08/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

01, delays that in many cases are unnecessary. A gentleman from the audience spoke up and indicated he will have trouble finishing a job in time because of the process currently in place. He called the Building Department to see if he could get approval backwards, in reverse order. He was told there is something before Council. W. Lang asked if at the time of his filing an application he was told he would have to go before Landmarks. The gentleman said he had the pernut in his hand and paid for and he was called back down. Another audience member indicated she had a contractor who was informed they would have to go to Landmarks. Mr. Lang brought up the letter that was sent out to historic district residents from the Building Dept. about a year ago. There was further discussion between audience members and the board.(much of this discussion was difficult to hear on the tape). However, it was evident that the residents were not pleased with the process. Mr. Corell indicated that is why the board has been trying to work through the City to get the ordinance modified that would permit minor changes so that these kind of delays would not fall on the residents. He added they are aware of the problems and they don't like it either but they are bound,by the law, until the law is changed. Mr. Barker said they are trying to streamline things so when someone applies for a building permit and they are notified they have to go through Landmarks, what will take place then is perhaps someone from the Building Department will call either the chairman or vice-chairman, and they will discuss the proposed case and within 24 hours a resident will have an answer. If at that point they think it is more involved, they would ask a resident to go before the commission to discuss things further. Mr. Barker apologized but said that is the way things are right now. Mr. Corell said it does put a burden on a number of people and they would like to have what Mr. Barker is referring to as some sortof advanced screening mechanism so that they can talk it over and avoid unnecessary delays, and yet discuss the more involved changes. Mr. Corell apologized as well for the delays. Mrs. Baldi arrived and informed the board that they did receive a permit from the City to go ahead with changing their driveway. They were informed however that they would need to go before Landmarks. Mr. Barker mentioned they had been discussing her case before she arrived. He said the board is trying to decipher it all out too. He said the majority of the commission would probably agree that brick is a great idea because that is what came first, before asphalt or concrete. Mr. Corell said that given the vintage of the house it is a perfect match. Mr. Barker said his personal issue is that as long as the Baldi's are there they won't see weeds growing up from the brick paving, but if someone moves in it could become a weeded driveway. He said there is also concrete that looks like brick on the market now. He said that he assumes the Building Department will go to Mr. O'Malley and the Law Department. on such an issue. Mr. O'Malley said it sounds like the Building Department issued the permit and it's done. He does not believe they issued the permit subject to the Board of Zoning Appeal's approval. If they issued a permit they resolved the matter on their own. If they were going to require a variance they would not have issued the permit. If they issued the permit already there is nothing for the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine. Mr. Corell said_ since the building permit is issued and it's a matter upon which the law is somewhat silent and perhaps open to debate, would the board even need to issue a certificate of appropriateness or would they bypass it. Mr. O'Malley indicated he believes they should issue a certificate and the applicant should have been required to appear before the board as a pre-condition of obtaining the building permit. Mrs. Baldi said they were told because they are replacing an existing driveway, and not changing the location or size of it, they were issued a permit on those grounds. Mr. Corell said he wants to be clear on the role of Landmarks in this case. Mr. O'Malley said their role in this is the same as their role in any application like this. Mr. Corell asked if they then ignore the fact that the building permit was issued and treat it like an original applicant. Mr. O'Malley said that is correct. He said they are ratifying the Building Commissioner's determination. Mr. Corell said that is the point he is getting at. There have been times in the past where the board did that and that to him violates the spirit of the code. The fact that the majority might think something is a great idea is irrelevant. Mr. O'Malley asked that the board consider the applicant's view and request and make a determination on the certificate regardless of what the Building Commissioner determined. Mr. Barker pointed out that before they were notified 3