Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />feels we are unfairly penalizin g the applicants. Mr. Schilling asked what the impact <br />would be on other properties on Park Street if Council overturns the BAR decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, said that a decision by Council to overturn the <br />BAR decision would likely have some precedental value. He said that while each case is <br />looked at individually, he is confident this case would be sited in the future if overturned. <br /> <br /> Ms. Heetderks said that the State historic guidelines allow a slate - like material <br />which mimics slate to be u sed to replace slate, and the City's guidelines follow this <br />model. She said that replacing metal with shingles would not be substituting something <br />that looks similar. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said it is her understanding that when an appeal is made that <br />Council con siders it on the merits of the case and independent of the BAR decision. She <br />expressed concern that the BAR guidelines have some arbitrariness to them and feels that <br />Mr. Schilling's points are well taken. She said that when the West Main Street district <br />was approved she insisted that guidelines be in place prior to the designation. She said <br />that in this case, she feels the guidelines are black and white and she does not find much <br />room for an appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox agreed with Ms. Richards that the guidelines are clear. Mr. Cox said he <br />does not feel that the argument that the building is architecturally insignificant and <br />therefore can be made less significant is persuasive. He said he cannot support the <br />appeal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch made a motion to deny the appeal and to uphold the BAR decision <br />based on the fact that the guidelines regarding replacement of metal roofs is clear. Mr. <br />Lynch said that Council may want to reconsider the guidelines in the future. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said he believes the rules are clear, but flawed. He said he does not <br />see consistency in the rules and will abstain from voting on the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he will vote against the motion as he feels it is an undo burden <br />on people with tin roofs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that the City offers a financial program the applicant may want to <br />pursue. <br /> <br /> The appeal of the BAR decision to not allow replacement with a shingle roof at <br />413 Park Street was denied by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Cox, Mr. Lynch, Ms. <br />Richards. N oes: Mr. Caravati. Abstaining: Mr. Schilling. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said she agrees that some laws are flawed, but since they are on the <br />books she feels they must be enforced. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said that as Councilors, he feels it is our obligation to change law s if <br />we see inconsistencies. <br /> <br />CONSENT AGENDA <br />: <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati removed the report of the retreat follow - up from the consent agenda. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling removed the appropriation for the bridge repairs from the consent <br />agenda. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards removed the VDOT stat ement regarding Council priorities from the <br />consent agenda. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Caravati, seconded by Mr. Lynch, the following consent <br />agenda was approved by the following vote, with the minutes of February 18 amended by <br />