Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board asks staff to initiate LDR text amendment shifting approvals to HAPB
Summary
The Venice Historic Preservation Board unanimously voted to ask staff to initiate a Land Development Regulation text amendment to Chapter 88, Section 7, which would change decision authority for certificates of appropriateness and other items from the historical resources manager to the Historic Architectural Preservation Board and adjust related,
The Venice Historic Preservation Board unanimously asked city staff to initiate a Land Development Regulation (LDR) text amendment to Chapter 88, Section 7 to change decision authority and clarify how the board reviews changes to properties on the local register.
Nicole Tremblay, senior planner, briefed the board on the proposed edits. Tremblay said the changes “give the board the authority to make decisions on alterations to alterations, additions, and renovations for properties that are in the local register.” She told members the edits also allow the board to “seek other expertise for National Register nominations” and remove language describing appeals to the historical resources manager because the board’s decisions would be appealed to counsel.
Tremblay noted the practical effect: the historical resources manager (HRM) would review properties and prepare materials, but the Historic Architectural Preservation Board (HAPB) would be the decision authority for certificates of appropriateness. She and board members discussed a narrowly scoped interpretation to avoid bringing before the board projects that are not stylistically relevant to the historic district.
Chair Beebe and members discussed using a chair-level consultation with the HRM for borderline cases; Tremblay described a procedure under which staff could consult the chair or HRM before referring a project to a public hearing. Board members said that approach would “save the board’s time” when a structure’s style was “not historically significant.”
Matt (city staff/legal representative) reminded the board that if they approve more-restrictive changes, state law currently limits municipalities from adopting more restrictive regulations until 2026; the board acknowledged that some proposed changes might need to be held pending that state limitation.
Jean Trammell moved “to request staff to initiate the LDR text amendment petition for the changes to chapter 88 section 7 as presented.” Greg seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously; there were no recorded nays. Staff will begin the formal LDR amendment process, including drafting ordinance language and presenting required materials to planning commission and city council as applicable.
