North End Huntington Heights ARB
Minutes

May 5, 2005

Call to order

Review of the April 7, 2005 minutes

Amendments made

Motion made to approve by Stephen Hudak

Seconded by Anita Garner

COA-05-125  6504 Huntington Avenue.  John and Charlene Runner.

Mr. Runner stated that he is requesting a pair of 2/3^rd glass storm doors as discussed during a preliminary review at the March meeting. He restated that the full glass door is not desirable because it will not allow for the installation of a dog door on the southern door.

The Board asked for and received clarification regarding the model doors to be installed.  One door will be fitted with a dog access door.  A member of the audience stated that he lived on an adjoining property and thought that the proposed doors would be a great improvement to the existing conditions.

Motion to approve – Carolyn Hughes

Second – Stephen Hudak

COA-05-126  5407 Huntington Avenue.  Dana and Sara Clapper

Replace fence and windows

Fencing -

Mr. Shook stated that the fence has been installed properly and has been stained in accordance to the guidelines.

There was no further discussion by the Board or comment from the audience

Motion made to accept by Stephan Hudak

Seconded by Anita Garner

Windows -

Mr. Shook reviewed the guideline criteria noting that wrapping the trim with vinyl or aluminum is not allowed.

The Board discussion noted that the windows that had been installed meet the criteria of the guideline but that the trim wrap does not. 

Mr. Clapper stated he discussed the requirements of the Architectural Review Board with his realtor prior to the purchase of the house.  When he hired his contractor, the contractor assured him that all City permits and requirements would be obtained prior to starting the project.  Mr. Clapper stated that it was his intent to carry out the modifications of his home in accordance to the ARB Guidelines and was not aware that there was a problem until Codes Compliance cited him.

A member of the audience asked if the window wrap compromised the detail of the window.  Mr. Shook explained that the guidelines clearly state that the wrapping of window trim is not allowed.

Motion to approve modified for the removal of the trim wrapping – Carolyn Hughes     Seconded – Anita Gardner

Approved unanimously

COA-05-127 349 53^rd Street.  Lance and Donna Singson.

The applicants stated that the previous owner had boarded over the door opening without their consultation.  They are appearing before the Board to determine an appropriate means to repair the damaged door opening.

Mr. Shook noted that the original siding on the garage was a unique tongue and groove double drop siding.  The new siding applied over the garage door opening was a 4” cement boarding and does not match the remaining siding on the structure.  An alternative to replacing the siding would be to frame in the opening to look like a functional door in appearance only.  It would be up to the applicant to decide whether or not to install a functional door.  The applicant is not inclined to use the structure as a garage due to access problems and therefore a functional door is not necessary.

Mr. Shook proposed siding over the complete wall to match the existing siding; remove the newly added siding and reframe the opening to look like a garage door.  The faux door option is the preferred choice of the Board.

Motion to approve  – Stephen Hudak

Second – Anita Gardner

Approved unanimously

COA-05-128  235 51^st Street.  Kevin A. Byrd.   

The applicant was not present to discuss this case.  Ms. Hughes noted that the application as presented does not meet the ARB guidelines.

Motion to deny -  Carolyn Hughes

Second – (no tape – unknown)

Denial Approved unanimously

New Business

Allan Richardson presented a preliminary site review for his property at 312 72^nd Street. 

 Additional New Business.

Mr. Shook announced that Ms. Tiffany was no longer serving on the Board due to a change in her qualification status that was brought to the attention of the City staff.  Mr. Shook expressed concern that the Board was not contacted prior to any action taken.  Mr. Watson stated that if an issue such as this is brought to his attention, it must be acted on immediately.  Mr. Shook stated he was also concerned that Ms. Tiffany was not contacted prior to action taken.  Mr. Shook stated that there might be a possibility that she had a property deed that was not registered with the city. 

Mr. Watson stated that a review of the real estate showed that Ms. Tiffany is not a property owner in the City of Newport News and that she is a leasing tenant at her current address of record.  All properties in the City are registered to an owner.  Mr. Watson stated that he had never heard of an unregistered deed being used to establish residency and that even if one was produced, he would not accept it.  Mr. Watson stated that the non-qualifying condition of her residency had existed for some time, possibly predating his own service on the Board.  Mr. Shook responded that the change had occurred during Mr. Watson’s tenure. (Editor’s note – a review of real estate records indicate Ms. Tiffany’s residency status changed on March 16^th, 2004). 

The Board discussed options for possible reinstatement for Ms. Tiffany.  Mr. Shook stated that since she is a web developer that she might be considered an artist and could fill the position of designated artist.  This person would not need to be a neighborhood resident.  Mr. Watson stated that there are currently three persons on the Board that meet the criteria of artist and are also neighborhood residents.  His opined that it would be difficult to justify bringing someone from outside the neighborhood to fill a position currently filled by a resident property owner, with two more qualified resident property owners waiting in the wings.  He also noted that Ms. Tiffany’s term would expire in November 2005 if she were reinstated.  He further stated that this matter ultimately would be decided by City Council.

Mr. Shook said that he believes that anyone whose credentials are being questioned has a right to defend those accusations rather than the city immediately taking action.  Ms. Hughes further asked if there were some open government or sunshine laws that pertain to this situation.   Mr. Watson responded that this was not an action he wanted to carry out.  When the conflict regarding Ms. Tiffany’s residency was brought to his attention he consulted his department director, the City Attorney, the Zoning Administrator and the City Clerk to see if there was a way to keep Ms. Tiffany on the Board.  The consensus opinion was that it was clear that Ms. Tiffany did not meet the conditions for service as written in the city ordinance.  Mr. Watson then removed her from the Board.

Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Watson if during this time he contacted Ms. Tiffany.  Mr. Watson stated that he had not.  Ms. Hughes then stated that it is possible that Mr. Watson did not know if he had all the information necessary to make his decision.  Mr. Watson responded that he did have all the information, that he has full access to all the city’s real estate records.  These records state the owner of each parcel in the city.  Mr. Shook revisited his argument regarding an unregistered deed, and Ms. Hughes stated that some people might not want to register their properties for security or privacy reasons.  Mr. Watson responded that an unregistered property was not legally possible.  Every parcel must have a registered owner and that information is by law a public record.  No mechanism exists to conceal this information.

The Board stated that beyond the issues in regard to Ms. Tiffany, they would like for Board members to have the opportunity to discuss any questioning of member credentials prior to any action taken.

Ms. Hughes stated, with the Board and staff concurring, that Ms. Tiffany had been a valuable member of the Board.  She was instrumental in developing the guidelines and donated a substantial amount of her time and energy to her neighborhood in general and to the Architectural Review Board in particular.  It was also noted that her attendance at the Board meetings was nearly perfect.

The meeting adjourned.