Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedures And Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pontiac HDC debates rules overhaul: communication role, submission timing and demolition documentation to be refined
Summary
Commissioners reviewed and edited proposed rules and procedures Jan. 14, agreeing to clarify that the chair 'or their designee' will cause official communications to be sent, to aim for staff reports one week prior when possible, and to limit architect/engineer demolition reports to cases 'where applicable' or as deemed necessary by building safety. Final approval was deferred to the February meeting.
The Pontiac Historic District Commission spent the bulk of its Jan. 14 meeting reviewing proposed revisions to its rules and procedures, agreeing on several clarifications while deferring final adoption to the February meeting.
Commissioners debated whether the chair "shall forward" communications or whether the language should make clear the chair "causes" communications to be distributed and may use staff or a designee. Jake, the city attorney, advised keeping the distribution requirement outcome-focused: "How they want to do that is their business" so long as communications reach all members "as soon as reasonably possible." The commission settled on wording to read "chairperson or their designee" for official dissemination.
Several commissioners requested earlier access to property addresses and staff reports. Paul proposed staff reports be sent a week prior when possible and the full packet by the customary Friday; commissioners agreed to add a note that staff shall provide reports to commissioners a week prior to the meeting "when possible."
A substantial portion of the discussion focused on a proposed requirement that an applicant provide a registered architect or licensed engineer report to certify whether a building "can or cannot be repaired in full" for demolition requests. Commissioners raised concerns about the burden on homeowners and cited past garage cases where such a report would have been disproportionate. The body agreed to limit that requirement to where it is "applicable" or "deemed necessary" by building safety or code enforcement, and to request such reports only for significant primary-structure demolitions.
Other edits discussed included clarifying fee structures (staff approvals vs. commission review), removing a proposed hold-harmless agreement from the application, and changing reapplication language to allow the community development director discretion to hear reapplications "sooner." After extensive review, the commission voted to defer final approval of the revised rules to the Feb. 11 meeting and asked staff to circulate a written draft beforehand.
Next steps: staff will prepare a written draft incorporating the agreed edits and circulate it ahead of the Feb. 11 meeting; commissioners plan to vote on the finalized rules then.
