►
From YouTube: Heritage Preservation Board November 5, 2018
Description
Description
A
You
have
to
do
that.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
Heritage
Preservation
Board
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial,
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity
at
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi
judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
Code
of
Ordinances,
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
for
it.
A
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent
substantial
relevant
evidence
that
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
meant
the
criteria
established
in
the
Code
of
Ordinances,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
Code
of
Ordinances,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
A
B
C
A
B
You,
although
we
do
operate
somewhat
formally
by
the
rules
that
you've
heard
mr.
Trask
speak
and
we
do
want
to
let
people
speak
for
whatever
length
of
time
they
need
to
do
to
present
their
case.
They
do
not
have
a
time
limit,
but
we
do
require
that
you
come
to
the
podium
and
give
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
so
that
we
can
capture
it
all
on
tape.
Our
goal
for
the
process
today
in
the
meeting
is
that
we're
transparent
and
fair
and
let
everyone
speak
that
wishes
to
be
involved
in
the
process.
B
B
D
D
D
E
B
The
staff
report
says,
and
the
application
says
that
there's
no
changes
to
the
roof
you're
not
taking
out
any
of
the
other
defining
features
of
the
roof.
The
overhang
the
supports
anything
like
that.
So
I
just
want
you
to
confirm
that
that's
correct
on
the
record.
The
only
thing
you're
doing
is
replacing
the
material
of
the
roof
itself
correct.
B
B
G
B
C
B
B
D
This
is
a
proposal
for
renovation
of,
in
addition
to
what
is,
or
was
a
one-story
porch
on
the
back
of
this
structure.
455
east
harpin
Street.
This
is
a
masonry
vernacular
contributing
structure.
A
little
bit
of
history
on
this.
This
porch
had
a
building
permit,
building
permit
application
on
it.
That
was
never
pulled.
D
Some
work
was
started,
but
a
building
permit
was
was
never
issued
for
this.
It
was
closed
out.
This
property
is
in
code
enforcement
proceedings
with
the
city
and,
of
course
the
applicant
was
required
to
come
in
and
apply
for
building
permits
required,
Heritage,
Preservation,
Board
approvals
and
so
on.
The
applicant
did
apply,
planning
did
accept
the
application
it
was
complete,
but
it
was
not
sufficient
with
materials
we
did
send
out
postcards.
D
D
This
is
a
project
overall,
without
going
through
all
this
detail,
unless
you
want
to
that,
I
feel
could
be
presented
as
a
project
that
you
could.
You
could
look
favorably
on,
but
it's
just
not
there
yet
so
I
put
in
basically
a
recommendation
that
that
staff
cannot
recommend
approval
at
this
time,
even
with
conditions.
The
conditions
with
would
obviously
just
be
really
too
much.
They'd
be
items
that
should
be
in
the
application
postcards
were
sent
out.
There
was
no
response.
D
B
D
B
D
B
So
I
guess
I'm
concerned
about
a
couple
of
things:
I,
don't
think
I
think
we
have
ever
looked
at
a
site
ban
or
an
addition.
Without
you
never
seen
a
patient
didn't
have
this
does
not
have
so
we
can't
really
tell
where,
in
space
this
edition
is
going,
although
one
could
guess
it's
to
the
rear
based
on
the
application,
but
really
can't
tell
you,
don't
see
the
rest
of
the
floor
plan
of
the
house.
So
that's
confusing
as
well
personally
I'm
concerned
about
a
couple
of
the
material
choices
that
they've
made.
B
For
example,
Hardy
board
a
wood
material
on
a
house
tall
brick
seems
to
be
inconsistent
and
a
sliding
glass
door
on
the
rear
of
the
house.
It's
a
modern
opening,
not
opening.
So
those
just
some
quick
thoughts.
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
staff
that
it's
really
difficult
to
make
a
judgement
and
I
don't
want
to
deny
them.
If
I'd
like
to
get
enough,
you
need
to
supplement
their
application,
but
I
want
Mike
here
with
press
the
board,
but
I.
B
F
B
Okay,
so
I
guess
that's
kind
of
consensus
of
the
board,
but
we
need
to
make
take
the
formal
action,
but
it
sounds
like
we
would
agree.
The
staff
that
needs
to
be
application
used
may
complete
with
the
plans,
needs
to
show
site
plan
for
sure
and
show
the
rest
of
the
elevation
needs
to
have
a
description
of
what
was
done
to
the
building
to
the
historic
aspect
of
the
building.
Without
the
permits,
we
can
judge
that
if
they
have
photographs
before
they
did
the
work,
that
would
also
be
helpful
and.
D
Apparently
there
was
a
I,
don't
know
the
exact
facts,
but
apparently
there
was
someone
hired
to
do
the
work,
but
that
person
is
is
no
longer
under
apparently
under
the
applicant's
employ
the
only
person
that
I've
talked
with
that.
The
applicant
has
engaged
as
the
architect
that
drew
the
plans
that
he.
F
B
D
It
will
be
I
just
feel
it's
in
the
applicants.
Best
interest,
given
the
code
case
to
respond
I
believe
from
top
I
have
not
spoken
or
emailed
with
the
applicant
I've
not
had
any
responses
from
the
applicant.
The
architect
that
drew
these
plans.
I
have
spoken
with
in
person.
I
can
tell
you
that
he
told
me
he
is
confident
he
can
submit
the
plans.
Now
he
is
not
the
authorized
agent
so
that
that's
not
speaking
for
the
applicant.