Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2013 11 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes October 21, 2013 Page 3 of 9 Light answered in the affirmative. He added that Planning Commission usually included items on the agenda which are to be discussed at future meetings. This gives the Planning Commission a heads up of what is to be discussed in the near future. McCartney stated the HPC has pre-filing conferences before the board for applications which may be coming their way. Watson asked about public outreach for landmarking. Light stated there is a fine line for advocacy, as long as no one can accuse you of being biased during the hearings. La Grave asked if bias can be avoided by the commissioner recusing themselves at the hearing. Light answered in affirmative, but stated there is another fine line between being an advocate and a commissioner. If you find yourself advocating and having to recuse yourself often, then you might want to become an advocate. He stated quasi-judicial duties basically make you a judge. He then presented some example situations. Stewart asked if an applicant comes in for design assistance, and the designer helps the applicant, do they have to recuse themselves. Light stated you can disclose to the applicant, along with design assistance, there is an outreach duty for the commissioners. Discussion Grant Modifications McCartney presented the information included in the packet, explaining the request. He stated the grant modifications are to allow for grant money to be released for a building assessment prior to landmarking, and to permit a property owner to receive in-kind credit for preservation work completed on a structure prior to landmarking. He added the process to release the building assessment funds would be similar to the process used for a demolition review. A subcommittee would be formed and, along with a social history, determine if the building is eligible for landmarking. If it is deemed eligible, they could qualify for the pre-landmarking building assessment funding. Stewart stated he He recommended removing the subcommittee involvement all together. Watson stated if the subcommittee is removed and the HPC makes the initial onsite decision, then the review would need to be published. Stewart stated maybe we could do both, the subcommittee would be the eyes on the ground. McCartney stated that would be similar to the demolition process.