Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Historic Districts Commission

Chairperson Melinda Hill, Vice Chairperson Brian R. Dunphy

Members: Maria-Teresa L. Cozzolino, John Dziurman, Micheal Kilpatrick, Paul Miller,

Micheal Sinclair, Dr. Richard Stamps, Jason Thompson

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Thursday, November 8, 2007

MINUTES of the REGULAR ROCHESTER HILLS HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION

MEETING held at the Rochester Hills Municipal Building, 1000 Rochester Hills Drive,

Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan.

CALL TO ORDER

1.

Chairperson Hill called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

ROLL CALL

2.

Maria-Teresa Cozzolino, Brian Dunphy, Melinda Hill, Paul Miller and Richard

Stamps

Present

5 -

John Dziurman, Micheal Kilpatrick, Michael Sinclair and Jason Thompson

Absent

4 -

Also Present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning & Development

Department

John Staran, City Attorney

Scott Cope, Director, Building Department

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Hill noted that Mr. Thompson had left word he could not attend this

meeting and was excused.

DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM

3.

Chairperson Hill announced a quorum was present.

STATEMENT OF STANDARDS

4.

Chairperson Hill read the following Statement of Standards for the record.

“All decisions made by the Historic Districts Commission follow the guidelines

of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, MCL Section

399.205, and City Code Section 118-164.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

5.

2007-0729

5A.

September 13, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes

Chairperson Hill asked for any comments or corrections regarding the September 13,

2007 Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon hearing none, she called for a motion to approve.

A motion was made by Miller, seconded by Dunphy, that these Minutes be

Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Dunphy, Hill, Miller and Stamps

5 -

Absent

Dziurman, Kilpatrick, Sinclair and Thompson

4 -

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the September 13, 2007 Regular Historic Districts

Commission Meeting be approved as presented.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS

6.

A. The Rochester Era, October/November 2007 Edition

B. Supplemental Information regarding Agenda Items 6 and 9A.

Chairperson Hill noted that Scott Cope, Director of the Building Department, and City

Attorney John Staran were present.

Chairperson Hill stated that the Commissioners had received copies of the above

documents, and explained that the Supplemental Information contained some additional

information regarding historic trees. She asked if the Commissioners had any questions

or comments regarding that matter. She pointed out the excerpt from the March 14,

2002 Historic Districts Commission meeting stated that Dr. Jane Busch had explained

that a tree had to be more than old to be considered historic, and that there had to be

some meaning attached to the tree by the Community.

Mr. Miller stated there had been some discussion about older trees nationwide because

of the increased information on the importance of them to the surrounding area, both for

filtration and temperature regulation. He stated that some communities were regulating

older trees, much as they would a historic building. He understood that under that under

Michigan Law and City Ordinances, that just merely being an old tree did not make it

historic, but had to have something else connected with it.

Mr. Miller stated that when Dr. Busch conducted the historic survey for 1021 Harding

Avenue, she included some of the old orchard remnants. He thought that nut trees

might be as important as fruit trees. He also thought it would be nice if the City could

clean up its information on historic trees to protect and maintain them.

Chairperson Hill believed the City had a list of various species around the City as far as

the largest or oldest tree, but whether they would fit the criteria of being a historic tree

would have to be researched. She stated that trees on existing historic properties were

another item that had not been surveyed to a great extent, and was something the

Commission could discuss further regarding how to go about that or gather information.

Chairperson Hill stated that as far as other sites that are not designated but that are

open space and may contain historic landscapes or trees was something the Commission

would have to discuss further. She noted the City had not designated any particular

open space that contained a historic tree, which might be another area that could be

looked at as the City acquires greenspace.

Chairperson Hill called for any other announcements or communications. None were

provided.

PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-Agenda Items)

7.

Chairperson Hill asked if there were any public comments on any Non-Agenda matters.

There were no public comments.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

8.

2007-0575

8A.

Review of Survey Results

- Future Resident Work Shops

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission held some discussion at the September meeting

about the survey results, and asked if there was anything further the Commission wished

to discuss about them.

Mr. Miller asked how many responses were received. Chairperson Hill responded that

about twenty surveys had been returned.

Chairperson Hill stated it appeared from the survey results that people were interested

and liked the open house and the information presented. She thought people seemed to

have a fairly decent experience if they had dealt with the Commission, and there was

interest in future workshops. She suggested the Commission might consider partnering

with surrounding communities or historic groups to hold a painting, window restoration,

building assessment, or masonry repair workshop, which could be a smaller scale than

the open house.

Mr. Delacourt stated that he had discussed workshops with the Michigan Historic

Preservation Network (MHPN) and Pat McKay from the Van Hoosen Museum. He

explained he and Mr. McKay were not able to put together a workshop with the

contractor repairing the Museum windows as that contractor was on a schedule and

was only doing glazing. That contractor did indicate a willingness to come back and

conduct a workshop.

Mr. Delacourt stated he and Mr. McKay had discussed holding a series of workshops

on Saturday afternoons at the Van Hoosen Museum, such a window repair, masonry

repair, siding repair, and the Network had an idea for a fourth workshop, if the

Commission thought it was a good idea. He stated they would also have to know when

the Commission would like to hold the workshops.

Ms. Cozzolino stated she liked the idea of a series as it did not require a lot of time, and

people would know when to expect them and they would be in the same place at the

same time.

Mr. Miller agreed it would be great to schedule the workshops as a series, which would

allow the Commission time to advertise the series. He thought that was exactly what

the Commission wanted to do in working with the historic homeowners to help assist

them.

Mr. Delacourt asked whether late February or early March would be the appropriate

time, as that was when people were gearing up to consider home improvement projects.

Chairperson Hill suggested the last Saturday in February and the third Saturday in

March, which were the “indoor” months, before getting into April when everyone got

very busy. She noted the Museum put out a bi-monthly magazine, which could advertise

the series. She commented if the series were advertised in the Rochester-Avon

Historical Society newsletter that would notify those outside the City’s designated

properties.

Mr. Delacourt stated he would talk to Mr. McKay and bring back a proposal at the

December meeting. Chairperson Hill pointed out that if the Commission wanted to

advertise the series for a February workshop, the Commission would have to make a

decision at the December meeting.

Mr. Delacourt asked if the workshops would be open to the general public and local

historic groups, and not just the historic property owners. Chairperson Hill thought it

was a good idea to open up the workshops, and pointed out there may be other residents

in the Community with homes that needed window or masonry repair, and that might be

willing to do hands-on repairs on their homes.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if there would be problems using the Museum on Saturdays as the

workshops might conflict with other events being held at the Museum. Mr. Delacourt

stated he would discuss available dates with Mr. McKay, as well as lining up

contractors to conduct the workshops. He noted if a contractor conducting a particular

workshop requested a limited number of attendees, the Commission would have to work

within those parameters.

Chairperson Hill stated the workshops should not be held near the Easter Holiday, or too

late in the Spring as people would be too busy to attend. She thought the events would

be more successful if they were held in February and early March.

Mr. Delacourt asked if the Commission was interesting in scheduling a tax credit

workshop, and when and where such a workshop should be held. He explained Bryan

Lijewski from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was willing to conduct the

workshop at a cost of approximately $125.00, with the more expanded version running

about an hour and a half.

Mr. Miller agreed the workshops should be held in late Winter or early Spring. He

stated he was willing to assist in setting up the workshops.

Mr. Delacourt recommended the tax credit workshop be held in the City Hall auditorium

as a presentation, rather than an open house forum. He stated Mr. Lijewski’s

presentation would be targeted to designated properties and very detailed regarding the

credits available. He suggested Oakland Township’s and/or designated property owners

from other adjacent communities could be invited, and the presentation would allow the

residents to ask questions about the credits and the process.

Chairperson Hill agreed the tax credit workshop should be held on a regular Commission

meeting night, and suggested scheduling it for the February meeting. She agreed that

the Oakland Township Historic Districts Commission should be invited, and they could

invite their designated property owners. She suggested surrounding communities with

Historic Districts Commissions, such as Romeo, could also be invited to the presentation.

The Commissioners supported that suggestion, and Mr. Delacourt stated he would set

up the tax credit workshop.

This matter was Discussed

Chairperson Hill suggested that Agenda Items 9A, 9B and 9C be moved forward on the

Agenda prior to Agenda Item 8B. The Commissioners agreed to move Agenda Items

9A, 9B and 9C forward.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Hill provided a brief update on the next three properties, noting that letters

had been sent to the property owners of record in August, 2007 indicating the

Commission’s concern of possible demolition by neglect, and which gave the property

owners time to respond regarding their intentions with their respective properties.

2007-0576

9A.

1585 S. Rochester Road

Chairperson Hill stated this property was somewhat more complicated because it was

part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement with the City. She asked

Director Cope to provide some background regarding the property.

Mr. Cope stated that a Code Compliance Request had been issued that indicated a

notice was sent to the property owner relating to items the Building Department felt

should be taken care of regarding the maintenance of the building, such as the columns

and other areas that had not been maintained. He indicated the notice was sent on

August 15, 2007, and an Inspector had gone back to the property on November 6, 2007,

and everything was in the same condition, except that a broken window had been

boarded up. He commented all the other violations still exist. (A copy of the Code

Compliance Request was provided to the Commissioners, and has been placed on file

and becomes a part of the record hereof).

Mr. Cope referred to the report from Modern Mold Remediation, LLC (a copy of which

was provided to the Commissioners and has been placed on file and becomes a part of

the record hereof). He explained the property owner had hired a mold remediation

company to look at the property and pointed out that based on the first page of the

report, it was considered unsafe and did not recommend anyone entering the building

without a full face respirator fitted with P100 HEPA filters.

Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Cope could elaborate on the report. Mr. Cope stated he was

not an expert on mold, and would have to limit himself to the first page of the report

dated September 11, 2007. He referred to the paragraph that stated, “It is my opinion

that air quality within the house is unsafe due to the high levels of toxic spores... . It is

my recommendation that anyone entering this residence, wear a full face respirator

fitted with P100 HEPA filters.”

Ms. Cozzolino clarified that the property owner had requested and paid for the report.

Mr. Cope stated that was correct. He explained the property owner had asked the

Building Department to perform an inspection on the inside of the building, particularly

the concern with mold in the building. He explained he did not want to send any of his

inspectors inside the building until they received verification it was safe. He had advised

the property owner that in order for the Building Department to consider going inside the

premises, they would need a report from a mold specialist, which had generated the

report. He stated that based on the results, he informed the property owner he would

not send any of his inspectors inside at this point.

Ms. Cozzolino asked about the reason the property owner had requested the Building

Department to go inside the premises and look at the mold problem. Mr. Cope stated

the property owner wanted a list of violations found on the inside to go along with the list

of violations noted on the outside to use as justification as to the condition of the building.

Mr. Dunphy stated that upon hearing that, his question would be where did the

Commission go from here, and what was the next step? Mr. Cope stated that from the

Building Department standpoint, they had held off because of the interest on the

owner’s part to try and pursue some remediation. However, since the mold report had

been received, nothing had happened. The Building Department was aware the

property would be scheduled for a Historic Districts Commission meeting, and thought

that would be the appropriate time to discuss the property with the Commission.

Mr. Cope stated there were certain aspects of the outside of the building that the

Building Department considered unsafe and that should be taken care of, although that

might not be to the extent the Commission felt necessary to bring the premises to a state

of “mothballing”.

Mr. Delacourt stated that on behalf of the Commission, Staff had sent a letter notifying

the property owner of his obligation to maintain and repair the historic property and to

request some response. He stated the letter was sent because the property had become

an issue as the Building Department was dealing with it, and it was important to remind

the property owner of the historic designation.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Commission, based on a finding that the integrity of the

structure was in danger, could make a motion in relation to demolition and enforcement

of demolition by neglect, which would put the City in a position to require the owner,

through Code Enforcement and Violation Notices, to repair. Ultimately, the City could

be put in a position to enter the property, and make the repairs itself. He pointed out

that was more of an enforcement issue, and the Commission could make the motion

whenever it felt it had the appropriate information based on the photographs or

investigation by the Building Department. He explained if the Commission felt the

structure of the property reached that plateau, the Commission could make that motion.

He noted a copy of a demolition by neglect motion made in the past for another property

had been provided to the Commission to assist with the findings associated with such a

motion.

Mr. Delacourt stated that decision could be made by the Commission at any point based

on whether the Commission felt it had received the appropriate information. He

explained the City would respond through Code Violations or by entering the property.

He stated the motion did not have to be directed to City Council requesting Council to do

something, but rather the motion was made by the Commission.

Dr. Stamps asked if there was any indication about what the owner wanted to do in this

situation. He asked if the owner planned to develop the site, or whether he wanted to

preserve the house. He commented he thought this was the same property owner who,

when there had been discussion on the barns on the site and the Commission had not

come to a rapid conclusion, the next day the barns were torn down. He noted Mr.

Dziurman told that story with great emotion. He commented it appeared to him that the

property owner was attempting to let the house fall down so that he could develop the

site, although he did not have that specific information.

Mr. Dunphy stated that parcel had come before the Commission, and was reviewed

with an authorization to proceed with the development plans. He recalled those plans

involved relocating the historic structure to another part of the property, and there had

been considerable discussion about moving the house and whether that took it out of its

historical context. He stated at that time the Commission felt they were comfortable

enough with the overall approach to the proposal and how the property would be

handled, that the Commission did authorize the property owner to proceed with the

project, with conditions. He noted that was at least two years ago, and he had not seen

any progress towards actually developing the site.

Dr. Stamps commented the property owner had brought in a big proposal that included

houses in the back, and asked if the proposal had moved forward. Mr. Delacourt stated

that the same developer owned the property, and did have an approved PUD for the

property as a phased development. He stated the first phase was the bank, which had

been approved, and done in accordance with the PUD Agreement. Since that time, the

applicant had appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council do discuss

possible revisions to that Agreement in both size and scope and the potential to move the

house. He stated the property owner made it very plain on the record that he was

having a difficult time either marketing or building the project that had been proposed

and approved, and may need to revise that plan. He indicated that since that time, the

property owner had come in with a couple concept plans that were reviewed by the

Planning Commission and City Council, with differing levels of interest or desire;

however, nothing had been formally submitted and nothing had been formally revised.

Mr. Delacourt commented it appeared the property owner had an interest in revising the

PUD Agreement, but how he was proposing to handle the historic house or the historic

district was not known.

Mr. Miller asked whether allowing a structure to become dangerous so that people could

not enter it, on top of the exterior situation and exposure to the elements, by itself

constituted demolition by neglect.

Mr. Staran stated that was a primary reason why that was now included in the law. He

commented that prior to it being included in the law, if one were of the mindset to avoid

preserving a historic structure, one way would be to let Mother Nature or whatever else

deteriorates it to the point where it could not feasibly or reasonably be rehabilitated. He

noted there was some experience in this Community with a structure that was left

unmaintained for such a long period of time that the question became whether it was

even worthy of saving. He explained that was the reason it was added to the law and

incorporated in the City’s Ordinance to give the Commission the tool to catch those

situations in an attempt to “nip it in the bud” at a point in time where the structure can be

saved, or it can be mothballed, so that it does not deteriorate beyond the point of saving.

Mr. Staran stated it was the Commission’s judgment whether that point had been

reached with the subject property. He noted when the property owner brought their

plans to the City, they had grand visions of how it would turn out; however, based on the

economy and the representations regarding financing, partners, etc. to develop the

project, he speculated the owner was reluctant to put any further money into the

property until they had a plan to move ahead, be it develop or sell. He stated that

without having a direct conversation with the property owner, he could only speculate on

the situation.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if the Commission made a motion, whether the matter next went

before City Council.

Mr. Staran stated there were a couple steps involved. If the Commission made a

finding as prescribed in the Ordinance that a historic resource within a historic district is

threatened with demolition by neglect, the Commission could order that the property

owner repair it to comply with whatever conditions the Commission imposed. He

explained if the property owner did not comply within the time frame prescribed by the

Commission, then the next step would be for the Commission to determine that the City

should do the work. At that point in time, it would be necessary for the City to go to

Court to get a judicial order authorizing the City to enter onto the property for that

purpose; the City would do the work, and would tack the cost of that work onto the tax

rolls.

Ms. Cozzolino stated that in the copy of the motion provided to the Commission

regarding another historic property, it appeared the owner had not mothballed the

structure, and the Commission was proceeding to City Council to request them to

proceed.

Mr. Delacourt explained the Commission would make the finding of demolition by

neglect, and authorize, encourage and request the City to take all appropriate action to

enforce that part of the Ordinance. He stated the matter might involve City Council

making a decision on whether to go to Circuit Court and enter the property. He stated

that as a matter of courtesy, any motion of this type made by the Commission would be

forwarded to City Council. He explained it did not require City Council action to start

the process.

Mr. Staran noted the Mayor and City Council would not like him going to Court without

their permission, so it was a matter of working within the government structure and

recognizing that the Council and the Mayor had certain responsibilities with respect to

legal actions being taken. He explained that even though according to the Ordinance it

was the Commission that got the ball rolling, they would go through those normal

processes on the way to Circuit Court.

Ms. Cozzolino asked what a “reasonable time” was to give the owner an opportunity to

repair the structure.

Mr. Staran thought a reasonable time would vary from property to property depending

on the nature and degree of the condition and the severity of the problem. He noted

there were certain things, such as a hole in the roof that no one wanted to fool around

with and should be taken care of right away. He stated if it was more of an aesthetics

type of situation that would be less urgent. He stated he would defer to the Commission

to determine what was reasonable. He commented if the property owner did not

comply within the set time frame, the Commission would move without delay to the next

step.

Ms. Cozzolino asked if a time frame should be included in any motion made by the

Commission. Mr. Staran commented there had not been many demolition by neglect

matters in the City. He stated the City had dealt with the dangerous building Ordinance

more in the past. He explained the approach with those cases was to give the property

owner a certain period of reasonable time depending on the work that needed to be

done, such as tearing down the building or fixing it up. However, the City would require

that within a much shorter period of time, such as ten days or two weeks, the property

owner come in and get the necessary permits for the work. In other words, the City

would not wait the full time for the property owner to do nothing, but would require

some immediate action just to demonstrate they were, in fact, moving forward. If they

did not move forward, the City would not wait the entire period. He stated that could

differ from case to case, and he was not sure what permits would be necessary in this

matter, and would require input from the Building Department.

Chairperson Hill stated she had some concern because a letter had been sent giving the

property owner 90 days to respond, and which made it very clear there were concerns

and problems. She believed the property owner was well aware of the Commission’s

concerns. She stated it appeared evident nothing was being done and she would not

care to give a long period of time to make the corrections. Because nothing had been

done, she would be very inclined to indicate that if within 30 days repairs had not been

done or no mothballing had been done, then the Commission would proceed to take the

matter to Court.

Chairperson Hill asked if the Commission wanted to proceed to Circuit Court, whether

Council had to approve that action. Mr. Staran stated the matter did not require

submittal to Council for a formal resolution. Rather, Council would be notified and the

matter would be cleared through the Mayor’s office. He stated if there was a problem

or Council had an objection, the matter could be held up.

Chairperson Hill requested that any correspondence issued by the Commission be

forwarded to City Council in a Memorandum so that Council is well aware of the

situation taking place, and to be aware of the Commission’s commitment and actions.

Chairperson Hill stated there were a number of items listed on the Code Compliance

Request from a Building Department standpoint, some of which went hand-in-hand with

the Commission’s concerns. She would want to see repairs directed toward securing

and mothballing the building until further use, from the standpoint that the district was

part of an approved PUD Agreement, and part of the criteria to approve that PUD was

the fact that it would help preserve and rehabilitate a historic structure for the City.

Chairperson Hill was concerned about the mold, and she would like to require that the

mold be remediated. She said she did some research on the Internet on mold; however,

she was not an expert and the report did not tell her much as to how dangerous the mold

was, or to what extent it was, or if it could be remediated. She commented she was not

sure the Commission would be involved because the mold was on the interior. She

questioned whether mothballing meant the property owner had to address the mold

issue.

Mr. Staran stated that at a minimum they needed to find out more about the mold, noting

those were some good questions that the Commission did not know the answer to. He

stated in looking at it very superficially, it could be said the mold was inside the building

and it was none of the Commission’s business. However, the condition and severity or

the ease or difficulty of remediating it, or remedying the problem, could very well affect

the use and viability of that building, or it could perhaps affect exterior features. He

noted the Commission was at the point now where the Building Department could not

even get an inspector in the building to determine whether there are other structural

issues or problems until more is known about the mold and making it safe. He pointed

out the Commission did not know if it was a problem that was going to be difficult to

cure, or is it a problem simply because the building is just getting stuffy and humid with

no air circulation because no one lives there. He thought it would be reasonable for the

Commission to list among the conditions they might impose or list for the property, to

have a further study or a more thorough study of the mold situation to determine the full

extent of the problem and what is needed to remediate it. He thought that would affect

doing anything further with the property.

Chairperson Hill agreed she would hate to see the building sit, and then find it becomes

so bad that it is not habitable or could not be reused in some manner. Mr. Staran agreed

it could become so bad, or may already be so bad, it is beyond cure, which would bring

up the question of whether it is habitable structure that should be saved.

Chairperson Hill agreed the Commission needed to know that, whether that was a

matter the property owner is asked report further on or to work with the Building

Department in making those determinations. She stated she would be inclined to see a

motion brought forward that kept the time frame relatively tight on doing something.

Mr. Miller agreed, and noted in looking at the best picture he could find of the roof, he

knew that without a weather-tight roof on a building, the building started to deteriorate

very quickly. He suggested the Commission move forward and require some action,

and keep the time period tight. He also suggested the Commission do what it could to

find out about the mold situation, noting the report indicated the molds were all common

fungi present everywhere. He commented that the symptoms of people who inhaled

those molds were quite frightening. He stated that if the Commission’s purview was the

exterior of the structure, the Commission move forward because it would be within their

regulatory authority and would make the mold situation their business to require further

research, and to be informed about how it impacted the structure.

Chairperson Hill stated Mr. Staran had a good point about the mold, and that the mold

report will help make a determination as to the future reuse of the building. She thought

from that standpoint, it was within their purview, even though the Commission was only

talking about the exterior, it could affect the exterior. She thought the property owner

reporting on the mold problem ought to be part of the motion within a short time frame.

She thought it could be quickly determined if the problem could be taken care of or if it

was way beyond that point. She noted the report did not provide that information.

Mr. Dunphy proposed the following motion for consideration by the Commission:

MOTION by Dunphy, that the Historic Districts Commission makes a determination

that the property located at 1585 S. Rochester Road, Sidwell 15-23-300-035, is in clear

violation of the Demolition by Neglect section of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and

that the Historic Districts Commission requests the City to move forward with all

appropriate action to secure said property against damage from the elements, with the

following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. That the property is a designated Historic District, and is in clear violation of the

Demolition by Neglect portion of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and it is the

Historic Districts Commission’s belief that the structure located at 1585 S. Rochester

Road needs to be protected before any irreparable damage occurs.

2. That the property is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement

approved of approximately four years ago by the Historic Districts Commission, and

no progress has been observed toward actually constructing said project.

3. That the photographs provided to the Historic Districts Commission show clear

deterioration in the property.

4. That an inspection by the Building Department on August 15, 2007 detailed

specific deterioration of the building.

5. That a follow-up inspection the week of November 5, 2007 showed that only

one window had been boarded over, and the rest of the identified issues had been

uncorrected.

Conditions:

1. That the issues identified in Code Compliance Request dated August 15, 2007

from the Building Department be remediated within thirty (30) days.

2. That there be an inspection of the interior for determination of the severity of the

mold issues.

Dr. Stamps stated he would second the proposed motion on the floor.

Chairperson Hill called for discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Ms. Cozzolino suggested the addition of some history of the structure and the reason

why it was important to the Community. She commented that if the Commission was

satisfied with the motion, she agreed to the motion as it was presented.

Chairperson Hill asked if the proposed motion included the fact that the property was

part of an approved PUD Agreement. Mr. Dunphy noted that fact was included in

Finding #2.

Chairperson Hill noted the motion requested that the City take appropriate action, and

indicated the Commission was requesting that the property owner take the action, not

the City. She indicated the motion had included a thirty (30) day period for that action to

be taken. She referred to the condition regarding the determination of the severity of

the mold issue, and suggested the Commission request a determination of the level and

the action needed to remediate that situation and its affect on the future re-use of the

structure. She commented the Commission would really like to know the extent of the

mold; what affect it will have on the future re-use of the building, and taking action to

remediate if appropriate.

Dr. Stamps stated that as seconder of the motion, he would accept the rewording of

Condition #2. Mr. Dunphy concurred.

Chairperson Hill stated that if, at the end of the 30-day time period, the above requested

actions had not been taken, the Commission would proceed to take further action

through Circuit Court. She wanted the property owner to be well aware of where the

Commission was heading.

Mr. Staran thought that language should be added as an additional condition to make it

clear that if the owner did not move forward, the Commission is determining at this point

that the City should go forward with the next step, rather than if nothing happened, the

Commission would have to revisit the matter in another month.

Chairperson Hill stated she would hate to have the matter come back, noting it had been

the consent of the Commission that the Commission really wanted to move forward.

Mr. Staran stated that Council would receive a copy of the Commission’s resolution and

would be aware of the situation.

2007-0576

Dr. Stamps asked if Finding #2 regarding the PUD Agreement included the fact that

nothing had been accomplished, noting the bank portion had been completed. Mr.

Staran suggested including “nothing had been accomplished beyond Phase I of the

project”. Mr. Dunphy and Dr. Stamps agreed to the addition of that wording.

Dr. Stamps stated he wanted to speak in favor of the motion, and felt the Commission

had given the property owner ample warning and the Commissioners would not be

appropriate stewards if they sat by much longer and let the structure deteriorate. He

thought it was appropriate for the Commission to move forward, and it was his goal that

it be taken care of by the end of December, either by the property owner or by the City.

Chairperson Hill concurred that within 30 days or by December 31st, and if not, the

action would move on to Circuit Court.

Ms. Cozzolino commented the Commission had discussed the fact the time frame should

be relatively short. Chairperson Hill noted it was only a little over a month and a half to

the end of the year. Mr. Staran noted the original motion was “within 30 days”, but

suggested it might be clearer to set a date certain so there was no mystery of 30 days

from when. He stated whether it was December 31st or some other date, it was still a

relatively short period of time.

Dr. Stamps asked if that meant the work had to be done, or if they were putting forth an

honest effort and working on it. Mr. Staran stated he did not have a problem the way

the motion was worded because he knew how the Planning and Building Departments

operated, and certainly if they were making reasonable and diligent progress, the City

would try to facilitate that. He noted by the same token, if no progress were made, the

City would get the ball rolling to be ready to move on the deadline. He thought Staff

would exercise the appropriate discretion to make sure the City was not under- or

over-reacting to the deadline.

Ms. Cozzolino stated she had some concern about what “reasonable” and “diligent”

meant, or whether the property owner would take advantage of that language.

Chairperson Hill noted that language would not be included in the motion. Mr. Staran

clarified that was the language he used in his explanation of how the situation would be

handled. Chairperson Hill stated the option for the property owner would be the date

the Commission put in the motion.

Dr. Stamps pointed out that four weeks from this meeting would be December 6, 2007.

Mr. Cope indicated he did not think the Commission would see anything completed

within thirty days, based on the extent of work to be done, and the hiring of a contractor.

He stated the Building Department would be looking for some progress showing

something happening. He noted if a contractor was working and making some progress,

then the Building Department would monitor that closely and perhaps set some

guidelines from that point.

Mr. Staran suggested the Commission might consider, rather than setting a completion

date, rephrasing the motion to shorten up the time frame to require that significant

progress be accomplished, such as “accomplished in three weeks” and that the entire

project be completed as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. He stated the

Commission might want to specify an end date as well.

Mr. Dunphy stated his concern with that approach was who would make the

determination whether it is, in fact, progress and the progress is sufficient towards what

the Commission is trying to do; and also being comfortable there is enough of a directive

the Commission can make sure something does actually happen. He did not want to be

unreasonable, noting it would be easy for the property owner to board up a window and

say they were working toward a resolution. He noted the Commission had already seen

that in this case. He thought the Commission might need to be a bit firmer and try to

make it as less “open-ended” as possible. He was open to suggestions regarding the

time frame, such as if the Commission wanted to use December 31st, and have

something clear-cut and unmistakable about what the deadline actually is, rather than

something like “thirty” days, he was agreeable to that. He thought the Commission

needed some kind of time frame, whether it was “completion of the project” or

“substantial progress towards completion” he thought that was fine. He assumed the

Building Department would make the determination on whether there was satisfactory

progress.

Mr. Staran noted the Commission could include “substantial progress as determined by

the Building Department” in their motion. Mr. Dunphy thought that was fair.

Mr. Miller thought the Commission should make the determination of whether sufficient

progress was made, rather than leaving it up to Staff, although he understood Staff

members were the experts.

Chairperson Hill stated it was a matter of working with Ordinance Enforcement and

with the appropriate parties performing the appropriate work, and it was not the

Commission’s job to make that determination.

Mr. Miller suggested the Commission specify a short time frame for work to begin and a

time certain for which all work must be completed. He understood from the items listed

on the Code Compliance Request that thirty days might be too quick, and asked if Mr.

Cope had a suggestion regarding the time frame. He understood thirty days might be

too quick, but asked if ninety days was too soon to require completion.

Chairperson Hill thought ninety days was too long. She was inclined to say by the end

of the year or by December 31st or January 1st that the work be completed. She noted

with the Holidays at the end of the year, the Court would not be able to handle

something as quickly. She stated that if nothing is done by January 2nd, and there is no

significant progress being made, it would be very easy to move the matter to Circuit

Court.

Mr. Staran stated that if progress was being made, whatever extent it is, it will be

reported back to the Commission and the Commission could provide the appropriate

feedback. Certainly, the property owner could approach the Commission to request

additional time, and the Commission could entertain that request as the Commission sees

fit. He pointed out there were some safety valves, and the Commission did not want to

be too short so as to be unreasonable from the get go for someone to finish, although the

Commission did not want to give a lot of time to just sit back and watch nothing being

done.

Mr. Cope pointed out that one requirement of the process was to obtain a Building

Permit. He commented there were a number of structural issues listed that would

require a permit. Depending on what the mold remediation revealed, and what the

requirements were for that, the mold remediation could involve structural issues as well.

Chairperson Hill asked if the list of items requiring repair, as well as those requiring a

building permit, could be provided to the property owner with the letter. She thought that

would make it very clear what was expected.

Mr. Cope stated that the requirement for a Building Permit was based on the fact there

was structural work to be done, whether or not it covered all the items the Commission

wanted to have repaired. He explained the Building Permit would not cover the aspect

of mothballing, but it would cover the requirements for the structural aspects as far as

repairing the porch, or if the mold remediation involved the removal of walls.

Chairperson Hill stated she did not want the property owner to say he did not know a

Building Permit was required, and it might be clearer if everything was spelled out. Mr.

Cope suggested the motion include language regarding the obtaining of a Building

Permit.

Mr. Staran stated that the approach regarding dangerous buildings was to give the

property owner 30, 45 or 60 days to perform the demolition or repair or restoration work,

but again, in conjunction required them to obtain all necessary Building Permits or

Demolition Permits in a short time frame, such as 10 or 14 days. Since it appeared clear

some permits would be needed for this property that might give the Commission more

flexibility with their deadline. The Commission could consider requiring the property

owner to obtain all necessary Building Permits within 14 days or 20 days, but then give

the property owner until the end of the year or 45 days to complete the actual work.

Mr. Cope pointed out the mold remediation would have to be done prior to applying for

the Building Permits as the extent of the work to be done is not known. He explained

that report would have to be part of their submittal for an application for a permit. From

that, the Building Department could determine what needed to be done for the mold

remediation, along with what is already known to be needed to repair the outside of the

building.

Chairperson Hill asked if it would be feasible to include something in the motion

indicating the concerns regarding the mold report and remediation and that requests for

all permits need to be addressed by December 1st. She was not sure if that was a long

enough time frame, noting she did not want to second guess the time frame, but would

like to have some dates in place, to ensure something happened.

Mr. Cope stated he also was not sure how long that could take, noting it would depend

on the availability of someone to do the work and the extent of what had to be done. He

indicated he would find thirty days more realistic to obtain a remediation report and for

an application to be submitted and potentially a permit issued. He explained it was hard

to determine that without knowing what had to be done, because it could include

removing drywall and other interior finishes on the inside walls to determine the extent

of the mold damage, which could take some time.

Mr. Miller noted that most of the items listed on the Code Compliance Request were

exterior items, such as fascia, soffits, roof, and the porch columns. He understood if the

mold remediation report indicated the structure was hopeless and there was nothing that

could be done, that would be a substantial situation for the Board to consider. However,

in the meantime the porch columns could be put back up, and some of the other exterior

work could be done that would go a long way towards a show of good faith. He did not

see a reason to give the property owner another thirty days to put off repairs.

Dr. Stamps commented that the building was in a historic district, and questioned

whether the property owner should be coming before the Commission to tell them what

he wanted to do, and what materials he intended to use.

Chairperson Hill stated the property owner should be making the appropriate repairs,

noting it was not a change, but repair work, and that any mothballing should be done

according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. She did not believe that changes

would occur in this particular instance.

Mr. Staran clarified that if the property owner was performing repair and maintenance

work that would be correct. He pointed out that if the property owner decided, in doing

the work that he would modify the building or change the roof or make other changes,

then Commission approval would be required.

Dr. Stamps agreed that was correct if the repair work was just maintenance work, but

inquired if the property owner found the entire roof needed to be replaced, whether

Commission approval would be required. Chairperson Hill responded “no” if they had to

replace the roof because the roof was leaking and they just put on a new roof; however,

they could not just put down tarpaper and consider it repaired. Also, they could not

decide to install a totally different type of roof, because Commission approval would be

required for that type of a change.

Mr. Delacourt thought the proposed motion did what it needed to do to get the process

started. He pointed out the Commission would meet again in December, and if there

was still an issue, Staff would be back before the Commission explaining whether the

work that needed to be done required a Certificate of Appropriateness; what had and

had not been done, and finding out how the Commission wanted to proceed. He stated

that any motion could be modified at the next meeting, and the Commission needed to

decide the time frame, or the date specific time. Otherwise, the motion did what it

needed to do to allow Staff to enforce the Ordinance. He stated based on the proposed

motion, Staff could proceed to make contact with the property owner, issue the violation

notices, and solicit some type of response.

Chairperson Hill concurred and stated she would prefer to see a finish date included and

the appropriate permits obtained. She agreed if something further were required, the

matter would be brought back at the next meeting. She suggested the property owner

be given until the end of the year. Mr. Dunphy and Dr. Stamps, as motion maker and

seconder, agreed.

Chairperson Hill called for any further discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Mr. Dunphy stated he wanted to be sure that the motion include a provision that the

mothballing be done in accordance with National Park Service Preservation Brief 31

(Mothballing Historic Buildings), and that all repairs are completed in accordance with

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

There being no further discussion regarding the proposed motion on the floor,

Chairperson Hill called for a voice vote on the proposed motion on the floor.

Complete Motion (as voted):

2007-0576

A motion was made by Dunphy, seconded by Stamps, that this matter be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Dunphy, Hill, Miller and Stamps

5 -

Absent

Dziurman, Kilpatrick, Sinclair and Thompson

4 -

RESOLVED that the Historic Districts Commission makes a determination that the

property located at 1585 S. Rochester Road, Sidwell 15-23-300-035, is in clear violation of

the Demolition by Neglect section of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and that the Historic

Districts Commission requests the property owner to move forward with all appropriate

action to secure said property against damage from the elements, with the following

Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. That the property is a designated Historic District, and is in clear violation of the

Demolition by Neglect section of the City’s Code of Ordinances, and it is the Historic

Districts Commission’s belief that the structure located at 1585 S. Rochester Road needs

to be protected before any irreparable damage occurs.

2. That the property is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement approved of

approximately four years ago by the Historic Districts Commission, and nothing has been

accomplished beyond Phase I of the Project.

3. That the photographs provided to the Historic Districts Commission show clear

deterioration in the property.

4. That an inspection by the Building Department on August 15, 2007 detailed specific

deterioration of the building.

5. That a follow-up inspection the week of November 5, 2007 showed that only one

window had been boarded over, and the rest of the identified issues had not been

corrected.

Conditions:

1. That the issues identified in Code Compliance Request dated August 15, 2007 from

the Building Department be remediated; that all repairs be completed in accordance with

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and that all applicable Building Permits be

obtained by December 31, 2007.

2. That the structure be mothballed (i.e., secured against damage from the elements) in

accordance with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Preservation Brief 31 (Mothballing

Historic Structures) until rehabilitation of the property occurs.

3. That there be an inspection of the interior for determination of the severity of the mold

issues (re Modern Mold Remediation letter/report dated September 11, 2007); the action

required to remediate the mold issue, and the effect of the mold issue on the future re-use

of the structure.

4. That if, by December 31, 2007, substantial progress as determined by the Building

Department has not been made, the Historic Districts Commission will proceed to take

further action through Circuit Court.

2007-0576

Chairperson Hill noted the motion had carried unanimously, and City Staff would move

forward with the appropriate procedures.

2005-0398

9B.

1046 E. Tienken Road

Chairperson Hill summarized that a letter was sent to the property owner back in

August 2007, and that the Commission had discussed a number of issues regarding this

property. She noted this situation was different in that for the most part, from the

Commission’s standpoint, the property owner had met just about all of the items from an

exterior standpoint, other than replacing a few shutters, and the incorrect door

replacement on the front porch.

Chairperson Hill noted there were some problems meeting the Building Department

requirements regarding the interior renovation work. She requested an update from the

Building Department, noting she was not sure if the structure was habitable at this point

in time.

Mr. Cope stated he had provide the Commissioners with a copy of a Memorandum he

received from Building Inspector Tim Hollis on November 7, 2007, which provided a

chronology of what had been happening at the site over the past couple of years. He

stated the Building Department had not seen much progress, and what progress had

been made, was not made in accordance with the inspection requirements. Most

recently, the property owner drywalled all the interior walls without a rough building

inspection.

Mr. Cope stated as indicated in the Memorandum, in July 2007 he and Mr. Hollis met

the property owner on site, and at that time the property owner refused to remove the

drywall so the proper inspections could be done. He noted that prompted the Building

Department to issue a citation, which resulted in a court date being set for November

13, 2007. He commented the Building Department had been struggling for a number of

years with the property owner and had a very difficult time in getting compliance with

both the HDC requirements as well as inspection and permit requirements.

Chairperson Hill asked if the building was still listed for sale. Mr. Cope stated the

Building Department had recently received a telephone call from a real estate agent

inquiring as to whether the home was habitable and whether there were outstanding

items on the property. The Building Department did provide the real estate agent with

some information. He stated it appeared the owners are attempting to sell the property,

but the Building Department had had some recent conversation with the property owner

that indicated they would comply, remove the drywall and get the proper inspections.

He was certain the Court date scheduled for November 13th would bring some further

direction toward a resolution.

Mr. Miller noted the rough plumbing and rough electrical had been approved, and asked

what the rough building inspection included. Mr. Cope explained the rough mechanical

was disapproved and no rough building inspection had been done, which included all

structural aspects such as the foundation. He noted there were a number of areas

where the foundation was covered with the installation of new walls, which prevented

the inspectors from determining what repairs were made on the foundation. He stated

there were a number of structural components to the building that needed to be

reinforced, which the Building Department did not know if that had been done because

they were covered up.

Mr. Miller asked if based on the scale of the project, the Building Department required

the property owner to update, change and/or repair certain things structurally. Mr. Cope

responded that in dealing with an existing building, the requirements were to address

issues that are unsafe. He explained certain building components were allowed to stay

as long as they were structurally sound. He noted there were different standards now,

and the whole building would have to be upgraded everywhere if they looked at it from a

new building standpoint. He stated there were portions of the building that were rotted

and needed new wood put in place to support it, which is what the Building Department

was looking at. He commented they were not talking about the 2 x 4 floor joists that

would no longer be acceptable, but those were still there and continue to be acceptable

as long as they are not modified.

Dr. Stamps thanked the Building Department for taking care of the building. He noted if

the City only had one or two real gems, this was the type of house his ancestors would

have lived in. He stated his ancestors did not live in a fancy home, but lived in this type

of house. He felt this house was one that really needed to be saved.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the Building Permits had been tied to the HDC approval of a

Certificate of Appropriateness, and a Certificate of Appropriateness usually had a year

time frame on it. He stated Staff tried to be generous with homeowners when they

were attempting to meet the requirements of the Certificate if they were doing the work

because those Certificates were considered to be in process. In this instance, there had

been two occasions where Staff extended the Certificate of Appropriateness because

the property owner was making strides and the structure itself was improving. There

had been other times when the property owner did not comply with the Building Permits

on the interior, and the Certificate was not extended.

Mr. Delacourt noted at this point Staff could look at this in two ways: 1) depending on

whether the work is being done in conformance with permits, Staff could continue to

extend the Certificate administratively; or 2) an argument could be made that at this

point, not enough had been done and the property owner should have to appear back

before the HDC to revisit the Certificate and request the HDC to extend the Certificate.

He commented he was comfortable handling the matter in either fashion, but would like

some input and direction from the Commission.

Mr. Miller understood a Court date was set for November 13, 2007, and also understood

that the property owner had indicated to the Building Department that he would remove

the drywall so that the proper inspections could be done.

Mr. Cope stated that was the last conversation; however, the Building Department had

not been asked to do any inspections as of this time.

Mr. Miller’s personal feeling was that this was already a tough situation and he thought

the Commission should wait to see what happens with the Court date and whether the

property owner does comply. He understood why the property owner would not want

to take the drywall down, particularly if he was doing the work himself.

Mr. Cope stated the drywall installation was hired out, and the property owner had

indicated to the Building Department that the contractors had been told not to put it up,

but did anyway.

Mr. Miller felt the Commission should be gentle with the property owner for the time

being and see how it moved forward. He stated that although this house was not the

prettiest, the fanciest or the largest, it was an important structure. He commented the

City had had many issues with the structure for some time, and it was his feeling the

Commission should wait to see what happens with the Court date. He noted the

structure was the main concern of the HDC, and the property owner had made some

progress, albeit somewhat slowly, but the structure was being repaired. He assumed

that if title to the property changed, the Certificate would automatically be removed as it

was associated with the particular homeowner and not the structure.

Mr. Delacourt stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness ran with the property. He

stated Staff would watch as closely as possible for any change of ownership, but noted

it was hard for the City to track when that took place. If it was discovered that the

property had changed hands, Staff would attempt to contact the new property owner

and explain the history.

Dr. Stamps asked if the property had a deed restriction that identified it as a historic

property. Mr. Staran indicated that was correct. Dr. Stamps stated that if the new

owner read the Deed, they would know the house was historic. Mr. Miller asked if that

fact was reflected in the title insurance work. Mr. Staran stated it should come up

although occasionally title companies missed things.

Chairperson Hill stated that in the past with respect to the Certificate of

Appropriateness, if no work had commenced within one year, it expired and the

applicant had to come back before the HDC to start the process over. If work has been

started, she was not sure there were specifications regarding when that work was

completed, and noted the property owner did not receive anything when the work was

completed. She questioned whether the Commission really regulated the Certificates

from a year standpoint. She was more concerned that if no inspection took place on this

house, and there was a structural problem, the structure would be heading toward

demolition by neglect, which was a much more serious issue. She commented the

outside may have been sugar coated, but if there were structural problems that were not

addressed, there was a much more serious problem with this property. She was not

sure she would want to see anything done until the Commission heard about what

happened at the Court hearing. She stated if an inspection took place and everything

seemed to be okay structurally, then the Commission should issue another letter

informing the property owner the HDC still needed compliance with the front porch door

and the shutters. If there were problems with the structure, then the Commission had a

more serious issue to address and would have to take the appropriate actions. Again, if

the Commission sits back, they would have the same problems that had been on going

with this property over the years.

Chairperson Hill referred to the Certificate of Appropriateness question, and stated she

was not sure that was a problem from an HDC standpoint. She suggested the

Commission review the matter at the December meeting. Mr. Dunphy concurred.

Chairperson Hill thought the issue of a Certificate of Appropriateness lapsing seemed

rather ambiguous in the Ordinance itself. She thought the matter had been interpreted

different ways over the years. She explained that years back, if no work commenced,

the Certificate expired and the applicant had to apply again, similar to the way a Building

Permit was handled.

Mr. Cope stated that there was usually a six-month time frame for a Permit and if there

was no activity, the Building Department could revoke the Permit or extend it if the

applicant chose to continue on with the work. He explained that usually inspections

were the milestone that would indicate if progress was being made.

Mr. Delacourt agreed it was ambiguous in most instances, and noted if the homeowner

started the work and was doing the work in good faith, Staff did not pull the plug on the

Certificate of Appropriateness. In this instance, there had been several conversations

about extending or not extending the Certificate, and currently the Certificate would be

considered revoked because the applicant was not working in good faith and in an

attempt to prevent inappropriate work or any other work being done until the structural

issues were addressed. He explained if the property owner began working in good faith

again, the Certificate could be extended.

Chairperson Hill asked if the Certificate had been suspended at the current time, and an

inspection is done and things are all right or allowed to be corrected, whether the

Certificate of Appropriateness would go back in to effect. She noted the situation

became complicated because the property owner could not do any of the work.

Mr. Cope stated the main concern from the Building Department’s viewpoint was the

concern that the homeowner had a full understanding of what they need to do. He was

concerned because through the various meetings and conversations with the owner, he

did not believe the property owner understood the requirements from the HDC and the

Building Department. He explained the owner, on repeated occasions, did work in

direct contradiction of what had been discussed in a prior meeting, to such an extent that

it would not appear a conversation had taken place. He noted the homeowner had

stated on a number of occasions that they already had more money invested in the

property than they could hope to get back out of it, and still had work to complete. He

stated the Building Department had been working with the HDC Staff Liaison to try to

make sure in the end there is compliance with both the HDC requirements and the

Building Department requirements. He stated the Building Code issues were being dealt

with through the Court.

Chairperson Hill suggested the Commission wait to see what happens with the Court

date and requested an update for the December HDC meeting. She commented that on

the positive side, the structure looked to be in better shape than it had for many years.

Mr. Cope stated that appearance wise, if you walked inside the building, it looked pretty

nice. Unfortunately, they did not know what was underneath.

This matter was Discussed

9C.

2006-0105

1841 Crooks Road

Chairperson Hill stated that a letter was sent listing the Commission’s concerns about

the structure, and asked Mr. Cope if he had an update on the property.

Mr. Cope stated he had provided the Commissioners with a chronology of the activities

on the property. He noted a Building Permit application was submitted in July 2006, and

there had been a number of meetings relating to the review of the building project, with

the most recent one held in June 2007. He explained at that time, Building Department

representatives met with the homeowner, his legal counsel and the designer to

specifically discuss what was needed to get a Building Permit. At that time, the

Department thought there would be some response and things would move forward;

however, nothing had been received from the homeowner.

Mr. Cope stated a Building Inspector visited the site yesterday, and provided a report

that identified the areas of concern with the building. He was concerned about three

items as they related to safety and which the Building Department would follow through

on. He indicated those items were: 1) repair and seal openings of all broken and

missing windows because they were concerned about access of the building and safety

of people being able to enter the building; 2) secure all openings to prevent access to the

basement and crawl basement, which was another safety issue as far as securing the

building itself; and 3) properly covering all exposed electrical wiring because there was a

safety concern there might be live wires that are potentially dangerous. He stated the

Building Department would follow through on those items; however, there were other

items related to the Commission’s concerns.

Mr. Cope stated he had a number of photographs of the building, which he would

circulate among the Commissioners for review and comment. Copies of those

photographs have been placed on file and become a part of the record hereof.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Planning and Building Departments had been in contact with

the property owner several times since the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued.

He reminded the Commissioners the house was approved for demolition of some

non-appropriate additions, and also approved for additions to the house. He noted that

since that time, the property owner, Mr. Dunn, has had an incredibly difficult time

producing a set of building plans that showed that the work that was approved by the

HDC could actually be constructed according to Code, and submitting a set of plans that

reflected that.

Mr. Delacourt explained that one of the Commission’s concerns when Mr. Dunn was

before the HDC, was having the Building Department review the plans prior to the

Commission’s approval. Mr. Dunn was insistent he did not want to do that without an

approval, and the Commission decided to approve the plans.

Mr. Delacourt stated through that process it was identified that one of the revisions

made to Mr. Dunn’s plans showed the need for a variance to the property, because he

had increased the footprint to one of the previously existing additions. He explained Mr.

Dunn removed an addition on the south side of the building because it was not an

appropriate addition, and the plans provided to the HDC showed the addition being

reconstructed in the same footprint, which would not have increased the

non-conformance. However, through the Building Department review, because of

structural issues and Mr. Dunn’s desire to move a staircase, the addition increased by

two feet to the south. Because the property is existing non-conforming with respect to

the front yard setback, that addition would increase the non-conformance, and would

require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Mr. Delacourt stated Mr. Dunn had been requested to produce a set of plans reviewed

by the Building Department to ensure that was the only variance required so that the

matter would not have to be taken to the ZBA multiple times. He stated that he, Mr.

Cope, and the Plan Reviewer from the Building Department were extremely generous

with Mr. Dunn, and explained the Plan Reviewer sat down with Mr. Dunn and his

designer, and went through the plans page by page and showed them where it was

non-compliant Code-wise for a structure, and gave some very helpful suggestions on

how to resolve those situations. He stated Mr. Dunn had not submitted any revised

plans since that meeting which was held in June 2007.

Mr. Delacourt stated those were some of the issues that had occurred, and the matter

had been brought back before the Commission to see how the Commission wanted to

proceed. He noted that the condition of the building was growing steadily worse. He

knew Mr. Dunn had good intentions, but had not submitted plans that resolved the

issues.

Mr. Miller noticed from the photographs taken on November 7, 2007, that there were

areas of the roof that were either lightly covered with a tarp, or some areas where the

roof sheathing was completely exposed at the end of the wall. He was concerned that

this house would have the same problems as the structure located on Rochester Road.

He thought that at a minimum the Commission should ask the property owner to seal the

structure against the weather. He did not think the structure had to be mothballed as it

appeared the property owner had intentions to repair the building, but the structure

should be weatherized and protected from the elements.

Mr. Dunphy asked what flexibility the Commission had under the Ordinance to address

this situation. He stated that finding demolition by neglect might be further than the

Commission wanted to go at this point, but he was not sure if the Commission had any

other options. He asked if the Commission wanted to ramp up the need to secure the

building better, whether there was any tool available to the Commission other than a

finding of demolition by neglect.

Mr. Delacourt stated the duty to repair letter had been sent, and the Building

Department would address some of the issues through Code Compliance and violations;

however, short of that, the next step the Commission could take by Ordinance was

demolition by neglect. He explained that required the owner to repair and mothball,

similar to the motion made by the Commission earlier this evening for the Rochester

Road property. He stated that was not an incredibly high standard, but did add some

additional weight to what the Building Department was already doing.

Mr. Cope mentioned that the three items he identified earlier are the ones that the

Building Department can address by Code. He explained the Building Department did

not have the ability to address any of the other issues because they are exterior

maintenance issues that are very similar to the ones brought forward to City Council

relating to the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The Building Department would not

be allowed to address those other issues without some similar type of Ordinance, which

the City did not have on the books at the present time.

Chairperson Hill stated she would be inclined to issue the same demolition by neglect

and ask that the owner secure and mothball the building until further actions are taken

regarding the approval of his building plan. She did not think there was anything else

that could be done because what the Commission really wanted to see was the building

secured from the weather and from a safety standpoint, and not see it demolished,

particularly with the additions that had been removed and no action to do anything

further. She commented she had not looked at the Certificate of Appropriateness, but

she had hoped no demolition work would be done until the building plans had been

approved. She noted that not removing the inappropriate additions would not have

changed the current condition of the building as many portions of the building were in the

same shape. She suggested that any motion specify the end of the year or January 15,

2008 to see something take place, and if no action has begun by that time, the

Commission would proceed with the next step. She commented this situation has gone

on for about four years.

Mr. Miller agreed with the Chair, noting that mothballed meant to preserve the structure

until such time as it will be used further, particularly if the property owner had not

contacted the City for several months. Mr. Delacourt stated that no revised

documentation had been submitted in connection with the ZBA Variance Request

Application.

Chairperson Hill stated that the Certificate of Appropriateness was in two parts: one for

the demolition of certain additions, which had already taken place, and the other part

was the rehabilitation of the structure, which had not taken place.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the property owner had submitted multiple sets of plans for

review by the Building Department, which would normally be enough to consider the

process to be moving forward in good faith.

Chairperson Hill noted it had been almost six months since any action toward the

Certificate of Appropriateness had taken place regarding the rehabilitation. She thought

that could be one of the conditions.

Mr. Dunphy provided the following motion for consideration by the Commission:

MOTION by Dunphy, that the Historic Districts Commission makes a determination of

Demolition by Neglect for the property located at 1841 Crooks Road, Sidwell Number

15-20-428-003, and that the Historic Districts Commission supports and encourages the

property owner to move forward with all appropriate action to mothball and secure the

structure against damage from the elements, with the following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. That the property is in clear violation of the Demolition by Neglect portion of the

City’s Code of Ordinances and it is the Historic Districts Commission’s belief that the

structure at 1841 Crooks Road needs to be protected before any irreparable damage

occurs.

2. That the property is part of a renovation and construction project approved over a

year ago by the Historic Districts Commission.

3. That the photographs provided to the Historic Districts Commission show clear

deterioration in the structure of the building.

4. That the inspection by the Building Department dated November 7, 2007 details

specific deterioration of the building.

Conditions:

1. That the defects identified by the Building Department’s Field Inspection Report be

remediated by December 31, 2007.

2. That the mothballing be done in accordance with U.S. Department of Interior,

National Park Service, Preservation Brief 31 (Mothballing Historic Buildings).

Chairperson Hill called for a second to the proposed motion. Dr. Stamps said he would

second the proposed motion. Chairperson Hill then called for discussion on the proposed

motion on the floor.

Chairperson Hill suggested that Condition #1 include the following language: “… and

that no further action toward rehabilitation of the structure has taken place since June of

2007”. She thought that showed there had been a long time period that nothing had

been done to move forward. Mr. Dunphy and Dr. Stamps concurred with the addition

of that language.

Mr. Miller expressed concern that the property owner was making plans to move

forward with the renovation and rehabilitation, but agreed that portions had been

removed with a few things covered up, and noted the pictures from November 7, 2007

did not show that any work had been done. He was comfortable with the motion, if

language could be included that lacking any approved plans from the Building

Department, the Commission requires the property owner to mothball. He explained if

the property owner received approval of his plans and moved forward, he was not sure

the Commission wanted to require the structure be mothballed. He saw a clear need to

preserve the structure against increased deterioration from the weather, and if

mothballing was designed to do that, he would withdraw his statement.

Mr. Dunphy agreed that the Commission did not want to interfere with the property

owner’s ability to go forward with his project, because that is ultimately what the

Commission wanted to see. However, the key was to be sure that the structure was

maintained in the meantime, and that was where the Commission’s focus needed to be.

Chairperson Hill called for any further discussion, and asked the Commissioners if they

felt the time frame was sufficient. The Commissioners agreed.

Chairperson Hill concurred, and noted that with the weather changing, the holes in the

building from the standpoint of safety for the Community needed to be addressed. She

pointed out that even if the property owner wanted to build, it would not happen quickly,

and these items should be addressed.

Chairperson Hill called for any further discussion on the proposed motion on the floor.

Upon hearing none, she called for a voice vote on the proposed motion on the floor.

Complete Motion (as voted):

A motion was made by Dunphy, seconded by Stamps, that the motion be

Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Cozzolino, Dunphy, Hill, Miller and Stamps

5 -

Absent

Dziurman, Kilpatrick, Sinclair and Thompson

4 -

RESOLVED that the Historic Districts Commission makes a determination of demolition

by neglect for the property located at 1841 Crooks Road, Sidwell Number 15-20-428-003,

and that the Historic Districts Commission supports and encourages the property owner to

move forward with all appropriate action to mothball and secure the structure against

damage from the elements, with the following Findings and Conditions:

Findings:

1. That the property is a designated Historic District, and is in clear violation of the

demolition by neglect portion of the City’s Code of Ordinances and it is the Historic

Districts Commission’s belief that the structure at 1841 Crooks Road needs to be

protected before any irreparable damage occurs.

2. That the property is part of a renovation and construction project approved over a year

ago by the Historic Districts Commission.

3. That the photographs provided to the Historic Districts Commission show clear

deterioration in the structure of the building.

4. That the inspection by the Building Department dated November 7, 2007 details

specific deterioration of the building.

Conditions:

1. That the defects identified by the Building Department’s Field Inspection Report be

remediated by December 31, 2007, and that no further action toward rehabilitation of the

structure has taken place since June of 2007.

2. That the mothballing be done in accordance with U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, Preservation Brief 31 (Mothballing Historic Buildings).

2006-0105

Chairperson Hill noted for the record that the motion had carried. She thanked Mr.

Cope and Mr. Staran for attending the meeting and providing updated information.

Chairperson Hill stated the Commission would now return to Agenda Item #8B (Review

of Draft of “What every historic property owner needs to know” Guide.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued)

8.

8B.

2007-0577

Review

- Draft of "What every historic property owner needs to know" Guide

Chairperson Hill suggested that due to the lateness of the hour the Commission postpone

the review of this draft Guide until the December meeting. She noted she had quickly

reviewed the Guide and made some notes, but felt the Commission should spend time

reviewing the document at some length.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.

Chairperson Hill noted Agenda Items 9A, 9B and 9C had been moved forward on the

Agenda and discussed. She noted the next matter was Agenda Item 9D.

2007-0730

9D.

Preservation Millage Discussion

Mr. Delacourt stated he and City Attorney Staran had a discussion based on the

conversation held by the Commission at the September meeting. He explained the

Commission had two options: 1) the Commission could request that City Council

consider language for a ballot and put the matter in City Council’s hands and leave it

there, or 2) much like the open space group had done, do it at a grass roots level. He

suggested that no quorum of HDC Commissioners should be present at any grass roots

meeting.

Mr. Delacourt explained the Commission could make a motion that City Council

consider putting language similar to what Oakland Township had on their ballot proposal.

He stated as a Board those were the only two options the Commission had to deal with

any millage language.

Chairperson Hill stated she appreciated that input because she felt that was appropriate.

She suggested the Commissioners think about the matter some more, and if they felt it

was something they wanted to ask Council to consider, that discussion could take place;

or perhaps there were people in the Community who were interested in moving forward

with that idea.

Mr. Dunphy suggested this might be discussed with other local groups with an interest in

history to see what type of reaction they have, and do some exploring outside of the

Commission. He stated he would discuss it with the local historical society to gauge

whether or how they could proceed.

Chairperson Hill thought that was a good idea and might provide the Commission with

insight as to whether there is local interest or grass roots strength in the Community.

This matter was Discussed

2007-0731

9E.

Historical Neighborhood TIF Authority Act

Chairperson Hill stated the Commissioners had received a Memorandum in their packet

about this matter. She commented she had not realized this option existed from the

standpoint of a State Law. She noted she was well aware of Tax Increment Financing

(TIF), but that she personally was not a big proponent of TIF Financing.

Mr. Miller stated he had brought up the matter because during some of the recent

historic designation matters brought before City Council, some of the Council Members

mentioned it was too bad the City did not have something like this. He asked if the Bill

had been passed through the State Legislature.

Mr. Delacourt stated it was his understanding that the Bill had passed. He indicated he

had done some research on the matter.

Mr. Miller thought the information was important and should be included with any

further Study Committee requests for designation through City Council.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had reviewed the Bill and the related documentation, and had

tried to find out if any other communities had utilized it. To date, he had not found any

community in the State that had established a TIF District for Historic Districts. He

noted it was a question of which Districts would qualify, and if the TIF District was

established, whether it would be effective. He explained the City would collect the

money and reallocate it to the District for certain approved projects. He did not know if

Wayside Park would have been eligible as a District, as he had not been able to

determine that in reading the language of the Bill. He stated the only Community that

had considered establishing a Historic TIF District was Kalamazoo, and it hit a

roadblock and did not happen for political reasons.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Ms. Hill, having been on City Council, understood the work

involved in establishing something like a TIF District or a Downtown Development

Authority (DDA) District. He noted he had not been able to determine if the City, in

combining both the Stoney Creek and Winkler Mill Pond Districts, would have enough

mass to make it worth the establishment and administration of a TIF District. He

indicated he would keep investigating the matter.

Chairperson Hill stated she was not sure the Historic TIF applied to the City and the

City’s situation, as it could be applied to Cities like Grand Rapids or Detroit, or those

with a downtown area.

Mr. Delacourt explained the Historic TIF Districts were modeled after the DDA TIF

Enabling Legislation that allows a Community to do the same thing as a DDA, and is

really designed for downtown areas. He stated it would function much as a DDA

would, with an additional levy on those properties, and the ability to take a certain

percentage increase after an established year. He was not sure that was possible with

residential neighborhoods, given the Homestead Act, and how it would work in dealing

with multiple residential areas as opposed to commercial and office properties.

Chairperson Hill suggested it might work for an area like the Old Towne area; however,

that area was not a designated historic district.

Mr. Miller referred to the document that said by authorizing cities with historic districts

to create historical neighborhood tax increment finance authorities, the bill would provide

a mechanism for a city to reverse problems with property deterioration in historic

neighborhoods and promote residential growth and economic development in the

community”. He stated it sounded like it would be applicable to some of the City’s

Districts. He understood these programs were usually used in a commercial setting and

in larger, urban communities. He stated the Commission should review any additional

information that could be found.

Mr. Delacourt explained the way a TIF worked, was the City collected either the

increased value of an assessment over a base year on a property, or legislation allowed

the municipality to tack on an additional small percentage of an increase. He did not

know if that could be done with homesteaded properties, because unless those

properties changed ownership, the tax base did not change. He noted the only way TIF

was generated was when someone purchased a property and the assessment increased.

He stated he had asked the City’s Assessing Department to look into the matter.

Chairperson Hill asked if the City would be able to designate a certain amount to be part

of the TIF. She thought if additional information was found that indicated there might be

some feasibility, it might be a matter to be directed to City Council for review and

consideration as a possible funding source to assist preservation.

Mr. Delacourt stated that being unable to find a community that had utilized the

program, there was no case study to see how it was implemented. He recommended

being cautious if the City wanted to be the first Community to establish such a TIF,

especially imposing a TIF on single-family residences, as opposed to commercial and

office.

This matter was Discussed

Any Other Business:

Chairperson Hill stated she wanted to mention that she had heard the owners of the

Ferry Court property had plans to develop a sports type arena, similar to the Joe

Dumar’s Arena in Macomb County. She stated the plans had been taken to several

bodies around town, such as the Rochester-Avon Recreation Authority (RARA) to

see if they might have some interest in the project. She stated it was rather

disappointing when she heard about the plans, because on June 13, 2007 the owners

stood before City Council and mentioned what a hardship the property was and how

they had lived in the Community for 48 years, but now it appeared they did not care

to preserve the City’s heritage. She commented the plans had been submitted to

RARA in September 2007. She was not sure where the plans stood or how it would

proceed.

Mr. Delacourt stated that about a month and a half ago, the property owner and a

partner approached the Planning Department. They were looking to do some type of

building that would be a sports crossover facility building. He stated they showed the

Planning Department some very conceptual layouts at that meeting, but they had not

submitted anything formally at this time. He stated he could verify the property

owners were definitely shopping the project and had had discussions with RARA

about partnering with them in the facility.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Planning Department had meet with them regarding zoning

requirements and zoning issues, such as what zoning districts would allow that type of

a facility, and what approvals would be required.

Mr. Dunphy asked how the property was currently zoned. Mr. Delacourt stated it

was zoned single family, and the project he saw would require a rezoning. He stated

the proposed use was a “grey area” usage, and the most appropriate district would be

a Special Purpose District, because it places the project under a conditional land use

review; whereas any other district where it might be acceptable as a permitted use,

would not require a review by City Council.

Chairperson Hill referred to a house in the Stoney Creek Village on Van Hoosen

Road, across from the Museum, right next to the home identified as the “Sign of the

Black and White Cow”. She noted the house was not a contributing resource, but the

home had been repainted another color. She was concerned that the property had

changed hands and the new owners had not come before the HDC with their plans.

She commented they had done a magnificent job, and she had heard they were doing

a wonderful job on the interior. She stated it looked very nice, but it was

disappointing because it was a house in the heart of the District, and either no one told

them it was historic or the new owners decided to ignore coming before the HDC.

Chairperson Hill stated they had painted the house a grey/blue and it used to be white.

She noted it looked lovely, and it appeared they had put a new roof on the house.

They has also bricked in front of the white barn that sat back on the alley, although she

did not think they had painted the barn a different color. She thought the Commission

had an issue with this, and it would behoove the Commission to find out who the

property owners were and send a friendly letter informing them they are in a Historic

District and it was appropriate for them to come before the Commission with any

changes.

Mr. Delacourt stated the City was not aware when a property changed hands until

Oakland County reported it back to the Assessing Department. Chairperson Hill

stated she believed they had been in the house awhile. Mr. Delacourt stated that

sometimes when people move in, the first thing they do is hire a contractor to do

painting or minor repairs. He noted the contractor starts doing the work, and

everyone assumes the other person obtained the appropriate permission to do the

work. He stated this was the first he heard about this house, but noted there was still

a debate about whether strictly a change of paint color required HDC approval, and

noted he had heard different opinions from the Commission and was not sure the

Commission ever reached a consensus on the matter. He understood the

disappointment, but was not sure he should be telling the property owners they had to

come before the HDC for approval for paint.

Chairperson Hill stated her concern was that the Building Department was doing a

good job of flagging historic properties and letting the Commission know when

something was going on; however, she was not sure that same communication was

going on with the Assessing Department. She was sure that historic designation was

included on the tax roll records.

Mr. Delacourt explained that he believed the Assessing Department only accessed

Oakland County’s software, and did not have much control over what could or could

not be flagged. Rather, the information was just updated and the record was new,

and did not tell them the property had changed hands. He stated the Assessing

Department was looking into whether there was a place in that software where their

own unique codes and keys could be entered. He stated the last time he had

discussed that with the Assessing Department, they had indicated the next time the

availability for one came up, they might be able to flag the historic properties with a

unique identifier. He stated he would check to see if that was available.

Chairperson Hill asked if there was a way to periodically check on the historic

properties to see if they had changed hands. She noted with the house on Van

Hoosen, she believed they had been in the home for some time.

Mr. Delacourt stated that Staff had discussed sending periodic mailers to the

designated properties, such as the invitations that went out for the open house, or just

something to remind them they own designated properties. He explained the mailers

would be informational, or items such as the surveys that were mailed out after the

open house. He commented if the owners of the house on Van Hoosen had been

there at least six months, they would have received the open house invitation and the

survey.

Chairperson Hill referred to the surveys that were returned, and noted that several

residents had agreed to allow their homes to be used on the City’s cable channel or

web page, and asked when that would begin. She suggested something about the

history of the house or why it was designated could be included, or an informational

tip could be provided.

Dr. Stamps provided an update from the Historic Districts Study Committee. He

stated the Committee had a successful meeting prior to the HDC Meeting. He

commented the Committee had been disappointed about the Ferry Court designation;

and had recently forwarded some Preliminary Reports to delist three properties to the

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO response indicated they

disagreed with the Committee’s recommendation to delist two of the properties. It

appeared that SHPO felt the Committee should have provided more substantive

documentation with the report, such as building permits or maps indicating when

changes occurred. He stated that with respect to one property, the Committee had

recommended delisting because it had been moved from an adjacent city, and on

another property the Committee had noted that the vinyl siding had contributed to the

inappropriate changes, and SHPO had indicated that it went beyond the siding. It

appeared to the Study Committee that sometimes a structure could be sided,

sometimes it could not be; sometimes a structure could be moved, sometimes it could

not be moved; sometimes windows could be changed, sometimes they could not.

Dr. Stamps stated the Study Committee was a bit concerned because the State

Review Board did not find that “the documentation provided was sufficient to show

those houses had been so altered that they had lost the physical characteristics of their

original style and period of significance, and they could be determined to be

non-historic”. Therefore, the Review Board would not agree that these properties

should be delisted as local districts. He noted the SHPO expressed concern that “the

Study Committee Reports cite changes that occurred to these properties after they

were designated as local historic districts as a basis for the delisting. Since the work

should have been reviewed and approved by the Historic Districts Commission using

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, this should not have been the case for

delisting”.

Dr. Stamps stated that the SHPO response went on to say, “in the upcoming months,

Amy Arnold, the local historic districts coordinator for SHPO, will be contacting you

to set up a meeting for Historic District Commission staff to discuss this issue”.

Dr. Stamps stated the response used terminology stating that it was “alarming that the

Study Committee is using changes that occurred to historic resources after they were

designated’, and said “as a certified local government the City of Rochester Hills has

signed an agreement to uphold the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria and standards as

guidelines for historic property”. He noted the response said “the City of Rochester

Hills is expected to provide its designated historic resources with the fullest protection

allowable under the law”. He commented the response also said “we hope that in

addition to updating the historic districts ordinance and historic resource survey, the

City of Rochester Hills is also expanding its training for historic districts commissioners

and updating its design guidelines”.

Dr. Stamps stated the Committee had made some recommendations, and the SHPO

agreed with one and disagreed with the others, and suggested there should be a

meeting. He noted the Study Committee agreed to hold a meeting, and suggested the

SHPO staff meet with both the Study Committee and the Historic Districts

Commission.

Mr. Delacourt stated that both of the City’s consultants, Dr. Jane Busch and Kristine

Kidorf, vehemently disagreed with the SHPO comments and the SHPO’s assessment

of the Preliminary Reports. He indicated he had also asked several questions because

the SHPO used several reasons why they did not agree that the structures met the

criteria for delisting such as when changes and/or additions were approved, how they

were approved, who approved them, and why they approved them. He noted his

question to the SHPO was to ask if the Study Committee provided answers to all

those questions, whether it would change the SHPO opinion of whether the changes

and/or additions were appropriate or inappropriate. He made it very clear it was the

City’s understanding that the Study Committee’s review was of the property as it

existed now, and asked whether “how” they got to be the way they were or who

approved the changes or under what interpretation of the guidelines they were made,

changed anything. He stated the SHPO had asked for additional information about

when the permits were issued and if the work was reviewed by the HDC, and his

response has been “whether or not it had did not change whether the additions were

appropriate or inappropriate”. He indicated he had still not received a good answer

from the SHPO about that, but they were working on it.

Mr. Delacourt stated that neither Dr. Busch nor Ms. Kidorf agreed with the SHPO

comments. He commented there was another part of the response he found

interesting. He explained it was the State’s insistence that the designation or delisting

of a property was ultimately the local unit of government’s discretion. That is, the

SHPO is only making recommendations. He commented that in connection with the

920 South Boulevard W. property, since the SHPO recommended against

designation, and if Council had gone ahead and designated the property, if that was

acceptable in the way Public Act 169 was supposed to work. His follow-up question

to SHPO was if that was the case and the City designated the property, even though

SHPO did not agree with the recommendation, whether tax credits would be available

for that property owner. He indicated the SHPO’s answer was summarily “no”.

Mr. Delacourt stated he felt that response was strange because if designation was at

the City’s discretion, and one of the incentives for a property owner to accept

designation was the tax credits, if the SHPO did not agree with that or changed their

opinion of it at a later review, or if the HDC approved additions that the SHPO did

not agree with, then SHPO had the potential to not allow the tax credits. He

wondered if the Commissioners had ever come across that situation.

Chairperson Hill stated those were interesting comments, and stated that she had seen

over a period time that there had been a shift in interpretation of criteria and whether

something should or should not be designated. She understood that one might say

certain things took place after the initial designation, but to intimate that it was not

done well or was not done in the appropriate manner surprised her. It seemed that

recently there had been much discussion about context and if there was not enough on

a property to say it contextually fit the criteria, compared to how it used to be. She

said it appeared it was up to individual interpretation at a certain point in time as to

whether things really fit into the picture. She found it somewhat subjective, and stated

she would question it because the City had used two well-respected historians writing

reports and making recommendations, and all of the sudden it appeared as if the State

did not think the City knew what it was doing.

Chairperson Hill stated that what she had seen happening over the last twenty-five

years that she had been involved in preservation, was seeing shift. She noted it was

hard to get a handle on what was occurring, and it would be interesting to meet with

the State SHPO coordinator. She commented it was probably more of a Study

Committee issue, because the two bodies were separate, but it would also be helpful

for the Commission to attend and hear the discussion.

Mr. Delacourt stated the SHPO response referred to the HDC and the combined

opinion of nine members voting on a subjective set of guidelines as criteria to question

the Study Committee’s recommendation, and SHPO had suggested the meeting with

the HDC in their response to a Study Committee report. He was not sure, if the intent

was to keep the two bodies separate, why the State requested a meeting with the

HDC in an official response on the record that will be included in the report to City

Council.

Chairperson Hill agreed it was confusing at best for a body that is not primarily

addressing the issue, to receive a report, and provide conflicting information.

Mr. Delacourt stated he had asked for revised comments from the SHPO, to be more

specific as to what they feel are the issues with the report, and if something should be

further researched or addressed that might change the SHPO opinion, or if some of

the comments were actually questions, which should then be removed from their

comments.

Chairperson Hill agreed it would be helpful for the Commissioners to hear the

discussion and find out how the State believed they should make the “right” decisions.

She asked when the meeting would be scheduled.

Mr. Delacourt stated the Study Committee had requested the meeting be scheduled,

so SHPO would be contacted for available dates.

Chairperson Hill thanked Dr. Stamps and Mr. Delacourt for the updates. She called

for any other business. No other business was provided. She noted the next meeting

was scheduled for December 13, 2007.

ADJOURNMENT

10.

Upon motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Hill adjourned the meeting at 10:23

PM.

___________________________________

Melinda Hill, Chairperson

City of Rochester Hills

Historic Districts Commission

___________________________________

Judy A. Bialk, Recording Secretary

Approved as presented at the January 10, 2008 Regular Historic Districts Commission Meeting.