|
REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2017
<br />Mr. Klusczinski responded, The HPC, by ordinance, has to consider three (3) elements, and that
<br />is: the appropriateness, which is architectural style; material used —not plastic for wood, in cases,
<br />or masonry; and, also, design elements. Or, if there are proposed changes like illuminations to a
<br />building, then we have to choose something that's sympathetic
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston interjected, I don't have a lot of time, so I apologize. I
<br />understand that. So, at that time, the building was falling apart. What I'm hearing is that there
<br />were all kinds of activity happening in the building that was a pu blic detriment. So, when he
<br />purchased the property, it was really about making sure that he created a safer space.
<br />Mr. Klusczinski interjected, To protect it from the elements.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston continued, To prevent deterio ation, but also to protect the
<br />community from illicit activity, and so on and so forth. That firsi kind of initiation was really
<br />about the fact that it's more important to make sure that this is s fe, versus it being okay to
<br />change whatever needs to be changed. I
<br />Mr. Klusczinski responded, There were no changes proposed. It was just an alteration of
<br />material.
<br />Councilmember Oliver Davis announced that the time for questioning had officially passed, and
<br />that now the Council was free to make final comments before voting on whether to approve or
<br />deny the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Davis stated that
<br />Councilmember Regina Williams- Preston would be first to comient, and Councilmember Karen
<br />White would be last.
<br />Councilmember Williams- Preston stated, I am inclined to rule in favor of Mr'. Boyd, because —
<br />based on the information that I read—he wasn't sure about an af ipeals process, and he asked
<br />about that and was not given clarity or information, and was actually told they don't disclose it.
<br />This was one (1) of the questions I wanted to ask. Based on the information I have in here, I felt
<br />like that was an action that was arbitrary, capricious, and a piece of discretion. Aside from that, I
<br />would also rule in favor of Mr. Boyd because it seems that the B ailding Department was where
<br />the ball was dropped in this process —but it is a part of the proce 3s for getting all the information
<br />to the resident. I think that we have to make sure that we are not holding our citizens responsible
<br />for something that is a responsibility of the City, and the Histori Preservation Commission is an
<br />entity of the City; the Building Department is an entity of the Ci y. Whatever their procedures
<br />are, we have to make sure that they are being followed. I feel liko he was denied a due process,
<br />which would be a violation of probably something —I'm not a lawyer. But it was certainly
<br />outside of what I understand, especially after this hearing, of thel procedures to be. So, I think
<br />that there were some arbitrary and capricious actions, but also actions taken that were outside of
<br />procedure. I also feel that, if we look at this process from beginning to end, his actions were
<br />certainly made in order to reduce public detriment. So, I think that that is something we need to
<br />consider, as well.
<br />Councilmember Randy Kelly stated, I agree with Ms. Williams- reston, certainly, in some
<br />regards. And as I mentioned earlier, I actually had a friend who I ent and got a building permit
<br />for a garage extension. Found out later, once it had virtually gon up, that that height wasn't
<br />permitted in that neighborhood. So, you maybe need to look at s me of these issues with the
<br />Building Department. And, again, I feel for, Mr. Boyd, what yo 're going through. I do think
<br />that that is a completely separate issue, however, from whether r not the HPC, with regard to
<br />determining whether or not this gabled roof was appropriate for the building, was arbitrary and
<br />capricious. I think they went through the proper channels to determine that. So, it's my
<br />contention that they did not do anything that would fall under that category.
<br />Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated, The denial of the Certific4e of Appropriateness, I would
<br />say, is on point here. It seems to me that Mr. Boyd exceeded the authorization that he sought for
<br />the routine maintenance. The information with the sworn statement was not part of the earlier
<br />record, so we can't go that direction. So, based on what was available at the time of the hearing, I
<br />would support the denial of the COA as the changes were beyor the Group B standards and did
<br />detract from the original form and architecture and integrity of t .s property as a historic
<br />landmark.
<br />
|