10/14/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.`, that should make the decision about what warrants a full review. He said if someone is coming in to replace a roof with identical material with identical color, or replace what was originally there, it is the kind of thing that is no problem. It needs to be embodied in the legislation. It would involve something being kept the way it is, or being taken back to original condition. Mr. O'Malley said his suggestion to the building commissioner is to steer away from the minor change procedure based upon his concern that it takes an established procedure or hearing with a full review. The procedure that was proposed was for the building commissioner to notify all the Landmarks Commission members and take a survey within 7 days to see if the board agrees it is a minor matter that would not warrant a full review. That might be a fine procedure for the building commissioner. He is not sure how the survey would be managed but, in his view, it seems to complicate things. Mr. Corell asked if the legislation can be drafted in terms of changing it so that the board will declare certain items exempt from review. There are very simple items that the board can determine do not warrant a review, and so the building cominissioner does not have to send it over to them. Mr. O'Malley said there is authority vested in the commission to adopt and enforce rules and procedure but he would consider that more of a substantive matter than a procedural one. In terms of defining the substance, it is really more in the ordinance. He thinks the board could recommend that Council consider identifying certain activities that are so inconsequential that they trigger this expedited review procedure. Mr. Corell said that expedited review would require no more than three members. The board would decide who those three individuals are. An item would come in first through Mrs. Lord or Mr. Corell and they would go from there. It strikes him that the board should be the one exempting something from a full review. Mr. O'Malley said it would be a combination of identifying certain activities that he would characterize as exempt, and identifying the activities that would trigger the building commissioner to determine something will not be put on a 30 day track and hold a hearing. It will be in the category of calling three commissioners or send them copies of the plan. They need to put some procedure in place for an expedited review. He said the board's involvement is in the process of identifying the things that might not require a full hearing. He is hopeful the commission will be able to identify additional activities that, in its experience, will not require a full review. Mr. Corell said they can have something that they can pre-vote on and then Mr. Conway can say there is no problem. It will also allow a three-member panel to answer to their colleagues about their mutual charge. Mr. O'Malley said the code right now says swimming pools in residential areas don't come before the board. And satellite dishes that are smaller than 39" do not require a commission hearing. He said the construction or placement of fences, other than chain link fences, on residential property is exempt. The board only deals with chain link. The last item described as exempt is the repair, maintenance, or use of identical material for replacement which would appear to be a roof, a driveway, or siding. Mr. Corell said his concern has to do with saying "of similar color, texture or materials". He said on what basis do they make that deterinination. Mr. O'Malley said they had the issue of concrete versus brick versus asphalt, and he thinks after that they concluded that hard surFace means hard surface. Mrs. Davis mentioned a home in the historic district with a rolled style roof. Mr. O'Malley said there is an item on roofs and referred to section (j). That seems to be an item that often comes up to the Landmarks Commission and falls between the expedited versus full hearing. The board members agreed with that but Mr. Corell said it gets into the similar quality and texture issue. Mr. O'Malley said the building commissioner's comment was that he would recominend that instead of saying "similar quality texture and color" it would say "regardless of color". The commissioner wants to be color blind. He doesn't otherwise have a concern about describing this as exempt or triggering a minor change. He also considers the current version of the code will allow the replacement of identical material to be exempt. He does not want to have a situation where they are exempting things that are already exempt. Mr. Barker said in reality he does not believe a person who does his own roof would have to get a permit as long as there are not more than 2 roofs on the home. That makes it a moot point 4