08/12/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ,.. would agree would be exempt from overview and then try to make it clear for the Building Commissioner. A driveway going from asphalt to concrete is exempt; it would not go to the commissioner. But, that format doesn't allow for the commissioner or the chairman of Landmarks to have an opinion about the case by case examples. Mr. Corell said his only fear is that when they get that specific, there will be a never-ending string of things that get added on that will become exempt. The creativity of people in upgrading their homes is going to produce a string of minor differences and the Building Commissioner could sit there and say they are adding 8 inches to the width; that is different and has to go. They would have to go to Mr. Dailey to add things to the list. He said they have to go back to the integrity and discretion of our colleague. Mr. O'Malley said maybe they can identify the primary areas that ought to be exempt and still maintain some discretion exercised by the Building Commissioner under the guidance of the chairman. Mr. Barker suggested perhaps a committee be formed with the Law Department, a member of Council, and the Building Department. Mr. O'Malley said that Mr. Gareau was asked to try to revive the old ordinance and the same coinmittee but the chairperson of the committee was seeking some input from the Building Commissioner who was not complimentary of the ordinance in terms of understanding it or its liability. He had problems with the way it was structured. Mr. O'Malley met with him to work it out and they would like to propose another ordinance. Once that gets started then he would hope Council, while it is being reviewed, would refer it over to the Landmarks Commission for its consideration. s Discussion on improving awareness of existing historical signs and markers IV. COMMUNICATIONS: ? Letter from Office of Commissions to Law Dept. requesting legal opinion Mr. O'Malley pointed out that the response from the Law Department should have been directed to Landmarks as opposed to a memo to the Building Commissioner. Mr. Corell reviewed the legal opinion received. He commented that it appears that Mr. Dubelko has left this for Mr. Conway to decide what he can determine or interpret as being identical, etc.- Mr. O'Malley said if a person came in to get a permit to replace blacktop with blacktop, they would have issued a permit and it would not go to Landmarks. It was only when the driveway was going from blacktop to concrete that it somehow tripped the certificate requirement. The inquiry there was if blacktop and concrete are both permitted and both determined to be identical under the building code then the question is would it constitute an exempt activity under Chapter 165. There is a section that identifies certain exempt activity, i.e. the replacement of existing material, repair, maintenance or replacement with identical material. He said the primary answer to the question the commission asked the Law Director is the Landmarks Commission was wise to note that it should not render, under the guise of rendering rulings, blanket determinations to license the Building Commissioner in what he can determine to proceed with without their full consideration. The commission does not have the authority to determine its own jurisdiction, but it does have authority to, within the confines of its jurisdiction, make rules for its procedure. It can.outline and determine rules for.matters that come before them. Mrs. VanAuken said in view of all this discussion, the Baldi situation is rather ridiculous. Mr. Corell said in his opinion, pending a bit-more enlightenment, he would like to see some movement made toward getting the ordinance modified so they do not have to spend so much time discussing these kinds of things and holding up residents from doing their work. His concern is there is a gaping hole there that if Mr. Conway is willing to make these determinations, then Landmarks is irrelevant. Mr. O'Malley did not agree it is a gaping hole. Mr. Corell said he realizes they are trying to get it to where they are helping Mr. Conway and he can do some things; but the reasoning at this point would seem to be without the aid of legislation, this has been granted to him. He can see how IV1r. Baldi got his permit. Mr. O'Malley said perhaps that is what they are trying to do; enable him to issue a permit and not requiring Landmarks when it is repair/maintenance/replacement of existing material. Mr. Corell 5