The permit approval came following a more than half-hour long executive session with village attorney John Lambert.

The reason for going into executive session was pending or potential litigation, according to Lambert.

Last month, the village attorney cautioned the board against using criteria different from what had been used in the past when considering demolition permits.

``Thus, it would be my recommendation to the planning board to grant the relief requested by the applicant to demolish the building,’’ he wrote to the board.

The Spring Street house Clark sought to demolish was designed by Cincinnati architect Carl Strauss and built in the mid-1950s.

Kathleen LaFrank, of the New York State Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau was asked months ago to offer her opinion of the house and wrote to the planning board, ``I have concluded that the property is individually eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.’’

The house, she wrote, is an excellent example of a period and style not generally represented in the village and is the work of a noted modern architect.

``The residence is a significant addition to Cooperstown’s fine catalogue of historic architecture, and I hope that a way can be found to preserve it,’’ her letter stated.

But since that time, concerns have arisen about what criteria would be used to determine if the property was of historic significance.

Those concerns triggered Lambert’s closed door session with the board during which he explained the need for the board to be consistent with the criteria it uses to determine if a structure is of historic and/or architectural significance.

After returning to open session, planning board chairwoman Teresa Drerup said the board has been advised it must follow the same procedures it has used in the past.

Drerup polled the board’s advisors about their opinions of the structure. Gilbert Vincent said he had not visited the house and did not feel competent to offer an opinion.

Allan Rowe commented that he was certain if the Glimmerglass Historic District nomination form, which lists all structures in the district, was to be updated, the house would be considered a contributing structure. The Glimmerglass nomination form has been one of the criteria the planning board has used in the past to determine a structure’s significance.

The third advisor, Bruce Guyot, said there was little he could add to his previous opinion that the house is of architectural and/or historic significance.

Planning board member Joe Siracusa offered a motion to determine the house was of architectural and/or historic significance, but the motion was defeated four to one with Cindy Falk dissenting.

A motion to approve the demolition permit was adopted with four yeas and one abstention by Falk.

Drerup said Wednesday morning that there has been inconsistency in the past in how a structure’s significance has been determined and a standard needs to be set.

``Lambert told us we can’t start writing the rules as we go,’’ she said.

There has not been a standard in the law the board can use when reviewing a demolition permit and Drerup and other board members plan to work on establishing one.

``So we have set procedures and everybody is treated the same,’’ she said.

The standards may extend beyond complete demolition to also include partial demolitions and additions which alter the character of historic structures, Drerup said.

Standards would have to be approved as an amendment to the zoning law by the board of trustees