Laserfiche WebLink
, <br />V. CONIlVIITTEE REPORTS: <br />VI. OLD BUSINESS: <br />B. Lord commented that Mr. Lang assured her that the board members would receive a copy <br />of the new proposed sign, but it was not in the packets. There are supposedly changes made <br />to the new sign postings but since the board can not see these changes they will table the sign <br />changes until the next meeting. G. Corell motioned to table the posting sign issue until the <br />next regularly scheduled Landmarks Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by K. <br />O'Rourke and was unanimously agreed upon. <br />B. Lord explained that in the members packets are a list of questions that J. Lang came up <br />with as he went through the ordinance. The board needs to come up with answers to these <br />questions. B. Lord suggested that now that all the tnembers have a copy of the ordinance and <br />J. Lang's questions that they go through the ordinance again with the questions, and try to <br />come up with answers or their own questions. M. Gareau Jr. commented that he could <br />answer the first question which is; who is Landmarks Commission responsible to. He <br />indicated that the commission is not responsible to Cbuncil and it is not responsible to the <br />Mayor. It is like the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is unto itsel£ The board is to make its <br />own decisions set forth by the guidelines of the code and if the decision is not acceptable to <br />the applicant they appeal to the court of common pleas. So the board is a separate <br />functioning body, like the Board of Zoning Appeals is. M. Gareau Jr. then indicated that he <br />did begin preparing legislation to change the process. He is trying to devise a system where a <br />determination can be made by the Building Commissioner or he could set it forth in the <br />ordinance as to under certain limited circumstances an abbreviated version could take place. <br />For instance, J. Lang could be notified and if he does not object to the issuance then by <br />ordinance the certificate of appropriateness could be issued without having a full meeting <br />with Landmarks. This would help eliminate issues that are minor and should not even be <br />presented to the board. B. Lord commented that J. Lang found a list of thing that are <br />recommended and not recommended for the Landmarks Commission to look over. A. <br />Smeraldi motion that the board take all the new information and look it over for discussion at <br />the next meeting. M. Gareau Jr. seconded the motion and was unanimously approved. <br />VII. ADJOURNMENT: <br />G. Corell moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by M. Gareau Jr. and <br />unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M. <br />Betty Lord, Vice Chairman Asst. Clerk of Commissions, Shaun Solomon