 10%-14% difference concerned the area variance. In the neighborhood along Main Street, only one lot meets current code of 100 feet wide. The other existing lots range from 37 to 90 feet wide, with a total average of 70% of current code. The Lake House lot (at 88.33 feet wide) is the fourth largest lot along that section of the west side of Main Street and hence is well in keeping with the size of other neighborhood properties. Furthermore, the house easily conforms to all the current setback requirements. Finally, I said that this situation is unique, and that supporting our proposal would not be establishing any kind of precedent for the future. Sincerely, Cynthia J. Koepp "