|
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />Mr. Boyd responded, Other properties. Residential. Regarding the staff report that was given to
<br />the hearing, they're in favor of that addition. That's why I haven't really talked about the
<br />addition. I did say that the permits need to be applied for, but there's not really much objection to
<br />it.
<br />Ms. Feasel stated, Actually, the Commission approved the addition to the second story, but they
<br />did not approve the siding and the windows to be applied /salvaged that Mr. Boyd obtained as a
<br />donation. And, after the siding and windows were denied, he installed them anyway.
<br />Mr. Boyd stated, That is correct. I was subjected to a demo hearing in the middle of January, so
<br />if there's no progress, they tear your building down. So, something had to happen. Between
<br />Code, Historic Preservation, Homeland Security — you've got to make everybody happy, so...
<br />And those things can be changed.
<br />Interim Council Attorney DeRose addressed the Council, stating, Just a point of order, but you
<br />must consider the materials that were presented at the time of hearing.
<br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston asked, Point of order: when you're saying "the
<br />materials presented," that includes the stuff we got beforehand?
<br />Ms. DeRose responded, The information is part of the record.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, Not just tonight, but all of this?
<br />Ms. DeRose responded, That information is part of the record. But anything that is post - appeal is
<br />not relevant to tonight's deliberation.
<br />Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, And to that end, I want to make sure we're talking about the
<br />right thing here. So, regardless of —and I feel for your plight, Mr. Boyd — regardless of how
<br />egregious of a mistake the Building Department may have made, we are trying to determine here
<br />whether or not the HPC acted capriciously with regard to, simply, their decision on whether or
<br />not this gabled roof was appropriate for the building. Is that correct?
<br />Mr. Hummer responded, Yeah, that's correct.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, The process has two (2) ways. Like, if I buy a historic
<br />building, I have two (2) ways that I can go about that. One (1) is to go directly to the HPC. If
<br />there needs to be repairs or something I can go to the Building Department. Either one (1) of
<br />those processes is valid. Right? Okay. Some of the information that I saw in the appeal I have
<br />questions about. This goes to the issue of process. My concern is that it sounds like, based on
<br />what I read, there's a question in here —that the process is somewhat confusing. So, back in 2011
<br />there was an attempt to begin the process of repair. Have there been any changes in any staffing
<br />or anything since this whole thing first started? I'm wondering what's the difference —it seems
<br />like positions have changed a little bit.
<br />Mr. Klusczinski responded, I think the record is consistent. I think —if I get the core of your
<br />question —the changes are the differences between the Routine Maintenance Exclusion, RME, or
<br />a Certificate of Appropriateness, which has to undergo a public hearing and go through the board
<br />for a decision. HPC is a quasi-judicial body, just like you are right now. So, at the beginning, Mr.
<br />Boyd presented to our administrator at the time, Catherine Hostetler, that he needed to clad the
<br />roof to protect it from the elements. And, given the choice of some materials, Catherine made a
<br />decision with some latitude, choosing a different material to be able to provide the flat roof
<br />instead of what had been on there previously —if it was UPDL, or I don't know. The effect was
<br />to protect the landmark as a whole. So, the HPC staff was acting as kind of an emergency
<br />mediator trying to make sure that they can allow some materials to which Mr. Boyd said he had
<br />access to be able to clad the roof, but not change the design or the style, or do anything.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, So, one (1) of the things I read in here was about
<br />weighing the difference between saving a structure —or public detriment —and whether this was
<br />the right or the wrong.
<br />Mr. Klusczinski responded, Right.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston asked, Architecture, right?
<br />27
<br />
|