08/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l , the permit was issued, he had a different idea about this. He said now that they know the permit is issued, and considering what Mr. O'Malley has said, he has no misgivings about signing the certificate. He has misgivings about how this came about and the fact that what they are doing is a mute point. Mr. Corell agreed and said it is like acknowledging something that they had nothing to say about in the first place. He said it seems as though if they give the building permit, they can approve it, disapprove it, it doesn't matter. 1VIr. Barker said as of last month's meeting, their big discussion concerned changing a driveway from asphalt to concrete without going before Landmarks. And then this month they get an asphalt to concrete request but they have a permit. J. Lang made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for pouglas E. Baldi, 26706 Butternut Ridge Road, for the installation of a reclaimed paving brick driveway pending compliance with all ordinances and rulings by' other boards and commissions. The motion was seconded by K. 0'Rourke and unanimously approved. There was discussion about whether this case would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. O'Malley said there seems to be a rush of applicants to the Building Department who are anxious to get started. On the one hand people have been held up, and on the other hand there may be people who should go before Landmarks who are finding some way or justification to avoid that process and go around the commission. He said there should be some middle ground where certain things like blacktop to concrete can go through and a gray roof to a black roof can go through. He added it is hard to find that middle ground because with this last scenario the resident could very well have a fine historic house that has certain features that make it historic but he decides to put vinyl siding on it. It may not be that simple for the Building Commissioner to exempt it from review. Mrs. O'Rourke indicted they can't take it case by case when writing an ordinance. Mr. Barker said with what just happened, anyone in the City theoretically can get permission to put in a brick driveway. Mr. O'Malley said he does not believe a single issuance of permit constitutes a precedence that others can rely on even if a variance were granted. It seems highly unusual that a building permit would be issued and then a variance application would then nonetheless proceed. Mr. Corell said he noticed what seems to be a door opening is that the ordinance is silent on that material. It neither permits it nor forbids it. Mr. Barker added it is not only the ordinance but also the building code. Mrs. VanAuken indicated she believes this was inevitable that they spend the first year doing these things because they are really writing for the future. There are bound to be things people didn't think of in the original legislation. They are gradually uncovering some of those things. It was mentioned that City Council is trying to make things clearer. Perhaps this is one case where they can say brick will be a permitted purpose. Mr. O'Malley agreed with the cominent that the commission is feeling out its place and this legislation is trying to find its niche. There are things that need to be adjusted. Mr. Corell asked if Mr. Dailey would be willing to work through the Law Department to get some legislation before Council. Mr. Dailey indicated Mr. Gareau and Mrs. Kasler are aware of the situation. Mr. O'Malley pointed out the concept of a minor change is what Mr. Gareau initiated and there was legislation drafted along those lines. It is more than.a year old. He added it had some difficulties in the review process particularly by the building commission. Mr. Corell said they have been looki-ng at 3-5 issues a month, in a good month. He asked if it is possible to write the ordinance so the entire Landmarks Commission can delegate the screening to a sub-committee of perhaps three members. Mr. O'Malley said that is the minor change format and in reviewing it with the Building Commissioner, he has counseled against that. He said the minor change format on one hand allows for greater discretion but on the other hand it takes the entire Landmarks Commission and replaces the responsibility for the decision, in some instances, in the hands of someone else. Mr. Corell asked doesn't the court of appeals delegate the three justices. Mr. O'Malley said it would go to the whole body first and then the smaller body second. On the other hand, the format he suggested.is that the code identifies certain exempt activities and perhaps they can identify those areas that the commission 4