09/08/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lang said he is not aware of anything in the ordinance that says there has to be a certain number of days for notification to the property owner for a special meeting. He asked if a phone call would be acceptable to Mr. Pohlid to inform him of when the meeting will take place. It would be no sooner than 7 days and no later than 10 days from today. Mr. Pohlid indicated it would be acceptable provided he has a couple of days notice. Mr. O'Malley read from the ordinance and concluded the notice should be the same for a special meeting as it is for the board's regular meetings. The proceedings to consider the alterations are governed by the public hearing requirements in Section 10. Mr. Tobin asked Mr. O'Malley if everyone would agree to it, could they proceed with the meeting in 7-10 days. Mr. O'Malley said yes, and read the ordinance. Mr. Barker asked Mr. O'Malley if they could take a vote to make this 7 days since all the parties involved are present. He wondered if this would disrupt any rules or regulations. W. O'Malley said it would. He would not advise they do that. He said a written notice has to go out to the property owner. The owner is here now and might be willing to wave the notice to get this approval but if they are to convene a hearing, it has to be done in accordance with the code. Mr. Barker asked if the board could recess and address this at another time. Mr. O'Malley said the board can do that but not for 10 days. It has to be a reasonable period of time. Mr. Barker suggested that they change their motion and recess briefly to make a determination since Mr. Halleen is present and they can proceed with the agenda. Mr. Lang asked the person who seconded the motion to withdraw the second. Mr. O'Malley said the recess to confer among board members is appropriate but the matter has to be debated on the public record. Mrs. Lord said she would like to find out if there is new information related to the use of vinyl from a historic preservation perspective. Mr. O'Malley said he would like to know if the federal guidelines referred to have been superceded or changed since 1980. There was further discussion about whether to recess, adjourn, and/or how to change the motion. Mr. Ron Kula, a representative for the Halleen proposal, asked to address Mr. O'Malley. He said there are 60 days from an undetermined date to make a decision. He asked if the board can make a decision in 1 day, 4 days from now, or 15 days from now in writing. Mr. O'Malley said he thinks the Chairman wanted to know whether there is ample time in which to table the matter and bring it back for another meeting date. Mr. Kula said the board would meet and make a decision within that 30 or 60 day period. Mr. Lang said the operant paragraph is the notification of the property owner, which needs to be up to 15 days prior to the holding of the hearing. He said the board can make a decision in a very short period of time but the owner needs 15 more days in which to be notified. Mr. O'Malley said as it stands now, the board inoved, seconded, and voted on it. Mrs. Lord said there is a motion on the floor. W. Lang confirmed that. Mr. O'Malley asked if the motion is to reconsider the previously passed motion. Mr. Lang said no, there is not a motion on the floor to reconsider the previous motion. He has asked if the person that seconded the previous motion would withdraw their second. Mrs. Lord said she thinks they just go ahead and vote on the motion. Mr. Lang reviewed the original motion. Mr. Barker said according to Mr. O'Malley, that time frame is not good enough so can they just deny the motion. Mr. O'Malley said it was already passed. Mr. Lang said they have not voted on that motion. Mr. O'Malley said perhaps they could amend it to reflect more than 15 days instead of 7-10. They could vote to deny it and start all over again. Mr. Lang said a"yes" vote would approve the previous moved motion of 7-10 days. A"no" vote would negate that motion so they can entertain another motion. Roll call on the motion: 0 yes, 7 no. Motion Denied. Mr. Lang said he would entertain a motion for another time frame. The board agreed they would meet on Monday, September 29th at 7:00 p.m. NIr. Lang said he will entertain a motion to postpone a decision on the request for a certificate of appropriateness for the siding at 27040 Butternut Ridge Road until September 29, 2003, during which time the Landmarks Commission will research, and the request was made to find out whether there is any more updated material that will help the board arrive at a decision. J. Dailey made a motion to accept the motion as stated by Mr. Lang. The motion was seconded by P. Barker and unanimously approved, 1VIotion Carried. Mr. Lang said the meeting will take place on September 29th at 7:00 p.m. at Old Town Hall. Mr. Tobin brought up Tyvek, a company that currently wraps houses and said they may have information to help the 3