|
i
<br />REGULAR MEETING j FEBRUARY 27,201
<br />HPC uses that term for "Routine Maintenance Exclusion." That r ans as an in -kind
<br />replacement—it's in use when a repair is actually needed, such a the fire that Mr. Boyd made
<br />reference to. The roof had collapsed, so he did not have to go thr ugh the Certificate of
<br />Appropriateness application process —he could just go to staff, like he did in 2011, and say, "I
<br />don't have a roof. I need to replace this and repair it, in- kind." And that was approved in 2011.
<br />Nothing in that RME —and that's in "Exhibit B"—nowhere in that does it reference a gabled
<br />roof, this asymmetrical gabled pitched roof that Mr. Boyd has now put on his building without
<br />prior approval. It states nowhere in there that that gabled roof is approved. It simply says,
<br />"Replace metal roofing." That is important to keep in mind, as well. In regards to what Mr. Boyd
<br />referenced, as far as what the Building Department did: back in 2015 when he applied for a
<br />Building permit, it is true that that was never received and never orwarded on to HPC. The legal
<br />effect of that is that HPC did not and could not have considered I iat an application for a
<br />Certificate of Appropriateness. If the Building Department receil es an application for a building
<br />permit, it is required by its ordinance to forward that on to HPC. I agree with Mr. Boyd: that's
<br />not his fault that that did not happen and that didn't come from the Building Department. That is
<br />also not HPC's fault for not receiving something that should have been forwarded to it, as well.
<br />What happened there was, back in August, 2015 when he applie for the permit from the
<br />Building Department that was never forwarded on to HPC, it was never taken in then at that time
<br />as a Certificate of Appropriateness application. If it had been, w would be in here probably last
<br />February instead of where we are today. In light of that, HPC did not take any action with that.
<br />When it did receive the application, most recently in August, 20 6, when that permit was finally
<br />forwarded and they learned of that, they properly and promptly ocketed that on their September,
<br />2016 agenda, as they do and they did for every other application for a COA. 1.
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, So, fortunately, it's very late in the eveningl'and you do not have to sit here,
<br />as Ms. DeRose indicated, as members of a jury. You don't have to reweigh evidence, so to
<br />speak. The standard of review here is very high, and I think it's high for a reason. The HPC is
<br />granted authority through the ordinances that this Council has put into effect to consider and
<br />either grant or deny an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for its properties in
<br />historic districts or properties which are historic landmarks. This property in particular is a
<br />historic landmark, also created by this Council back in 1999, through Ordinance No. 9037 -99 on
<br />September 27th, 1999. This Council granted historic landmark status to this property, and that
<br />should mean something. If we are to allow major construction projects to be designated historic
<br />landmarks in our town without prior approval through HPC, which is required by the ordinance,
<br />why are we calling these things historic landmarks? I appreciate the situation that Mr. Boyd is in,
<br />but this process was in effect —and certainly he knew about HPC back in 2011, because he went
<br />to them at that time. Yet, he went ahead and started this construction project of this gabled
<br />asymmetrical roof without prior approval with HPC. That's what caused a major issue at the
<br />September meeting when this was finally before the HPC prope0y.
<br />Mr. Hummer stated, What you have before you here, the standa d of review that Ms. DeRose
<br />indicated: was HPC arbitrary and capricious? Did they throw thr ordinance out the window? Did
<br />they throw the process or procedure out the window and just de ide on a whim what they were
<br />going to do here? No. They were not arbitrary and capricious. E 'd they violate any of Mr.
<br />Boyd's constitutional rights or statutory rights? No. Did they ac without observance to the
<br />procedure and what's in the HPC ordinance? No, and I will exp ain how they did observe that in
<br />just a minute. It is a high standard, and the Council should respect that, respectfully, and give
<br />deference to the ordinance as written. Mr. Boyd really did not n cessarily touch on too many of
<br />those issues in his position here, just now, as far as why he mee s within some of those standards
<br />of review before you, but the HPC reviewed his application her al last fall, as it would any other
<br />application. His application was, as he mentioned, for approval to construct an asymmetrical,
<br />gabled roof on top of this Firehouse, this landmark. In "Exhibit A" to what you have, it shows
<br />the picture of the Firehouse as it was in 1999 when this Council granted it historic landmark
<br />status. You will note it has a flat roof, a flatline roof, and it does not look anywhere close to what
<br />Mr. Boyd has since put on this roof without approval from the HPC. Unfortunately, he started on
<br />the project before getting that approval, and, as of the time of the September 19th, 2016 meeting
<br />at HPC, as I referenced in Mr. Bulot's letter from August, he had not obtained the necessary
<br />permits to do what he had already done on that property, as weld. Despite that, HPC did consider
<br />20
<br />
|