Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 24th, 2020 <br />Page3of7 <br />Haley asked the applicant how he thought a shortened stay would benefit him and the <br />process. <br />Rohr stated that he's looking forward to having the structural assessment done but <br />wants to keep as much flexibility as possible regarding the timelines. <br />Director Zuccaro reminded everyone that the two processes are separate; the historic <br />structure assessment can be competed while the demolition stay is in place or the <br />assessment can also take place after the demolition expires. <br />Haley clarified that if the demolition expired and the HSA hasn't been completed the <br />house could be demolished without the HSA being competed. <br />Haley stated that the Commission has agreed that they want to issue a demolition stay <br />but need to determine a timeline, and the Commission needs to approve the finding of <br />probable cause as well. <br />Klemme stated that this doesn't feel like a 180 day stay to her. Due to the delay in <br />holding the hearing, it feels more like a 74 day stay and that doesn't seem excessive. <br />Chair Haley stated that she is inclined to agree. 74 days seems like an appropriate <br />amount of time to complete the historic structure assessment and do any another <br />research necessary regarding the property. <br />Keller stated that he agreed that this a great property for landmarking. The HSA allows <br />the applicant to learn more about the property and the timeline seems appropriate in the <br />current climate. <br />Dunlap stated that he would recommend shortening the stay by 30 days — applying a <br />150 day stay instead of 180 days. <br />Parris stated that she can see both sides. She wouldn't shorten the stay by more than <br />30 days. Past applicants have been able to complete HSA in a relatively short <br />timeframe but the availability of people to complete the assessment may be different <br />right now. <br />Rohr stated that he appreciates the discussion regarding the length of the stay and is <br />curious regarding precedent around the length of the stay. <br />Chair Haley stated that it is really is on a case -by -case basis. Depending on the <br />property and the intent of the homeowner the stay may be shortened. It isn't meant to <br />be a punitive. <br />Rohr expressed concern that he may have through finding a contractor to work on the <br />project in July. <br />