March 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

therefore there was not a COA application on file for this project that was begun without a COA. He then explained that the HPC had asked the owner for: 1. photographs or other evidence of the original condition of the garage; 2. contractor's specifications for all materials; 3. in -scale elevations of the intended proposal when completed. The staff had received none of those materials although the owner had contacted the staff several weeks prior to the meeting and had assured the staff that the materials would be submitted. Mr. Oxian suggested that the case be turned over to the legal department if the owner did not contact staff before the April meeting. He added that the case was not trivial; the owner had violated every rule and regulation of the district. Mrs. Sporleder asked for clarification of the case. Mr. Oxian responded that the owner had never applied for a COA or a building permit and had already completed the project. Mr. Holycross responded that the owner had applied for a COA last month with the materials included in the monthly packet. It was disapproved at that time. He then described the proposed project: stabilize the garage structurally; replace existing wood clapboards on walls of garage with matching wood clapboard, salvaging all original materials as possible; infill the rear window (remove and cover with clapboard); replace two double -hung windows on east side of garage with metal double-hungs; replace all eaves, fascia and trim with white synthetic siding; replace asphalt shingles on roof in-kind. All of these proposals, except for replacing the clapboard, had been completed without a COA or a building permit. When it came to staff's attention, it was as depicted in packet photographs. Staff asked the owner for a COA application for the changes he had made in order that the HPC could make a determination on the appropriateness. The legal question was essentially the change to the structure without a COA. Ms. Brubaker stated that the only solution she could see at his point was to require that wood siding be replaced on the walls of the structure. The original material is gone and cannot be "brought back," Mrs. Sporleder asked if the intention of the staff and HPC was to require documentation of the condition of the original structure. Mr. Holycross replied that a project had been done in a district without a COA and the staff had no other avenue to pursue except to ask the owner to apply for a COA a to allow the commission to make a determination on the matter. Unless the commission wished to direct the staff otherwise, he did not know how else to deal with the matter. Mrs. Sporleder asked if the intention was to get a COA. Mr. Oxian responded that the intention was also to find out what the project actually entailed --documentation of all the materials that had been replaced. He added that this was not just a gutter, it was a whole garage.... it was [as if] someone had put up an addition [without a COA] ... opening the door for a total violation of standards." Ms. Brubaker stated that the commission was asking for more information in order to make a decision whether or not the project was appropriate. Discussion ensued concerning the case. Mr. Holycross stated that he had been asked last month to send a letter to the owner asking for documentation; he had done so. Ms. DeRose asked what the commission wanted the legal department to do. Mr. Oxian responded that he wanted to know "what was there, what he took down and what he is trying to accomplish." Ms. DeRose responded that she needed to review the case and determine whether there was a legal remedy. Mrs. Choitz stated that Mr. Oxian was trying to compel him to appear before the commission at a hearing; although she doubted whether that would result in bringing the matter to a conclusion 3