Minutes

June 7, 2007

North End - Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board

The meeting was called to order at 6:05

Members present:

Stephen Hudak, Carolyn Hughes, Mary Kayaselcuk, Fred Whittaker, Vice-Chairman Deirdre Wells, Chairman Phil Shook.  The Board is currently short one member.

 Staff present:

David Watson

The Minutes of the May 3, 2007 were approved without modification.

 COA-07-192

231 54^th Street.  Richard Byars

 This application was submitted for the following items:

1)    Installation of vinyl soffit to cover new support material that was added to replace/supplement deteriorated rafter tails.

2)    Replace porch columns with matching replicas.

3)    Replace porch railings with matching replicas.

4)    Replace porch flooring with matching tongue & groove material.

Mr. Shook read the guideline statements regarding routine maintenance.  Mr. Shook stated, and the Board concurred that the replacement of the porch columns, railings and floorings in the manner described in the application would not be an alteration of the historical appearance of the house.  When comparing the proposed work to archive photos of the structure, these items were determined to be routine maintenance and therefore did not require approval from the Board.

The discussion of the eaves began with Mr. Shook reading Section IV, part J2b which states Wood trim is used for window, doors, and other decorative features. Original

wood trim should be retained where possible. Boxing-in of exposed eaves is prohibited.

Mr. Byars explaining the need for boxing in the rafter trailers.  He explained that the rafters were badly deteriorated to the point of causing the roof to sag.  The rafters were modified with stress cuts and reinforced with additional lumber.  This resulted in a significant alteration of the appearance of the rafter trailers that was deemed by the applicant to be unsightly.  He stated that his decision to box the rafter tails and the addition of a soffit was based on improving the aesthetics.  He felt that since the house already had vinyl siding that this was not a significant deviation from the character of the dwelling.  He also stated that there was no financial incentive for him to box in the eaves as it did cost approximately $4000, money he could have saved if the rafters had been salvageable in their current state.  Mr. Byars also stated that his intention in this rehabilitation project was to keep the appearance of the structure as close to original as possible.  He decided to repair the slate roof rather than remove it in favor of asphalt shingles as he originally had requested.

Ms. Wells expressed her concern that this work was started prior to the submission of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the ARB, and completed after notification of the requirement of a COA.  Mr. Whittaker stated that there was no way to know if the method of restoration chosen by the applicant was the best course of action, or even if it was necessary at all, because the job was already completed before the Board had a chance to look at the proposal.  The Board expressed disappointment that this matter was not brought to their attention prior to the work being completed.

Mr. Byars admitted his mistake in starting work prior to the issuance of a COA and apologized.  He stated that he did not feel that he was significantly altering the character of the house as vinyl siding and vinyl windows were installed prior to the establishment of the ARB.

A motion was made to deny the application citing Section IV(J)2(b) of the guidelines to allow the boxing in of the exposed eaves by Mrs. Wells.  Mr. Whittaker provided a second.

For denial: Stephen Hudak, Fred Whittaker, Carolyn Hughes, Deirdre Wells and Phil Shook

Against denial: none

Mary Kayaselcuk abstained from the discussion and vote citing a conflict of interest resulting from the hiring of Mr. Byars services for renovations of her house.

Mr. Byars stated that he intends to appeal the Board’s decision and asked Mr. Watson to send him information regarding the appeals process.

New Business.

Dan Ruble has submitted an application to the City Clerk’s office to serve on the Board.  He attended the meeting in order to introduce himself in this regard.  He was well received by members of the Board and the Chairman.

Old Business

The Board returned to the discussion of the 2007 Guideline update.  Mr. Shook has asked Board members and staff for any suggestions for the modification of the Guidelines.  At the May 2007 meeting the Board had discussed and approved for consideration a modification that would allow the replacement of three-tab asphalt shingles with architectural grade shingles with administrative approval.

Mr. Watson suggested the Board also allow the replacement of windows with identical in design thermal vinyl windows with administrative review.  The current guidelines require Board review if the material changes.  Mr. Whittaker and Mrs. Hughes were reluctant to consider this change, but will discuss it further at the September meeting.

Ms. Kayaselcuk suggested an administrative review for stockade fences.  Mrs. Wells stated that the current system allows neighbors to be notified regarding installation of the fence.  Mr. Watson noted that the neighbors and Board could not deny a fence nor alter its location, only regulate the materials and style.  It would not allow the neighbors a chance to prevent the installation of the fence.

Mr. Whittaker expressed a desire to see stronger code enforcement in the neighborhood.  He has noticed that numerous properties have accumulated junk in the yards and significantly overgrown landscaping.

Notices of violations

The following items of concern were brought to the attention of staff:

1)     A house on 60^th Street has a sign stating “Apartment for Rent.”  Multiple family dwellings not permitted in this area under the zoning ordinance.  It is possible that the “apartment” in question is one side of a duplex, and this would be permissible under the zoning ordinance.

2)    5201 Huntington Avenue has been reported as being used as a boarding house.

3)    A new chain link fence has been installed in the front yard of 310 72^nd Street.  The guidelines expressly state that chain link fence may not be installed in the front yard.

4)    Mr. Whittaker asked that the decking being installed at 325 63^rd Street be inspected to ensure compliance with the COA which called for tongue and groove decking.