MEETING MINUTES of the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 29, 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 MEETING MINUTES OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 29, 2020 The meeting of the Greensboro Historic Preservation Commission was held on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. in the Plaza Conference Room of the Melvin Municipal Office Building. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair David Wharton (Dunleath), David Arneke (College Hill), Jesse Arnett) (At Large), Linda Lane (At Large), Amanda Hodierne (Fisher Park), Ann Stringfield (At Large), Sylvia Stanbeck (At Large) and Max Carter (At Large). Mike Cowhig and Stefan-Leih-Geary were present of the Planning Department. Terri Jones, City Attorney was also present. Chair Wharton inquired if copies of the Certificate of Appropriate (COA) applications and meeting minutes were made available to the Commission members five days prior to the meeting. All responded yes. Chair Wharton inquired if any of the Commissioners had a conflict of interest or discussed applications prior to the meeting. Mr. Arnett indicated he would need to be recused from item 3b, 709 Percy Street. APPROVAL OF ABSENCES Wayne Smith’s absence was acknowledged as unexcused. Ms. Geary advised Commissioners serve until they resign or are replaced. Neither of those has occurred. Staff has to reach out each month to Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith can attend, if he is able. ADJUSTMENTS TO SCHEDULE: No adjustments were made to the schedule. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11, 2019 MINUTES Mr. Arnett advised item 3c, the first speaker in support should be Dee Wilson and Mr. Arnett’s address should be 3312 Windrift Drive. Ms. Hodierne made a motion to approve the December minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Arneke. The Commission voted to approve 8-0. (Ayes: Chair Wharton, Arneke, Arnett, Lane, Hodierne, Stringfield, Cater, and Stanbeck. Nays: 0). Chair Wharton advised of the policies and procedures in place for the Historic Preservation Commission. SWEAR/AFFIRMATION OF SPEAKERS: Staff and those speaking were affirmed. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 3a. Application #2338 1013 N. Elm Street Mr. Cowhig stated there are several after the fact applications for tree removal on the agenda and is probably the number one misunderstanding of the Historic District Regulations that staff deals with daily. Obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is mandatory if a tree is over 4” in diameter, whether it is diseased, dead, healthy, or whatever it may be. When an after the fact application for tree removal comes before the Commission, the Commission has the option of placing a condition(s) upon the approval to replace the trees. Staff can approve tree removal, but cannot place a condition that a tree should be replaced. Mr. Cowhig stated this is a after the fact application for the removal of two trees at 1013 N. Elm Street, also known as the Dolly Madison Condominiums. Staff received a call and the Code Enforcement Officer issued a notice of violation upon inspection. Mr. Cowhig displayed pictures of the Dolly Madison Condominiums where trees appeared as stalks. The trees provided shade to the parking area and were an advantage in providing shade to 2 the parking area. Staff is recommending a condition to be added for trees to be replaced in a suitable location and suitable species. The Commission should encourage the need for the parking areas to be shaded and the visual impact be softened with tree canopy. Mr. Arneke asked if the Commission has the option to reject the application and if so, what would be the next step. Mr. Cowhig deferred to Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones stated if this was construction, the property would have to be returned back to the way it was originally. There is no way to actually enforce any controls in a way that the trees would survive. Ms. Jones stated the recourse is to have them plant a new tree along the property for each one that was removed as a minimum. Mr. Arneke asked if the Commission had the option of saying no to the COA application and requiring them to plant new trees. Mr. Cowhig responded the Commission can only place a condition on an approved COA. Ms. Jones stated if the Commission denies the COA, the Commission would be making a perpetual statement of non- compliance and the applicants could be fined every day. Typically for zoning violations for the Historic Preservation, applicants would only be fined for days an inspector verified that it was in non-compliance. Ms. Jones advised a Zoning Inspector could inspect the property but there is no way to abate the violation. Mr. Arneke stated then in general after the fact COAs there is no real penalty involved. Ms. Jones responded that was correct. There are some violations for which you can restore the property back; not to the original pre-activity condition but it could be required. If the COA is denied, technically the applicants would have to restore the property to its previous condition and that is not possible. Mr. Arneke stated all the trees on the property could be cut down and as long as there is a condition required to plant new, there would not be any other penalties. Ms. Jones stated if the COA is denied, they remain in violation. Mr. Cowhig stated if someone was in the process of cutting down all the trees, the Code Officer could stop them. Ms. Lane suggested as a condition the Commission can require replanting. It does not have to be one tree; it can be 10 trees of a certain caliber. There is no limit to what is conditioned. Mr. Arnett stated there is little recourse if someone decides to circumvent the process. Ms. Hodierne stated this is a large are that the Commission needs to be addressed. Ms. Lane stated there has to be a penalty. Ms. Jones stated the Commission could go after the companies that are doing the work. Ms. Lane stated companies are not required to abide the code. Ms. Jones responded they would be doing work without a permit basically. The COA counts as a permit and could be cited. It is technically the obligation of the property owner to make sure everyone is in compliance. Ms. Jones stated there was not enough information to know what companies are out in the public unless they are caught. Ms. Hodierne stated that was the larger issue to be discussed. Mr. Arnett stated in the application the trees were in an electrical easement, and asked if the trees had been altered by Duke Power. Mr. Cowhig responded it appeared that the trees had been heavily cutback as they are close to the utility lines and referred to a photograph depicting the cuts. Mr. Arnett expressed concern regarding how the placement of new trees would shape the parking lot. Mr. Cowhig agreed it was an important concern. Ms. Stringfield stated canopy trees should not be used for replacement of the trees under power lines. Ms. Lane stated they could also be placed elsewhere on the property if it was not appropriate in the power line area. Mr. Cowhig stated the building was built in the 1920s and did not have parking originally. Ms. Hodierne asked if staff received this request after it had been cited. Mr. Cowhig responded they received a call from someone living on Carolina Street. Staff then advised the Code Compliance Officer. Ms. Hodierne asked if the citation is on hold until the COA process is completed. Mr. Cowhig responded if someone were to ignore the notice of violation and failed to submit a COA application, they would be fined. Chair Wharton asked if a property owner has a tree that is damaged, rotted, or whatever and they have it documented via a photograph or an arborist, and applies for an COA, if that was normally approved at staff level in order to not appear before the Commission. Mr. Cowhig stated it depends. Normally Judson Clinton will look at the tree and if he feels that the tree warrants being removed, staff will issue that at the staff level. Chair Wharton stated would be a speedier process if you have good evidence of a deceased tree. Ms. Leary stated the flip side is that if you don’t get your COA, the after the fact applications automatically come to the Commission which allows the Commission to place conditions. For a tree that is dead or worthy of coming down, the applicant 3 sets themselves up for having to purchase a new tree to replace one illegally cut down. Mr. Cowhig stated he believed there were Commissions in North Carolina requiring trees to be replaced. Legal for this Commission has always felt that the Commission did not have the authority. The ordinance does not answer that question of can you require a tree be replaced when it dies. It is an interpretation and there are a few Commissions in North Carolina that do interpret that they have the authority to require trees be replaced. It is a slippery slope. Someone could face thousands of dollars to replace a tree that is dead or struck by lightning and is something to carefully think about. Mr. Cowhig asked Ms. Jones if the Commission could require trees be replaced. Ms. Lane stated as long as it is a reasonable condition but it cannot be arbitrary. Ms. Lane suggested there could be legal language stating if you take a tree down, this could happen and a penalty would need to placed. Ms. Jones stated there is a state statute that will take effect January 1, 2021 which reprioritizes all of the zoning, development, sub-division, and includes historical preservation laws for municipality in the county.