[00:00:02]
[A. CALL TO ORDER & DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER? DO YOU HAVE A QUORUM UP TO, UM, SO OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS ELECTION OF OFFICERS.[B. ELECTION OF OFFICERS]
UM, AND WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM, UH, MR. GILLESPIE STATING THAT HE IS INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE AND WOULD BE GLAD TO SERVE AS CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR OF NOMINATED, EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT HERE.I'M HAPPY TO, UH, BOTH NOT, SORRY.
AND I'M HAPPY TO NOT CHAIR IF THAT'S NOT, IF WE'RE NOT GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES.
SO THIS IS NOBODY ELSE'S HERE.
IT, UNLESS WE WANT TO REVERSE OURSELVES, WE MAY ASK.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR MR. GILLESPIE AS CHAIR AND THEN FOR VICE CHAIR.
I GUESS WE NEED A MOTION FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO SERVE.
UM, AND, UH, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY OTHER INDICATION OF WHO ELSE WANTS TO SERVE IN TERMS OF, SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SAID, MR. AND WHEN HE'S ALREADY TAKEN, SO IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE TWO OF YOU AND THEN MY LAST CHUNK OFF.
SO IT WOULDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FOR MR. ROYERS TO SERVE THAT.
MAYBE WE NOMINATE YOU
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SO DOMINATION FOR VICE-CHAIR MR. ROYER.
I THINK WE, I THINK THEY ARE BOTH IN AGREEMENT AND IF YOU WANT TO JUST CONSENT TO BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME, WE WILL TAKE, WE'LL MAKE A MOTION AS TO BOTH OF THOSE, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
SO, UM, AND THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO MR. ROYER EXTEND YOU FOR ANOTHER TWO YEAR TERM AS WELL AS MR. GILLESPIE.
[E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 22, 2021]
OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 22ND.UM, I REVIEWED THOSE EARLIER TODAY AND I DID NOT HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THEM.
DID YOU HAVE ANY CHANGED? NO, I DID NOT.
I JUST READ EARLIER, UH, WITH THAT, UM, OH, SHE NEW APPROVAL.
UM, AND THEN WE DO, WE DID HAVE A REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE BYLAWS ON HERE.
[D. OTHER BUSINESS – Review of Design Review Committee Bylaws]
MAKE ANY CHANGES, BUT IF YOU ALL FELT THAT YOU HAD ANY CONCERNS YOU WANTED TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO, UM, I, FOR ONE DID NOT.I KNOW THAT WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE WE ADMINISTRATIVELY BOTH CLEANED UP A NUMBER OF THE, UH, BYLAWS.
WE MADE SOME GRAMMATICAL CHANGES, SO I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
OR DID STAFF HAVE ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD SURPRISE ME GIVEN THE CURRENT STATUS, BUT JUST CAME UP WITH IT.
AND THERE WAS NOTHING ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES, NOTHING SPECIFICALLY TO REVIEW BEYOND WHAT WE'D DONE IN THE PAST, CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR.
AND WE DID WANT TO JUST ADD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. LINT TO SPEAK.
UM, IF IT'S A PLEASES, THE COMMITTEE, CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO SOMETHING.
MY NAME IS ROBIN LYNN, THE COUNTY AS ANOTHER ELECTORAL BOARD, ANOTHER THREE MEMBER BOARD, FOR CHANCE TO ELECT THE OFFICERS THAT YOU ALL MANAGED TO GET THROUGH THAT WITHOUT ANY HICCUPS.
I LIVE IN MANNEQUIN, SANDY HOPE SPRINGS, WHICH IS ABOUT HALF A MILE NORTH OF REUTERS.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT A DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED AS IT WAS APPLIED FOR, UM, APPLIED FOR ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, FEBRUARY THE SEVENTH, AND WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 22ND FOR THE DEMOLITION OF 1, 2 6, 7, 8 RIVER ROAD.
NOW THAT ADDRESS WOULD BE WITHIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEFORE THE ENTRANCE CORRIDOR, UM, WHICH IS UNDER
[00:05:01]
YOUR PURVIEW, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR COUNTY ORDINANCE 27.AND THAT ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO, UM, PRESERVING THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR VILLAGE, RURAL CROSSROADS AND MAJOR HISTORIC RESOURCES, ALSO STIMULATING COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE GROWTH TO THE PROMINENCE OF AFFORDED PROPERTIES OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, UM, AND TALKS ABOUT MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION.
THE HOUSE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED AT 12 6, 7, 8.
WE REFERRED TO AS THE POWELL, WHEREAS THE CAVENDISH HOUSE, AND THAT WAS BUILT IN 1843 BY THE FAMILY THAT HAD BUILT PAL'S TOWER, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EAST OF IT OVER THE PAST DECADE OR MORE, JOHN CABINETS WAS VERY ILL AND YOU GOT VERY OVERGROWN.
IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD TO SEE THE HOUSE, THERE WAS A LARGE DEAD OAK TREE BOX OF BITCHES THAT HAD GROWN UP OVER IT.
UM, MY NAME WAS PART OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC OF THAT LITTLE SECTION OF THE CAR DOOR, WHICH IS ALMOST OPPOSITE THE ENTRANCE TO TACOS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UM, THE POWER, BUT WILLIAM HOWE, SENIOR BUILT FRAME PORTION OF POLYSTYRENE.
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT'S H SHAPED BUILDING.
THE FIRST PART WAS THE FRAME PARK BUILT IN 1790 AND THEN IN 1808, HE BUILT, HE GOT, UH, UH, LICENSED JUST TO ESTABLISH ORDINARY AND AN 1820 BUILT FRONT BRICK SECTION TWO OF THEM BEING 14 FEET APART.
THE IDEA OF BEING THE COACH COULD COME THROUGH AND PASSENGERS COULD GET OUT EITHER SIDE INTO A DRAG AND HAVE IT SORT OF HYPHEN ROOF OVER.
UM, AND IT SERVED AS AN ORDINARY AND AS A TAVERN AS A STAGE COACH STOP AND LATER AS A POST OFFICE, UM, FELL INTO SOME DISREPAIR, 1940S, 41 OF MY COUSINS.
AND IN 1957, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DR.
ROBERT CAMPBELL CAME IN AND RESTORATIVE AND ACTUALLY OPERATED HIS DOCTOR'S OFFICE FROM THAT PROPERTY.
UH, AND HIS DESCENDANTS NOW, HIS SON, HIS SON, AND I THINK IT WAS OUT IN CALIFORNIA.
HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH IT, BUT WILLIAM POWELL JR.
BUILT THIS HOUSE IN 1843 AND TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.
ONE WAS THAT IT WAS FOR OVERFLOW TAVERNS, SO SUCCESSFUL FOR OTHER GUESTS.
AND EVENTUALLY THE POWELL SOLD POUNDS TAVERN TO THE DEVILS.
AND THEY MOVED INTO THAT HOUSE AND THEY'VE OWNED AT ONE POINT OR THE SIDE MORE LAND THAN THE DO SET ASIDE.
AND TODAY THE WESLEY'S WERE DESCENDANTS OF HOUSE STILL ON MOST OF THE LAND AROUND IT, BEHIND IT GOING UP TO PAGE BOOK.
BUT WHEN WE SAW THE NEIGHBORS, SOME LANDSCAPING GOING ON, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY SOME BULLDOZING, EVERYTHING AWAY, WE THOUGHT, WELL, THIS IS A SAFE HOUSE.
AND THEY TAKEN OFF THE BOTTOM OF COLLABORATES AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS TO INSPECT THE SELVES.
NOBODY HAD THE WIND TO COME UP AND ASK TO HAVE A DEMOLITION PERMIT OR TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DEMOLITION PERMIT, BUT ON APRIL, THE WEEK OF APRIL 18TH AND CLOSING BULLDOZED, THE HOUSE EVERYTHING'S GONE.
UM, SO THEN I'VE BEEN COMPLETELY SCRAPED CLEAN.
I'M NOT SURE YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH, JUST TO THE WEST.
THE INTERIORS WERE VERY PLAIN, VERY SIMPLE AND VERY SIMILAR.
THE STAIRCASES DON'T HAVE ANY, BUT IT WAS SURPRISE TO ME THAT THE DEMOLITION PERMANENT HAD NOT COME TO THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT'S AN IDEAL CANDIDATE BEING AN HISTORIC RESOURCE PART OF THE FABRIC OF PAUL'S TOWN, WHICH IS ITSELF IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK FOR YOU ALL TO REVIEW TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ISSUED DEMOLITION PERMIT.
AND I UNDERSTAND TALKING TO TOM COLEMAN THAT
[00:10:01]
THERE MIGHT BE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS COVERED ON THE EXEMPTION OF THE FOUR 40 FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.AND MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT WITH JONES LIVING THERE.
IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY, BUT AFTER SHE, UM, AND WHEN IT WAS EMPTY, IT WASN'T STILL A SINGLE FAMILY WELLBEING, OR WAS IT AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE? AND ARE THEY DIFFERENT AND WAS TABLET AT ONE POINT WAS A DOCTOR'S OFFICE FORTNIGHT.
SO IT WASN'T A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WHEN IT WAS BUILT.
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT I, THIS AS SORT OF CANARY IN THE MINESHAFT, UM, THAT THIS IS A WARNING TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY, THAT HISTORIC PROPERTIES COULD BE DEMOLISHED AND MAYBE NEVER REFERRED TO YOU AND YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW.
UM, AND IS THIS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY THE ARTICLE 27 OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, UM, PERHAPS WE SHOULD GO TO THE SUPERVISORS AND ASK FOR A SEPARATE ORDINANCE TO PROTECT HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY? AND THAT'S MY WELL, I'LL START HERE.
UM, AND DON'T, DON'T LET ME RUN AWAY.
SO DON'T LET ME FILL THE SPACE IF, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S EMPTY SPACE, IT WORKS, BUT, UM, YOU ASKED SEVERAL QUICK QUESTIONS.
UM, AND AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M IN A POSITION COLD TO ANSWER THEM.
UH, NUMBER ONE AS TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT'S COVERED BY THE EXISTING ORT, UNTIL WHETHER IT'S COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION, I WOULD HAVE TO STOP AND STEP BACK, TAKE THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUST GAVE ME, AND I'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK IN THE ORDINANCES AND I'D HAVE TO CONSULT WITH BOTH COUNSEL FOR THE COUNTY AND, AND LIKELY STAFF AS TO HOW IT'S BEEN APPLIED AT THIS POINT IN ORDER TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THE EXISTING INTERPRETATION IS.
AND I MIGHT COUNSEL MIGHT HAVE A VIEW IF THIS IS, IF YOU ALREADY WERE AWARE OF THIS DIALOGUE AND I, AND I LOOKED, MY BACKGROUND IS I'M A LAWYER.
SO I, I, I AM LOAD TO BE SPECULATIVE IN JUST, UH, GUESSING AT IT.
AND I WOULD TO ANSWER THAT MY PROCESS WOULD BE, I WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND I LOOK AT THE STATUTE, I DO CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN I DON'T PURPORT TO SPEAK, UH, ENTIRELY FOR THE COMMITTEE.
AND OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD GET CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL, AND THEN THERE MIGHT BE A SPECIFIC POSITION, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AND, OR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MIGHT ALREADY HAVE A VIEW ON IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO WE PROBABLY WOULD NEED ANY ANSWER ON THAT AS TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION.
UM, AND THAT IS IF IT'S NOT COVERED OR IF THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT IT'S NOT COVERED, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND RAISE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO EXPLORE WHETHER THERE OUGHT TO BE A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE ON THAT POINT, IF THERE'S A CONCERN.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO RAISE THE ISSUE.
AND WITHIN THAT CONTEXT, THE LARGER ISSUES OF WHETHER THE EXISTING STATUTE IS ENOUGH ORDINANCES OR NOT, OR WHETHER THERE OUGHT TO BE ONE THAT'S MORE SPECIFIC THAT GETS INTO THAT GRAY AREA.
I DON'T KNOW FACTUALLY IF IT WAS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, BUT NO ONE IS LIVING IN IT, BUT IT ONCE CONSTITUTED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DOES IT REMAIN AS ONE IN THE ABSENCE OF A FAMILY LIVING IN IT? AGAIN, THE LAWYER IN ME WOULD LOOK FOR SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER ANY EXISTS TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THERE, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE IMPORTANT AND GOOD QUESTIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I KNOW WHETHER WE EVEN HAVE ANY GUIDANCE AT THE MOMENT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO ME TO, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S MORE THAN THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION.
IF IT IS AN IMPORTANT CONCERN TO FOLKS IN THE CAMP, THEN THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE IN RAISING THE ISSUE WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHO COULDN'T BE SURE IT'S ROUTED IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY TO DETERMINE BOTH WHETHER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY BE IN A GRAY AREA, OR WHETHER THERE OUGHT TO BE ONE THAT COVERS IT QUICKLY.
DOES THE DEMOLITION PERMIT INCLUDE PALS TAVERN? NO, IT DOES NOT.
HAVING SEPARATELY, THERE WAS A SEPARATE HOUSE NEXT TO IT.
THING I'D SAY IS I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AS I SIT HERE IN MY HEAD.
WHAT AM I, IF I'M ROLLING OFF, WHAT IS IT FOR FOUR YEARS NOW, EIGHT YEARS? HOW MANY YEARS HAVE I BEEN SITTING ON THIS COMMITTEE NOW?
[00:15:03]
AND SO LET'S PUT IT INTO CONTEXT IN EIGHT YEARS, I HAVE NEVER SERVED, UH, ON THE COMMITTEE WHERE A DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS COME THROUGH THE COMMITTEE.NOW, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT COVERS SOMETHING LIKE A DEMOLITION PERMIT? I HAVE NO IDEA.
UH, IT JUST HAS NEVER COME BEFORE US AS A COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER WHAT WE'VE HAD IS APPLICATIONS FOR RENOVATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES TO ENSURE THAT THEY MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS WITHIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS, UH, WHETHER IT BE COMPOSITION OF MATERIALS, UH, ADEQUATE, UH, SCREENING, UH, PROTECTION OF NIGHTTIME SKY.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S EVER COME UP.
I MEAN, I JUST REVIEWED THE ORDINANCE REALLY QUICK AND IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO DEMOLITION.
PERMIT SAYS NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL ISSUE.
IT SAYS PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AS YOU SAID,
I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF BASED ON THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IF THERE WAS A VIEW THAT WE AS A COMMITTEE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT DEMOLITION PUMP AND I ASKED CHOCOLATE, BUT, UM, YOU MAY ASK AS MANY AS YOU HAVE.
I DON'T CARE AT T I HAVE ANSWERS.
UH, THE ORDINANCE TALKS ABOUT, UM, COMING TO YOU FOR APPROVAL OF AN ALTERATION, EVEN HAVE A COLOR.
AND THEN WE DONE THAT AT A DEMOLITION IS EXTREMELY, UM, I GUESS THE MOST EXTREME ALTERATION YOU CAN MAKE TO THAT STRUCTURE.
SO IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE MATERIALS FROM WOOD TO AIR, SO MAYBE I'M IN, THEN I WILL TELL YOU IN THIS CONTEXT, UM, I HAVE, UH, BEEN A LAWYER FOR A LONG TIME AND I'VE DONE CONTRACT AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OVER A LOT OF YEARS.
AND I'VE HAD MANY A CASE WITH THE SIMILARITIES OF THE DEBATE OVER THINGS OF WHETHER ALTERATION INCLUDES SOMETHING LIKE DEMOLITION OR WHETHER DEMOLITION IS A SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATE WORD.
WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN ITS COMMON ORDINARY MEETING.
WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS HERE.
UM, AND MAYBE IT'S ONE THAT'S FAIRLY DEBATABLE AS TO WHETHER ALTERATION IS AMBIGUOUS ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS DEMOLITION OR WHETHER DEMOLITION IS A WORD THAT STANDS ON ITS OWN.
WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT COME BEFORE US.
I SUSPECT ONLY BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE INTERPRETATION THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE WORLD ALTERATION TO DATE HAS NOT INCLUDED DEMOLITION.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALTERATION, I KNOW SOMEONE IN WHO'S GOING TO CRINGE WHEN I, WHEN I MENTIONED THE CHANGE FROM THE GREEN TO THE PURPLE ROOF, THAT WAS AN ALTERATION THAT CAME BEFORE US.
THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LONG TIME, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT? THERE WAS AN ALTERATION TO THE STRUCTURE BY WAY OF COLOR SCHEME, OR THERE'S AN ALTERATION IN TERMS OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE MATERIAL IN TERMS OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A REPAIR, WHETHER YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, EXISTING MATERIAL OR WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN ANOTHER.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW, I TAKE YOUR POINT AND YOUR POINT RAISES A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE TO A NUMBER OF CONSTITUENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY, AND IT'S PROBABLY ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE RAISED AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEVEL.
IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT EITHER APPLICATION OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCES MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, OR WHETHER A NEW ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED, I DON'T THINK THIS COMMITTEE HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE, OR QUITE FRANKLY INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY THE ORDINANCE AS WE UNDERSTAND.
IF YOU THINK I'VE SAID IT SAID ANYTHING WRONG, PLEASE.
AS I UNDERSTAND IN READING THE ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE TO ADMINISTER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVAL PROCESS AND MAY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THE PROMULGATION OF ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS HAS IT BELIEVES APPROPRIATE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS BUILDING AN APARTMENT SETBACK STANDARDS STANDARD.
SO MY, I GUESS, QUESTION TO YOU IS BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY AND PERHAPS AMBIGUITY, WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE
[00:20:01]
USING THAT CLAUSE IN POWERS OF DUTIES, SECTION B OF 1540 BEFORE TO ASK THE SUPERVISOR FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER DEMOLITION PERMITS SHOULD COME BEFORE YOU, IF THEY ARE IN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE, CAN I INTERJECT FOR A SECOND AGAIN? WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY DO THE BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON IT.KELLY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN, OR MAYBE NOT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
UH, YOU KNOW, AS A DILLON RULE STATE, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO DO WHAT WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO DO.
AND I THINK THAT HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND I'VE WORKED IN OTHER LOCALITIES THAT ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR COMMITTEE, BUT ONLY DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS, IF YOU WILL.
AND, UM, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A SEPARATE LEGISLATION.
I'M NOT POSITIVE ON THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO AS WELL FOR YOU.
BUT I WAS THINKING, AS I READ IT AT THE BEGINNING, YOU WANTED YOUR CHARGES IS TO PRESERVE STORE RESOURCES.
AND IT MAY, IT MAY ACTUALLY MAYBE COVERED BY THIS, THIS, UH, THIS, SO THIS IS, THIS IS YOUR CHARGE AND HERE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO I WAS ASKING IF YOU MIGHT FEEL COMFORTABLE ASKING THE SUPERVISORS FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE AND THEN BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND TELL YOU, UM, I WILL TELL YOU YES OR NO.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST READ AND OBVIOUSLY I WOULD WANT IT TO STOP, TAKE IT, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND LOOK AT IT FOR MYSELF.
NOT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN READ IT JUST ON, WELL, I MEAN, I'M BLIND IN MY RIGHT EYE, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO READ.
AND I SUSPECT YOU DID, NONETHELESS.
IT'S JUST THAT, THAT'S MY TRAINING.
THAT'S HOW I HAVE TO APPROACH IT.
BUT AS YOU SIT HERE AND EDGE, WHAT YOU READ TO ME IS THAT AS A POTENTIAL POWER BY WHICH I MIGHT GO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION, IT SPEAKS TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF OUR COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I DO NOT VIEW PERSONALLY, AS I SIT HERE AT FIRST BLUSH AND THAT'S ALL IT IS, I DO NOT VIEW THE REQUEST OR A RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS TO NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE QUESTION OR PROPRIETY OF DEMOLITION AS WE HAVE, OR MY LAST EIGHT YEARS APPLIED THE ORDINANCE AND OUR CHARGE.
IT HAS BEEN FOR THE APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATE STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THAT IS HOW I HAVE UNDERSTOOD OUR CHARGE.
AND NOW I'M NEARING THE SUNSET OR TWILIGHT OF MY CHAIRMAN STATUS.
UH, AND IT'S SO, BUT IT HAS, IT HAS BEEN A WHILE.
UM, AND SO, UH, I, I DON'T THINK AS I SIT HERE AT FIRST BLUSH THAT I THINK THAT, THAT EMPOWERS THIS COMMITTEE AND I, I, I, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE COMMITTEE.
I'LL CERTAINLY LIKE MR. ROGERS, UH, UH, INPUT ON THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT GIVES ME THE POWER TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
AND I WOULDN'T BE ASKING FOR THE PROMULGATION OF ADDITIONAL, UM, FOR, FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS BY REQUESTING CLARIFICATION ON THE ORDER.
AND SO IF THERE IS A QUESTION OR CONCERN OF THE CONSTITUENTS, I THINK THEY MAY NEED TO RAISE THEM WITH THE BOARD SUPERVISOR, BUT PLEASE WEIGH IN.
DON'T LET ME, WHEN I TOLD YOU, DON'T LET ME SPEAK WITHOUT, WITHOUT BRAIN.
SORRY, TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU SAID NOW UNDERSTOOD A LOT OF PEOPLE DO THAT.
WELL, MY TENURE WERE VERY, VERY SHORT.
WE HAD A MEETING A YEAR AGO, NO MORE MEETINGS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AN ISSUE BROUGHT FORWARD.
UM, BASICALLY WE SERVE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD, COME FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT WE DON'T CREATE IT, MAKE IT OURSELVES.
UM, DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DEMOLITION FOR A MINUTES.
I DON'T HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT IT SAYS ON IT.
I DO KNOW THAT A PLACE WAS TORN DOWN.
UM, I ASSUME THAT PALS TAVERN ITSELF IS UNOCCUPIED.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE CURTAINS IN THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN THE SAME FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS NOW.
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
UM, BUT IF ASSUMING ALSO THAT THE DEMOLITION PERMIT MUST HAVE INCLUDED, WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT
[00:25:01]
PERHAPS INCLUDED, UH, THE BACK PART OF FOWL, DEVON.PALESTINE IS THE CABIN JUST HAD US NEXT TO IT.
IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND THEY JUST REQUESTED DEMOLISHING EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE BEACH DEPENDENCY.
AND THEN I WOULD LIKE, UH, UH, INPUT FROM BOTH STAFF AND OUR COUNCIL ON THIS.
MY VIEW IS I MIGHT FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THAT.
WE ASK ABOUT STAFF AND COUNCIL TO LOOK AT ONE, WHETHER WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, UH, IN ASKING FOR A CLARIFICATION, WHAT WE WOULD BE ASKING IS A CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE INCLUDING DEMOLITION PERMITS AS A PART OF THE ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT COME BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, BECAUSE AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED, AT LEAST DURING MY TENURE, I DON'T THINK THOSE HAPPEN.
UH, AND THEN IF WE HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY IN THE COLLECTIVE VIEW, I THINK THEY'LL COME BACK.
THEY'LL LOOK AT THE ISSUE THOUGH.
THEY'LL BRIEF US ON IT WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A, A MEETING WHERE WE WOULD DISCUSS THOSE FINDINGS AND MAKE AN ULTIMATE DECISION.
UH, THEN WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO, TO KNOW MORE FULLY, IT'S HARD TO DO IT ON THE FLY, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU HAVEN'T DONE A NICE JOB WITH YOUR PRESENTATION OR THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PREPARED.
UH, BUT THERE SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO THEM WITHOUT A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON IT.
AND IF WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE MIGHT BE WILLING TO MAKE SUCH AN IMPORTANT, I'M NOT SATISFIED AS I SIT HERE THAT THE, UH, I'M NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'M SAYING I'M NOT SATISFIED THAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE ORDINANCES AND THE POWER THAT HAVE EMPOWERED US AS A COMMITTEE GIVES ME THE WRITER AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT IMPORTANT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT.
SO WE COULD PUT THAT BY WAY MOTION, IF YOU NEED TO, OR MAYBE IT'S ENOUGH THAT I MADE THE REQUEST OF STAFF BEFORE.
SO I'M IN CLIMBING KELLY, YOU WEIGH IN AS WELL.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT IT FALLS IN UNDER DEMOLITION OR, YOU KNOW, THAT THE QUESTION IS DOWN TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO TECHNICALLY YOU CAN ACTUALLY SKIP THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A WAY AROUND IT, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY WOULD THEN ASK STAFFORD FOR ZONING INTERPRETATION.
AND WE WOULD NOT DO THAT IN A BUBBLE.
OF COURSE WE WOULD CONSULT COUNSEL, IS THAT THE CORRECT PATH? SO THE BOARD WOULD BASICALLY THEN SEND STAFF TO, TO LOOK FOR, I MEAN, TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD IS ONE THING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST TO BE PUT ON THE, ON THE RECORD, BUT ULTIMATELY WE CAN START DOING THAT TOMORROW.
I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED.
UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M THINKING ABOUT WHEN DOES THIS COME BACK? IS IT GOING TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE HAVE A CASE OR EVEN SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING JUST FOR THEM, HAVE YOU, ARE YOU PLANNING ON OTHER I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH CHAIRMAN SAYING I WAS WELL PREPARED.
UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO ME AND TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY WHO ARE NOW ALSO GETTING INVOLVED.
IF YOU COULD PUT THIS ON THE RECORD AT HALF STAFF, AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATION CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE ANNUAL, BECAUSE, UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT YES, YOU THINK WHEN YOU GET STAFF REPORT THAT YES, YOU THINK THIS IS UNDER YOUR PURVIEW OR SO YOU DON'T FOR THESE REASONS.
AND SHOULD WE SEEK AN AMENDMENT OF YOUR ORDINANCE TO PUT IT UNDER YOUR PURVIEW? OR SHOULD WE SEE A SEPARATE BOARD THAT DEALS WITH HISTORIC PROPERTIES? BECAUSE THERE ARE SCORES OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES OLDER THAN THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING READ MARSH MARSHMAN ACROSS THERE AND PALESTINE, WHICH WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS ONE, UM, WHICH ARE AT RISK.
AND IF WE DO VALUE HISTORIC RESOURCES, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GO, BUT DOING THIS WITHOUT CREATING A SITUATION WHERE A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SUDDENLY GETS INTO A BUZZSAW OR BARBED WIRE WITH ATTORNEYS FIGHTING OVER ISSUES, WE CAN GET IT CLEARED UP.
SO WE NOTICED THAT IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS SAYING ON THE DEMOLITION PERMIT SHOULD HAVE THE AGE OF THE DWELLING AND MORE STRUCTURE.
AND THE STRUCTURE IS OF A CERTAIN AGE AUTOMATICALLY WOULD COME TO YOU OR GO TO AN ORDINANCE TO SOME OTHER GROUP.
I DON'T WANT TO CREATE NEW GROUPS AND ONE ALREADY EXISTS.
[00:30:02]
UM, BUT WE FORWARD THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE OUR CONTINUING CONCERN FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES IN THE COUNTY, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THROUGH YOUR DESIGN COMMITTEE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT'D BE VERY HELPFUL TO US TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THIS ISSUE AND INFORMATION.AND IT MUST HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO GET COPIES OF EXPLAINING WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN I GO TO THE GIS AND IT SAYS PN OR PFC, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO I'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF EDUCATION GOING THROUGH THIS MYSELF WITH JUST IMAGINE HOW MUCH MORE TIME SHE'LL HAVE TO SPEND WITH YOU WHEN SHE NO LONGER HAS TO DO THAT WITH ME.
UM, I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE MADE WHILE I DO BELIEVE, AND I'M HAPPY TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US AS A COMMITTEE TO REQUEST THE INQUIRY OF, OF STAFF WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER DEMOLITION IS AN AREA THAT ORDINARILY, UH, UNDER THE EXISTING INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE COMING TO OUR COMMITTEE.
AND NUMBER TWO, WHETHER, UH, IF IT HASN'T BEEN MORE THAN THERE'S ANY PERCEIVED AMBIGUITY, WHETHER WE AS A COMMITTEE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT INQUIRY OF WHETHER IT BE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OR THEY WOULD JUST SIMPLY DEFER TO SAM.
THAT SAID, WHEN THAT IS DONE IN THE REPORT IS BACK WHILE WE ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO REPORT, UH, THE COMMITTEE'S VIEW ARMED WITH THE INTERPRETATION PROVIDED TO US BY STAFF.
WE ARE UNLIKELY AS A COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND A COURSE OF ACTION TO YOU AS TO THE BEST PATH FORWARD FOR YOU.
CAUSE YOU SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT, OKAY, YOU WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SUPERVISORS, CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED IT TO MAKE ME MAKE THAT CLEAR.
AND IF YOU DIDN'T INTEND IT THAT WAY, I DID.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN TO BE DIFFICULT ABOUT IT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS A, AS A, AS A PUBLIC BODY THAT WE NOT BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AS TO HOW YOU PROCEED FORWARD, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF THEM BY, BY THAT COMMENT OR CLARIFICATION.
UM, ASHLYN, ARE WE IN A POSITION WITH WHAT I JUST SAID TO PUT ON THE RECORD, OUR INQUIRY TO STAFF, OR DO YOU NEED ME TO REPEAT THEM? GOD HELP US ALL BECOME VERY GOOD AT, UM,
BUT DO YOU AGREE WITH RESPECT TO THE INQUIRY? WE SHOULD, YOU CAN TREAT THAT BY CONSENSUS THEN.
DO YOU THINK THERE ARE ANY OTHER AREAS OF INQUIRY WE SHOULD ADD, UH, ASKING FOR HELP FROM STAFF ON, WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE WITH A DEMOLITION PERMIT ISSUES, BUILDING INSPECTIONS, BUILDING INSPECTION ISSUES, YOU KNOW, NOTHING HAPPENED, NO.
UM, EVERY BILL, EVERY BUILDING PERMIT THAT COMES IN DEMOLITION PERMIT WOULD PASS THROUGH THINGS DURING OFFICE.
IF THEY, IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF ATTENTION THAT NEEDED TO BE HERE AND THIS CASE WAS A HISTORIC HOUSE IDENTIFIED IT.
NO, CAUSE I MEAN, AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE TO GET INTO THE WAY WE'RE CURRENTLY INTERPRETING IT NOW IS THAT WE, IT WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHY ZONING WITH NO FLAGGED IT.
BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE, AND IF WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE OTHER POSSIBLE, UM, ATTITUDES TO DO SET UP IF THE BOARD SEES IT? YES, SIR.
I GUESS I MIGHT GET ONE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION, IS THERE ANOTHER COMMITTEE FOR A GOVERNING BODY OTHER THAN A BARK THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE STRUCTURES IN OUR COUNTY NOW? OKAY.
WELL THEN YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT ONE OTHER COUNTIES.
SO SOME, UH, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE LITTLE CABINS THAT WORKED IN, THERE WAS ONE THAT DEALT WITH THE DESIGN THAT THE NEW, THE ALTERED, BUT WHEN IT CAME TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES, UH, THEY WERE
[00:35:01]
BY A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE.WELL, THERE'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT LAYER AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY FOR A MORE, MORE MR. LIN'S, UH, YOU, SO YOU HAVE YOUR NATIONAL AND YOUR STATE AND YOUR LOCAL.
SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY HAVE REAL TEETH TO THEM IF I MIGHT SAY, BECAUSE I SEE YOU HOLDING YOUR HAND UP SAYING, PLEASE INTERRUPT ME.
UM, THERE ARE, UM, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY AT LEAST 60, MAYBE 75, UM, THE STRUCTURES, UH, OLDER THAN 1800, IT'S STILL IN THE COUNTY.
UM, THERE ARE, UM, MANY OF THEM ARE NOT LISTED ANYWHERE.
UM, THERE ARE SLAVE DWELLINGS THAT ARE KNOWN TO EXIST, UH, WHITE HALL ROAD.
UM, THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY NONDESCRIPT AND WOULDN'T BE ON ANY REGISTER AT ALL, EXCEPT LOCALS WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
UM, AND OUR ORDINANCE REFERS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES.
AND THAT ONLY INCLUDE EVEN ARCHITECTURAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES BECAUSE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES HERE FOR 10,000 YEARS BEFORE WE CAME AND WE DO KNOW SITES LIKE THAT, THE COUNTY UH, DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, WHAT I'LL JUST CALL IT, THE PLAN, THE GOAL THAT ONCE STAFF HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW AND ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMITTEE OR INFORMATION TO THE COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING, DO WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD ABOUT THE INTENTION TO DO SO, OR THAT'D BE HANDLED ONCE THAT WE HAD THE BYLAWS AND DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CALLING SPECIAL MEETINGS OR YOU, YOU PROBABLY KNOW IT BY HEART.
UH, I DON'T HAVE TO, BUT IF YOU WANT TO SAY, NOT WITHIN A CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, UM, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL DEFINITELY BE BRIEFING.
AND I WOULD SAY I WOULD NOT BE, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A TON, I WOULD SAY LIKE MAYBE THE NEXT, UM, MY EXPERIENCE WITH STAFF IS VERY DILIGENT ABOUT IT AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT UNNECESSARY CONSTRAINTS ON THEIR TIME.
UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK SOME OF, SOME OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IS WHEN THE WORK PRODUCT IS DONE, WE'VE DONE THIS WELL.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD TO DO FILE REVIEWS AND WHATNOT.
UM, THERE'S BEEN A COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE COMMITTEE.
AND AT THAT TIME WE CAN, IF WE ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S NECESSARY, WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TO CALL THE MEETING AT THAT TIME.
IT DOES SAY, IN ADDITION TO THE ANNUAL MEETING, THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS.
IF NO CASES ARE PENDING, NO MEETING SHALL BE HELD EXCEPT FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING.
SO IT MIGHT BE THIS, I MAY JUST HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A CASE, AN ADJUNCTIVE, AND WE GRACIOUSLY ADDED A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH WE NORMALLY ONLY HAVE WHEN WE HAVE A CASE AT W WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT AS FAR AS, WHEN IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO SCHEDULE THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE MEMORY IS I DIDN'T WANT TO COMMIT TO SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT.
AND I HAD BEEN, THAT WAS STANDING BY 10 YEAR, WHICH I HAD NO IDEA.
I DO NOT HAVE THE BYLAWS COMMITTED TO MEMORY OF HIM.
ANYTHING ELSE? I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? UH, NO, YOU'VE, YOU'VE BEEN QUITE THOROUGH FOR ME.
UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK THAT I NEED TO DO BEFORE I BE ABLE TO FULLY RESPOND TO YOU, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOU RAISING THE ISSUE WITH US.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME TIME TO MAKE MY CASE.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I'M JUST TRYING TO GO BACK TO MY AGENDA TO SEE WHERE WE WERE
[F. ADJOURNMENT]
LAST NIGHT.[00:40:02]
WE HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS THAT IS REQUIRED.