Waukesha — City staff on Wednesday presented proposed revisions to Chapter 28 of the city code that would clarify how the Landmarks Commission reviews certificates of appropriateness, let the commission impose conditions and timelines on approvals and add a standing chair with a one-year term.

The changes, presented at the Oct. 1 meeting of the Waukesha Landmarks Commission, would also update definitions and procedural language, clarify which minor repairs do not require commission review, and add a written appeals process for council review of commission decisions.

Why it matters: supporters said the rewrite would align the ordinance with current practice and give the commission the authority to require corrective work when owners or contractors act without approval. Opponents and some commissioners asked for more time to review the draft language and for a final packet before the item moves to the plan commission.

City staff said the draft responds to two practical problems: unclear text in the ordinance and a lack of explicit enforcement authority. Charlie (Community Development staff) told the commission the proposed revision would allow the commission to impose conditions ‘‘to ensure that the work will be consistent with the factors’’ listed in the code and to set corrective timelines of no less than 90 days when work has begun without a certificate of appropriateness or is inconsistent with an approved COA. He said the commission already applies conditions in practice but that city attorneys advised the ordinance lacked language to enforce them.

The draft would also add an elected chair and specify a May 1 start date for the chair’s one-year term, language copied from other city boards. Charlie said the term date was chosen so chair selection would follow the April common-council organizational cycle; the draft would let a chair be re-elected for successive terms.

Public commenter and former commission chair Lisa Selb urged commissioners to examine the draft carefully and flagged a number of substantive items she believes need revision. In public comment she asked why the draft would require ‘‘owner’s permission’’ to redesignate a property after a rescission and noted the state Certified Local Government requirements include a rule that ‘‘designation must not require owner consent.’’ She also objected to a proposed two-month deadline for finding a buyer in demolition-review language, calling two months ‘‘nothing’’ for marketing and sale of a historic property.

Commissioners and staff discussed where the Secretary of the Interior standards and the state Historic Preservation Office fit into local decision-making. Charlie said the ordinance would refer to the Landmarks Commission design guidelines (amended from time to time) rather than directly incorporate the federal tax-credit standard; he reported that the city’s CLG (Certified Local Government) contact at the State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the draft and said it “meets their standards” but cautioned that National Park Service guidance would not allow certain relief mechanisms if a new ordinance were written from scratch.

Other changes in the draft: clarifying that routine repaints and other inherently temporary work on previously painted surfaces do not require a COA; defining the Department of Community Development where referenced; and cleaning up language about filing fees, application materials and the plan-commission first-reading requirement for development-related ordinances.

Several commissioners asked for more time and a single consolidated packet. Charlie said staff could provide a final draft and that the plan commission review is targeted for October with common-council consideration in November and December, but he agreed to circulate a consolidated packet and to consider a special meeting if commissioners wanted one. Commissioners also requested that staff note any further edits made after city-attorney review.

Next steps: staff told the commission the ordinance would go to the planning commission for first reading in October, and to the common council thereafter; commissioners were asked to submit written comments to staff or to appear at subsequent reviews if they want to request changes.

Ending: Commissioners did not vote on the ordinance; staff requested written comments and said a final draft would be circulated prior to plan commission review.