HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-4-10HDC Minutes for April 10, 2019, adopted JuII- 9
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
JOINT SELECT BOARD MEETING
2 Fairgrounds Road
Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554
wwwv.nantucket-ma.gov-
Commissioners: Raymond Pohl (Chair), Diane Coombs (Vice -chair), John McLaughlin, Abigail Camp,
Associate Commissioners: Stephen welch Terence Watterson Jessie Dutra
-- MINUTES --
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Public Safest- Facilirt-, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Communitv Room - 6:00 p.m.
Called to order HDC Meeting at 6:40 p.m. by :\Ir. Pohl
P
V alloric Oh%cr- ;
Staff in attendance: John Hedden, HDC Compliance Coordinator
.Attending MDC Members: Pohl, McLaughlin, Welch
.Absent fIDC Members: Coombs, Camp, Oliver, Watterson, Dutra
.Attending SB Members: Dawn Hill Holdgate (Chair), Jeff Bridges, Rita Higgins, Matt Fee, Kristie Ferrantella
Town Counsel: George Pucci, K&P Law P.C.
Documentation: Z-2 Historic District Commission Oversight of Town Sidewalk Improvement in the Old Historic District;
Memorandum dated March ?, 2019 re: Follow up - Responses to street repair memo; GIS map of sidewalk
reconstruction in the Old Historic District; HDC _appellant Submission re: 25 Westervvvck Way; HDC file
material re: 25 Westerwvck Wat-; Building with Nantucket In blind; Opinion from _Anderson & Krieger, I1_P;
I IDC enabling legislation
unanimous consent.
None
BOARDIf. DISCUSSION WITH THE SELECT
1. Proposed Town Sidewalk Improvement in the Old Historic District (OHD)
Sitting Pohl, McLaughlin, Welch
Concerns (6:40) Hill Holdgate - Noted that this is not a public hearing.
Gibson - Reviewed packet containing background on downtown sidewalk improvement projects. Reviewed meeting to
discuss with the Chair of HDC, Chair of the Select Board, and Chair of Commission on Disability- the issue of historic
preservation with walk arounds and public meetings; came up with the idea of establishing a work group comprised of a
member each from the Planning Board, HDC, Commission on Disability, Select Board, Tree _advisor- Committee,
Pedestrian _Advison- Committee, Nantucket Historic _-Association, and Nantucket Preservation Trust INPT) to
implement the Town Sidewalk Improvement Plan and provide criteria for the restoration; since it might not be feasible
to treat areas outside of the OHD the same.
Bridges - Sidewalks and safety and bicycle safely and _americans with Disabilities _Act (ADA) compliance are
paramount; but he believes we can have safe sidewalks and preserve even -thing.
Kevin Kuester, 83 \lain Street - There are legal opinions "out there" that state the HDC does have jurisdiction over
Town roads and sidewalks. If HDC doesn't have jurisdiction, he wants to know wvhN .
Pohl - Reviewed the normal HDC application review process. What is missing here from that process is the oversight
and final inspection and signoff. He feels there should be oversight throughout the process of a project as important as
the road and sidewalk repair.
Higgins - She believes HDC has an important role in this and it is essential to have a preservationist for oversight; that
benefits even -one.
Mary Bergman, NPT - The point about oversight and expertise is important with Nantucket being a National Histonc
Landmark; the Department of Interior have guidelines for restoration within historic areas to include preserving the
materials, craftmanship, and construction techniques. Another point is we are seeing two different treatments %vithin one
Of ID. Urged documentation of the historic streets.
Tom Montgomery, 33 North Libern< Street - He feels the issue of having professional craftsmen to put the sidewalks
and cobblestones back on Main Street.
Virginia Andrews, 1 Stone AIlev - Referenced a letter she sent to the Select Board about what they learned from the
Pacific Club about setting a goal of preservation and using the appropriate people. _asked the Select Board to set a goal
of historic preservation.
Mary Ann Rayport, 89 Main Street - Thanked the Select Board for having this discussion. Asked for more discussion
on the legal aspect: the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Read a statement from the 196- HDC guidebook
about HDC's role in maintaining structures within their original settings and the era before 1846 as xyell as maintaining
Page 1 of 6
r'
r�
Staff in attendance: John Hedden, HDC Compliance Coordinator
.Attending MDC Members: Pohl, McLaughlin, Welch
.Absent fIDC Members: Coombs, Camp, Oliver, Watterson, Dutra
.Attending SB Members: Dawn Hill Holdgate (Chair), Jeff Bridges, Rita Higgins, Matt Fee, Kristie Ferrantella
Town Counsel: George Pucci, K&P Law P.C.
Documentation: Z-2 Historic District Commission Oversight of Town Sidewalk Improvement in the Old Historic District;
Memorandum dated March ?, 2019 re: Follow up - Responses to street repair memo; GIS map of sidewalk
reconstruction in the Old Historic District; HDC _appellant Submission re: 25 Westervvvck Way; HDC file
material re: 25 Westerwvck Wat-; Building with Nantucket In blind; Opinion from _Anderson & Krieger, I1_P;
I IDC enabling legislation
unanimous consent.
None
BOARDIf. DISCUSSION WITH THE SELECT
1. Proposed Town Sidewalk Improvement in the Old Historic District (OHD)
Sitting Pohl, McLaughlin, Welch
Concerns (6:40) Hill Holdgate - Noted that this is not a public hearing.
Gibson - Reviewed packet containing background on downtown sidewalk improvement projects. Reviewed meeting to
discuss with the Chair of HDC, Chair of the Select Board, and Chair of Commission on Disability- the issue of historic
preservation with walk arounds and public meetings; came up with the idea of establishing a work group comprised of a
member each from the Planning Board, HDC, Commission on Disability, Select Board, Tree _advisor- Committee,
Pedestrian _Advison- Committee, Nantucket Historic _-Association, and Nantucket Preservation Trust INPT) to
implement the Town Sidewalk Improvement Plan and provide criteria for the restoration; since it might not be feasible
to treat areas outside of the OHD the same.
Bridges - Sidewalks and safety and bicycle safely and _americans with Disabilities _Act (ADA) compliance are
paramount; but he believes we can have safe sidewalks and preserve even -thing.
Kevin Kuester, 83 \lain Street - There are legal opinions "out there" that state the HDC does have jurisdiction over
Town roads and sidewalks. If HDC doesn't have jurisdiction, he wants to know wvhN .
Pohl - Reviewed the normal HDC application review process. What is missing here from that process is the oversight
and final inspection and signoff. He feels there should be oversight throughout the process of a project as important as
the road and sidewalk repair.
Higgins - She believes HDC has an important role in this and it is essential to have a preservationist for oversight; that
benefits even -one.
Mary Bergman, NPT - The point about oversight and expertise is important with Nantucket being a National Histonc
Landmark; the Department of Interior have guidelines for restoration within historic areas to include preserving the
materials, craftmanship, and construction techniques. Another point is we are seeing two different treatments %vithin one
Of ID. Urged documentation of the historic streets.
Tom Montgomery, 33 North Libern< Street - He feels the issue of having professional craftsmen to put the sidewalks
and cobblestones back on Main Street.
Virginia Andrews, 1 Stone AIlev - Referenced a letter she sent to the Select Board about what they learned from the
Pacific Club about setting a goal of preservation and using the appropriate people. _asked the Select Board to set a goal
of historic preservation.
Mary Ann Rayport, 89 Main Street - Thanked the Select Board for having this discussion. Asked for more discussion
on the legal aspect: the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Read a statement from the 196- HDC guidebook
about HDC's role in maintaining structures within their original settings and the era before 1846 as xyell as maintaining
Page 1 of 6
I IDC -Minutes for _April 10, 2019, adopted 1my 9
the beauty, charm, and authenticity of Nantucket. We,could not be having this discussion if the sidewalks «-ere repa:-c::
using the material in place. The policy is about lifting everything up and put it back in Portland cement. A\ e need a line
that defines restoration versus reconstruction. The idea of the committee is a positive step. _j good pohcy w-rll -ave u- al
time. Submitted at the table Guidelines for the Cit- of Baltimore for protection of historic landscapes. Having the IiD(-
oversight is critical to document existing conditions, guidance is followed, the process is public and transparent. anal
there is a power of reversal and enforcement.
Sandy Kendall, 8 Roberts bane — Ills concern that a precedent is being set allowing the Department of Pubhc or:K-
(DP\\) to make changes to our historic streets without making apphcanon to the HDC.
Arthur Reade, Reade, Gulhcksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP, for 86 and 88 Main. Street — We think the HDC hs-
role in this and it is important they have a role in the committee. We beheye the HDC does have tunsdtcuon and the
Town needs to apply for a Certificate of _Appropriateness for any work in connection with wvork on historic
and streets; these are structures. The HDC has been provided with a legal opinion from the Boston firm of
Mid Krieger (_A&K) that indicates the HDC does have jurisdiction: he can provide a copes of that if neces-ar.',,'c
never seen the opinion from Town Counsel that the HDC does not have jurisdiction and would be Interested L_ -ecs.a
it. The HDC is a Town board charged with this type of oversight and has the expertise and knowledge.
Pucci — Before anyone disagrees with his opinion, said it would help for hire to render an opinion. I le Is not a A src
having provided a written opinion to the Board about DP\\' w-ork Town sidewalks and streets. Rommel,: Over Th,.-
there
hethere have been items that come up w*h he said the Town didn't need to apply to the HDC. but those opinion- h�:z
nothing to do with the work before the Board tonight. He looked at the _A&K opinion: he doesn't find It on potn,.
advice or opinions are restricted to the parameters of the law and what options The Town has: the•: do not Intrldc
policy issues. The relevant issues regarding HDC jurisdiction: _A&K cited the 201_19 case of Martin- Lane. a
project, decision that there is not IIDC jurisdiction, reviewed the case and decision rendered b,, Judge Nickeron-:
Superior Court finding that a public way is not under HDC jurisdiction if not a binding precedent. the
provides exemption under the language of the statute itself specifically ;5.c about ordinan repair or mdlntenancc
doesn't change the outward appearance and meeting the requirements for public safen.
Bridges — Mr. Pucci made some interesting points about public safety exemptions: however, if there r- histone
or craftsmanship, the question is oversight that allows it to be quick]- repaired. He wants some kind of oyerslzht and
process.
Ferrantella — It goes back to this proposed group that could set the guidelines.
Fee — Ile thinks it should go to HDC; the Town should set the example. If it doesn't go to the HDC. the Tr,,-c:
materials and methods might not be employed. He thinks what has happened is one person said one thing
changed with the telling. The Island should be a leader in preservation to include materials. Referenced the documtn-
conser•ation and ground services. We should direct that the work be done properly.
Hill Holdgate — Her concern is that the HDC process doesn't fully get at what were looking for in term-
preservation; there is real concern with how- these historic materials are handled in the core Ol ID. The HDC i,uri-d:c
is to review exterior architectural features, not the process. Working with a team of true preser-auom-t- t- the
appropnate action.
Higgins — _Agrees with Mr. Fee about the Town taking a leadership position. She doesn't know where the 111llo_
the process, though they have a role. She feels what is missing is a commitment to using professlonal- and-
Preser•ation is an element of MDC purview; maintenance, craftsmanship, and inclusiyin are not.
Pohl — Ile realizes all sorts of people need to be involved in this: arbonsts, pre ser-atnomsts. the I ID(_ .r-
oversight;
noyersight; we aren't suggesting we are the only people to review the work.
Welch — This is an incredibly important topic that speaks to our identin as a national resource regardmg merit. c
heritage and preservation tourism. Within the .Act, HDC is entrusted with the economic benefit that come-
preserving our heritage. Ile wants to support the concept of the w-orkgroup with professional resources. He feel-.-
critically important to have the historians, preservations, and professionals inyol ed to help the HD(_ torn -uzat�
guidelines and definitions. This w-orkgroup could take on an advisory role and be tasked with issuing adyl-inc- J-. the
projects, that would be helpful to the HDC and making determinations. ILS concern is the efficient•, of the procc-
don't have the professional expertise on the IIDC and personal proclivities get involved in the HDC discu--ton. rroce-
I le agrees that the OI ID is important and preservation and restoration of elements are important: ho"yeyer. t cry ars
areas within the community of the old core that aren't what we think. some are ngrnticant, others not -o m c —
concrete curb along Washington Street. We all have a mental image of what the OIID Is: the ,yorkgroup. cou'id
what gets done where and how.
Andrew Lowell, 4 New- Lane — The temperature that is out there is the proliferation of razor-sharp gramte curiesnc - d
out of Town and is now- being introduced in Town. That sharp-edged curbing Is damaging expensive equlpmcn• Win_
narrows the street. The old curbing was rounded by craftsmen and it is available: rounding can be done to the
curbing installed.
Fee — I Its bread trucks lose a ire or two each summer to the sharp-edged granite curbing.
ookjuHolly Backus, 320 Polpis Road —She holds a preservationist degree. Suggested the workgroup look-
jurisdictions;
risdictions; we aren't the onh, historic district in the countn- or 'Massachusetts.
Page 2 of 6
HDC Minutes for April 10, 2019, adopted )uh• 9
Unidentified — She would like clarity on the concept of "complete streets" regarding the integrit}- of downtown. _1
concern of hers is the use of new materials that rescales even -thing and superimposing a suburban/urban initiative on
200+ year-old streets.
Kuester — .Asked if the board would put a pause on further work at the Pacific Club until issues can be worked out.
Bridges — the Pacific Club area isn't in the cue for this year; he thinks the plan is for 2020 and this process will be in
place before that.
Hill Holdgate — Closed the public discussion. _asked how the Board wants to move forward.
Select Board Consensus — There is a need professionals and experts; the HDC has a role if the Board is unsure what
that is; bring this back for further discussion within a month.
Gibson — _asked if Town _administration staff needs to prepare anything for that further discussion.
Hill Holdgate — Staff should have further internal discussion about other ideas for this process. The recommendation
doesn't fully cover the issues.
Gibson — Comments have included, professional resources, specific process, how to apply preservation techniques, how
guidelines can be used to preserve craftsmanship. There is a project to repair the Washington Street sidewalk to Salem
Street; we've been approached by the American Legion to extend that repair to 21 Washington Street and increase AD -A
accessibility into the building. The thought is to extend that repair work from Salem Street to include the Nantucket
Regional 'I•ransit Authority bus station.
Rob McNeil, Director DPW — The idea would be to remove any pre -cast concrete curbing and replace with granite.
The work in front of the American Legion would be similar minus the .ndening; there are no encroachments along that
stretch. We do have a sample granite curb .nth chiseled top and will have a sample with a relief edge. "Ihe issue with
ADA accessibility at the American Legion is the ramp was not properly installed. The intent is to complete the current
project by Daffodil Weekend; the next stretch would be completed by Memorial Day. This would be a remove and reset
with not -precast concrete.
V.Andrews — At the .gust _association at 19 Washington Street, water comes in the building even- time it rains. We
didn't know this was going on; it brings up issues with abutter notification that has been going on. The first floor is at
grade.
Gibson — "Phis just came up; there has been no opportumn to bring it up with abutters. That issue could be fixed with
the workgroup.
Michelle Elzay, 55 Union Street & 42 Pine Street and Board of NPT — The Legion is an historic structure and NP"I
holds a preservation easement; a standard should be set before sidewalk repairs are made in front of another historic
building.
Bridges — Right now it's all broken concrete. The American Legion reached out to us.
Hill Holdgate — She thinks the current condition needs to be documented; it could be as simple as photos of what is
being replaced. This is a change and we have no process in place. She thinks the HDC could review- it and could be a test
case. This would be an improvement of material in this case.
Fee — If we had a preservation specialist advisor, they could recommend how to proceed.
Bridges — There is no widening or modernization and it is a truck route; he'd be okay with it being a process test case.
Pucci — If you go the HDC route, there is also a finding of non -applicability provided for in the statute.
A.Reade —The HDC has a consent agenda; this could be easily be handled that way.
Higgins — She supports making it accessible and safe; she's not in favor of moving this forward without a process in
place.
M.Rayport — There is a budget in place for sidewalk; why isn't preview part of that budget. We'd like to have a historic
materials survey completed; much has been done by Preservation Institute of Nantucket (PIN).
Bridges — In the spirit of disclosure, he does own and run a coffee shop within this area; he doesn't own the building.
Motion made by Als. Higgins to do the improvements when we have a process in place so this lasts the next 100 years.
Seconded by Mr. Fee.
Bridges — The motion is good but vague and not doing anything for years because there is no process in place.
Hill Holdgate — She'd be more comfortable .ith a plan to get the work done and letting HDC review- it in the absence
of a process.
Gibson — Suggested moving forward .nth this and trying to get it onto the HDC consent agenda; if w -e wait for a
process to be in place, the work won't get done before Summer.
Pohl — Explained the consent agenda process. With this project, we could review the issue under other business and not
vote; we would get the temperature of the HDC.
Pucci — For a test case before the policy is established, recommend doing it as Mr. Pohl suggested, -which reserves the
right on exempt projects.
Hedden — Explained why documentation is important. He'd like to see a process for the Town regarding roads and
sidewalks for the OHD. Any way we document the materials and work would be helpful.
Page 3 of 6
I IDC Minutes for April 10, 2019, adopted luh- 9
Bridges — Offered a fnendlt- amendment that the section of sidewalk repair from Lobster 'I rap to the \RT_j tauon
to IIDC for discussion under other business.
_Amendment not accepted.
\Is. I liggins motion not carried unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Higgins that work proceed on Washington Street from Coffin Street to Salem Street after
review and recommendations by the HDC as a test model for a future process. Seconded by Mr. Bridges. ''•1ot.on
carried unanimoush-
2. Appcal of CO_A -1644 for a Pool at 25 Westerw�_-ck Way, M -P 82-120.
Sitting Pohl, McLaughlin, Welch
Concerns X8:22) Hill Holdgate — Opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
Joseph Squieeiarino, 23 Westerwv-ck Way-, appellant — We are abutters to 23 \Vesterw-,-ck \Vay. risco 1- a l:eaci:
communir, characterized I)v small lots with upside-down houses and natural landscape. Reviewed the trnpact he
neighboring homeowners focused on: natural landscape, permanent displacement of groundwater, sense of place. and
neighbors. Reviewed concerns about the deficiencies in the HDC process and governance as it pertains speafica,_�•. to
this project: conflict of interest of'_AIr. Jesse Dutra, no discussion on wliv the location was not appropriate as stattd
the general contractor, integnt-' of the approval process resulting in a breakdown of checks and balances. per-ona:
impact of the approved location, and final rote was 3-2 in favor. The real issue is the Select Board has to consider
arbitran- nature of the decision.
Pohl — We had a similar discussion for a similar application in the same neighborhood. The IIDC feel for
neighbors who have to look down on a pool, especially from upside-down house 2'- -floor decks: however. ""U _r.
empowered to rote on the architectural features risible from a pubhch- Travelled w-a�-: we have no junsduuon
pnvate views. Regarding the arbitran- and capricious aspect, the Select Board is charged with deciding if HD(_ acted
an arbitran and capricious manner, whether or not HDC dehberated in a manner consistent with other -
applications; recently, this application was viewed fire times bi the l IDC, which is unusually often: this "vent thro
rigorous review- process. We were satisfied at the end of the day that the pool would not be risible from an_. pui, c
I le submitted a rebuttal to the appeal.
Hedden — Through his position with the Town, he takes a neutral point. To '\fr. Squiccranno's point about Alam �Jn
the CO_A versus the stamped plans, it is not unusual since the CO_V reflects the mina] submission and don -t reu_:r _n
updated application; the dimensions on the stamp plan are what was reviewed.
J.Squicciarino — AVhat was approved was a pool 38-N18; the CO_V shows 21 IX45. _Asked what purpose is Derr, ed
CO.A and what is the legal recourse. Mr. Pohl didn't address the conflict of interest concern and that theener�:
contractor for the applicant stated it was not an appropriate location for the pool; no one asked one que-uon
that.
Hill Holdgate — '\Ir. Dutra isn't listed as a voting member on 25 \V esterwl ck \\ ay.
J.Squicciarino — He wasn't a voting member but did provide input He voted on m�- pool and _Mr. Gaghano',
Jay Maronev, Cohen & Cohen Law- P.C., for the landowner — �Ir. Dutra was not a v oung member, he
speak to the application as is anyone. The heart of the matter is the standard of review and whether or no-
arbitran- and capricious.
Joseph Gagliano, 10 \Vesterwyck Way — He supports \fr. Squiccianno-s posiuon. AVe feel integration of poo'.s n"-
part of what Cisco is with flat land, natural growth, and upside-down houses. This pool intrudes upon the prcac.
the Sgwcciarinos; it is an invasion of noise, light, and prig acs .
J.Squicciarino — AIr. Dutra wasn't a voting member on this project, but he was on Mr. Gaghano's poral prosect.
either is or is not a conflict of interest. For a board member to go out to a building association meeting after ..
or VIr. Gaghano's pool and passionatelN- campaign to defeat a citizen warrant is not appropriate behavior for
member. Reiterated that no I IDC member asked the project general contractor w-hV the proposed location for ti e
was inappropriate.
Welch — I le did not sit on this application. Silence on an issue does not constitute appro% al. On the issue of
interest, Mr. Dutra will recuse if he has financial interest on an matter that would make him not unpartial. tha-
standard. There is a difference between providing input at the request of other members on a matter that rec rrr-
expertise and speaking against something that impacts v -our livelihood: the lamer is not a conthct of mtere-t under
Conflict of Interest Law-.
Higgins — _Asked about the process regarding public comment and who and who does not rote. Vallone
recused throughout the process but commented during public comments.
Pohl — Ms. Oliver recused because she had done work for the owner previously- Regardmg Mr. Dutra, ..OU MIWr
be voting on a project, but he encourages even -one to make comments. AV e state wvth clarinwho the voting rncm: er•
are. Before lie was on the IIDC, that was the normal course of events — non-voting members can speak as memt,tr-
the public.
Higgins — _Asked why Mr. McLaughlin was voting then recused at the last hearing -
Page 4 of 6
HDC ytinutes for April 10, 2019, adopted Jul- 9
Pohl — Mr. McLaughlin has been prone to do that; he can't explain why. You don't need to express the reason you are
recusing.
Higgins — _asked why- Diane Coombs had been a voting member then ended up participating in public comments.
Pohl — _applications that go on for weeks, people miss meetings causing attrition of sitting members. He's guessing \L.
Coombs missed one or two meetings and didn't Mullen back on.
Hill Holdgate — It looks like Ms. Coombs vote was to hold the application without opening.
Rob Lowell — There are three steps in the HDC process: the application; the approval; the actual size.
Hedden — This went to five meetings and was reduced in size to 38X18 from 45X10 as noted on initial application.
The reviewed and approved pool plan is stamped; the COA was issued with a number and recorded at the Tour
Clerk's office.
R.Lowell — Feels not updating the application to reflect the final approval is asking for trouble.
Pucci — _about the COA, the HDC uses as the application the COA form; once the vote is recorded on the form, it
becomes a COA. Where the vote is indicated, there is a place to refer to the plans.
Hill Holdgate — During the HDC process, the plans change; when the COA is final, each individual page of the plan
is stamped with the number; then are not using the practice of revising the application information.
Pucci — It would be sufficient to identif}- the plan.
Maroney — It is the stamped plan that goes forward to the building department, the builder, and the inspector.
J.Squieeiarino — Hearing that confirms for him that the process is flawed. The COA should reflect the
appropriateness of the plan and final approval. Questions its validity if it has erroneous information. At the minimum
the process is sloppy. The Conflict of Interest is a bigger issue.
Pucci — You have to have specificity- about what is being included in the approval. The issue about incorporating a
plan that was approved was covered. There is a difference between a non-voting member and a recused member;
recusing members walk away- from the table. It is appropriate to have a non-voting member to sit at the table and
provide comments. If a member is recused, that member should not be sitting at the table participating in the
discussion.
Higgins — There was a member who had recused and made comments as a citizen.
Pucci —They should not have been at the table.
Pohl — Ms. Oliver recused but she had things to say, so spoke as a private citizen.
Pucci — If a member is recused, it is lawful for them to speak as a private citizen as an interested person.
Welch — Viiat's not reflected in the record is that Ms. Oliver moved to the area where members of the public speak on
the matter; she did not remain in her chair.
Hill Holdgate — Closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. _asked what the actual decision-making process is.
Pucci — We go under the 1977 Gumley versus the Board of Selectmen of Nantucket case; that court clanfied the
burden of proof to be applied in these cases. The HDC ruling should not be overturned unless the Select Board finds it
was based upon legally untenable grounds or is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary. If you think they got it
wrong for aesthetic reasons, it would be improper to overturn their decision. Based upon the chair's recitation of the
decision, whatever the reason, the statute onh• talks about the exterior portion of the building or structure that is open
to public view; view from an abutting private residence is not reason to overturn an HDC decision. Context is also
something the HDC considers; when talking about that, it must be visible from a publicly accessible area.
Fee — He thinks over the years, standards of the HDC have changes; 20 years ago, the HDC did not allow bushes to
hide something because they can die or be removed. That seems to no long be the case.
Pucci — He would have to sav that if the board has a condition that shrubs be maintained, that is %within their
jurisdiction. That creates enforcement issues down the line.
Fee — If you follow the current trend to its logical conclusion, you could build a big berm around your structure. What
FIs. Oliver was talking about was are berms and privet appropriate in Cisco, he would argue that it is not appropriate.
Pucci — If HDC is applying the standard consistently, that is not arbitrary and capricious. Their abilin_ and jurisdiction
to look at surroundings is relevant to that.
Pohl — The HDC has no jurisdiction over them creating a 4-foot berm around their propern .
Fee — It might be; the HDC can dictate landscape. Sad- they create the berm then shove up at the HDC u-ith an
appropriate structure, which has the berm all the way around; the HDC has the abilin- to say the berm is not
appropriate with the design of the house. That would completely change the nature of the neighborhood.
Pucci — The HDC can't prevent landscaping with plants, trees, and shrubs; they can say a structure is inappropriate
and screening it with plants, trees, and shrubs is inappropriate for a setting.
Higgins — The relationship of a berm or plants is considered as it relates to the surrounding context. We don't have a
standard or process about how use of landscape is applied to screening.
Pucci — Berming is different from plantings. In terms of consistency and process, if they are allowing things to be
screened by landscaping, they are creating a potential enforcement issue; the landscaping needs to be maintained in
perpetuity.
Fee — To move the pool away from a public way, it moved closer to the neighbor. He thinks common sense should
have been employed.
Page 5 of 6
IIDC -Minutes for _April 10, 2019, adopted-) uI9
Pucci —The inappropriateness of a neighbor having the see a pool isn't protected by the HDC stature. There arc ether
jurisdictions that have to be complied with.
Higgins — _Asked the difference between berms and vegetated screening.
Pucci — If the argument is that something is visible because of a berm, HDC has to look at the appropnateness I-f the
berm within the neighborhood setting.
Bridges — Ile understands the abutter's feeling of injustice. He does not think there was an- conflict of interest: the
decision was not arbitran-, it was not whimsical in his opinion. He feels the HDC acted wIthrn their lunsdic-2on.::
there is no standard or process, they didn't do anything wrong.
Higgins — heels when there is no process, the decision was arbitran-. She feels part of the defuunon of arbltrar. l a
there is no process.
Hill Holdgate — AV'`nen she was on the MDC it was common process to manipulate grade and landscape fo-
sports courts, even fire pits to screen them; that was tied to the approval. AN e talked about the standard (if -crct r_
Mid where n-pes of plantings were appropriate. Looking at the record, the HDC went through that process.
Higgins — Cisco's natural state doesn't allow for a lot of the plants. Her concern -,'.-]Th lack of prove-- rear ^_z
vegetation, it seems the proposed vegetation doesn't respond to the narural landscape; it's not mdtgenou,- There _eem-
to be no way for the I IDC to vegetate in Cisco without a process.
Hill Holdgate — There always has been a process on how- to landscape out for screerung as well as using_ a stn c r_
She feels I IDC went through the process.
Fee — Ile's concerned about the direction vegetative screening is taking us. We are tn-ung to encourage
landscaping. The elephant in the room is the impact of the pool on the neighbor, neighborhood. and environment:
pressure is increasing against the Island to add these to tourist homes.
Ferrantella —'dot liking the landscaping, asked if that is arbitran or if the Board is putting its own judgement on
Pucci — Yes, that would be substituting your judgement for the HDC's. Read Mr. Pohl's letter to the Select Bljar_ hat
required indigenous and evergreen plantings to screen the pool. It is within HDC junsdiction to make that finding
Higgins — It appears the IIDC has jurisdiction of landscaping and how vegetation and structures fit roto the
environment of an area. Iler concern is that there is not a process standard on how to do that. _About the c,rnf'ct
interest, on many boards we rely on the professionalism of members. he is concerned about the recu-ed mcr qtr
coming back into the conversation.
Motion made by Mr. Bridges to uphold the HDC decision. Seconded b. \Is. Ferrantella. Carned
and Fee opposed.
Hill Holdgate — She's a little concerned about best practices, the applicant should correct the apphcanon -.-,ht:-
submit revisions. Also, recused members shouldn't participate unless there is a yen- compelling reason to par nes
Pucci — Recused members should be away from the table and not participate: if the% do, they need to make it cc r :n
what role they are giving comment. _Another concern is the recusing process is a member who parnapate- fuli". �e
discussion then recuses from the vote; if that member has a reason to recuse, they should not partutpzte :n
discussion; if that member doesn't want to vote, they can abstain.
Adjourned at 9:44 p.m. by unanimous consent
Submitted by:
'Dern L. Norton
Page 6 of 6