Laserfiche WebLink
<br />with doing the work if they are not changing or relocating the driveway. Mr. Corell said the city <br />requires either asphalt or concrete. He asked what the board is ruling on then if a resident comes to <br />the board, since the law defines it as one or the other. Mr. Lang asked if an individual having a stone <br />driveway could then re-do the stone. Mr. Corell said yes, as long as they are already stone, they are <br />grand-fathered in. Mr. Lang said if there is an individual switching from concrete to asphalt, it would <br />have to go through Landmarks. There was discussion about relocating a driveway and whether that is <br />an issue for the board. Mr. Lang asked if there is anythina historically incorrect with switching <br />pavements. Mr. Corell said that is a question that is beyond their scope. If the city says it has to be <br />that aggregate, then a historically correct driveway would have been a dirt rut or cinders or stones. <br />They can say it is appropriate for stone but the city can say you can't. do it. Mr. Lang said that <br />technically the way the latest ordinance is written, which has not been corrected, it has to go before <br />Landmarks. And Landmarks does not have the power to say it doesn't. Mr. Corell added that the <br />board does not have the authority to say anything about it being asphalt or concrete. Mr. Barker <br />suggested saying that the board has no objection to the fact that a certificate of appropriateness does <br />not have to be given to a person changing asphalt to concrete, or concrete to asphalt, per review of the <br />Law Director. Mrs: Lord pointed out the board has struggled with the issue before and they were left <br />with the impression that under the current ordinance, they cannot make any rulings to change the <br />ordinance. Mr. Barker said he does not like having the charge of telling a person who owns property <br />what they can and cannot do. The board has told people they have voted aDainst them doing some <br />iinproveinents only because of its feelings and beliefs of historic importance, even if it is within the <br />boundaries of their property and meets all specifics of the building department. He still has real <br />objections to telling someone they can't do something. Mrs. Lord said that the ordinance doesn't <br />indicate that you can't do somethinb right now. Mr. Corell said the only thing they really can do is try <br />to extract from residents the promise that they will make changes/improvements blend in as much as <br />possible. If they put restrictions in there with teeth, people would have property rights taken without <br />just compensation. They currently haven't lost property riahts, they just have to wait, and no one has <br />ruled that time is a property right. Mrs. Lord said then there is no issue with the suagestion however it <br />needs to be referred to the Law Director for further clarification. Mr. Barker said they have the <br />authority to tell the building department the board does not have to see these residents regarding the <br />driveway issue. Mrs. Davis said as a Butternut resident she can see inore and more where people <br />along Butternut will look to alternative driveways on their own properties. Mr. Corell concurred and <br />added that traffic at certain tiines of the day is unbearable. Mrs. Lord pointed out they really don't <br />know what the ordinance is regarding the relocation of a driveway. She asked that the clerk obtain a <br />copy of the ordinance so they know the answer to that question. The material should be included in <br />the next mailing. The issue has not come up but it would be nice to know ahead of time. Mr. Barker <br />pointed out that in his case he took a 10-foot driveway and made it a 16-foot driveway and increased <br />the size of the apron. The city came out and inspected it and didn't say anything. Mr. Corell said his <br />neighbor moved a driveway and put a fence up. He believes as long as you comply with the zoning <br />requirements, you can put a driveway anywhere you want. The only control the city has is the <br />materiaL - <br />P. Barker made a motion that the Landmarks Commission has no objection to the building department <br />proposal of not having residents go before the board with regard to replacing a driveway from asphalt <br />to concrete, or concrete to asphalt. They also ask that this issue be reviewed by the law department to <br />see that Landmarks has the authority to tell the building department that. The motion was seconded <br />by G. Corell and was unanimously approved. <br />2