The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025.01.02 BOA Minutes Steven Farren - 198 Broadway - HearingBoard of Appeals Minutes For Meeting Held on January 2, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. Members Present:Jordan LaBouff, Rachel Thompson,Edward Gould (Chair), Robin Perkins, Robert Ballingall, Donald McCann (Associate Member), and Justin Cartier (Associate Member). Staff Present:David Szewczyk, City Solicitor; Grace Innis, Assistant City Solicitor Introductions: Chair Gould opened the hearing and introduced members. Approval of Minutes: August 21, 2024: Associate Member Cartier made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Member Perkins seconded the motion. No comments or questions from the Board. Motion passed (4-0). Public Hearing -198 Broadway, Applicant Steven Farren, Appealing the Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission Denying Certificate of Appropriateness for Replacement of Roof at 198 Broadway. Chair Gould introduced the public hearing. Chair Gould explained the standard of appeal and informed that the appeal would be heard de novo. Solicitor Szewczyk concurred with this process decision. Chair Gould advised Associate Members McCann and Cartier that they will not vote, but they can participate as Associate Members. Steven Farren spoke as the applicant and presented his appeal. Solicitor Szewczyk called attention to the standards of §148-9(A), (B), and (E), and recommended making separate votes for each of the standards. Board of Appeals Members asked questions. Wayne Mallar and Sonia Mallar spoke in opposition to the Application. Liam Riordan and Matthew Weitkamp related the majority view of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. Solicitor Szewczyk clarified that the legal department was not present at original Historic Preservation Commission application and reiterated this was a de novo appeal. Steven Farren offered a rebuttal in response to the opposition. Public Hearing was Closed. The Board of Appeals requested that Historic Preservation Commission Chair Edmund Cherneskyoffer comment. Public Hearing was re-opened Historic Preservation Commission Chair Edmund Cherneskyrelated the minority view of the Historic Preservation Commission’s vote. Public Hearing was Closed. Board of Appeals deliberated on the matter. Board of Appeals voted on the matter. §148-9(B)(2)(a), (f), (g), and (h): Member Thompson made a motion that these standards do not apply to the application. Member Perkins seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0). §148-9(B)(2)(b): MemberBallingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thatrehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment. The removal or alteration of any historic material or architectural features shall be avoided wherever possible. Member LaBouff seconded the motion. Motion failed (0-5). §148-9(B)(2)(c): Member LaBouffmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement that deteriorated architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible. In the event that replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and finish. Member Ballingallseconded the motion. Motion failed (0-5). §148-9(B)(2)(d): MemberBallingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement that distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures shall not be damaged or destroyed, wherever possible. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion failed (0-5). §148-9(B)(2)(e): Member Ballingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement that changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of the structure and its environment, and those changes which have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved wherever possible. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion failed (0-5). §148-9(B)(2)(i): Member Ballingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thatwherever possible, all alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion failed (1-4, Member Ballingall voting in favor of the motion’s passing). §148-9(A): Member Ballingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thata building or structure classified as an historic landmark or a building or structure located in an historic district, or any part thereof, or any appurtenance related to such structures, including but not limited to walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, paving and signs, shall not be altered, constructed, moved, or demolished, and no certificate of appropriateness shall be issued for such actions, unless they will preserve or enhance its historical and architectural character. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion failed (0-5). Having determined Applicant did not satisfy the requirements of §148-9(A) and (B), the Board moved to the criteria for establishing undue hardship. §148-9(E)(1)(c): Member Ballingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thatthe conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were not caused or created by the property owner after an amendment to § 148-5 of this chapter by which the property became subject to this chapter [Chapter 148]. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-1, Member Perkins voted against the motion’s passing). §148-9(E)(1)(a): Member Ballingallmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thatthe property cannot yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any reasonable use of the property. Member Perkins seconded the motion. Motion failed (2-3, with Chair Gould and Member Ballingall voting in favor of the motion’s passing). §148-9(E)(1)(b): MemberLaBouffmade a motion that the applicant met the requirement thatthe plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and not to the general applicability of this chapter [Chapter 148]. Member Perkins seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0). Member Thompson made a motion that the applicant has failed to meet the standards of the exceptional circumstances set forth in Section 148-9(E). Member Perkins seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-1 with Member Ballingall voting in favor of the motion’s passing). Other business: None. Meeting adjourned. Member Ballingall made a motion to Adjourn. Member Thompson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (5-0) to adjourn.