HDC ponders explanations of rejections

The Historic District Commission held a long meeting last week, most of which was spent discussing commission procedures.

Commissioners considered ways to explain their votes, to make sure that applicants understand why a project has been rejected. Having objections listed explicitly would also help in case someone appealed a decision to circuit court.

Not every vote would require such detail, and the commissioners considered several approaches. A justification might only be required on roll call votes, for example, or for applications considered “complicated.” That suggestion led to a detour to consider how to decide which projects would fall into that category.

City Historic Preservation Officer Kylee Hevrdejs said she has to write a letter to rejected applicants, and having the reasons clearly elucidated would help her.

Commissioner Judy Holden wondered if having to justify a decision might lead a commissioner to vote “present” or abstain. Either would count as a “No” vote but would not require explanation.

Commissioner Randy Maddox suggested establishing a period of two or three days in which applicants could request specific reasons for their rejection. Commissioners noted the importance of transparency, but some still resisted the suggestion to justify their decisions. Some noted that the reasons typically would be explained during discussion.

Chair Dee Bright suggested carrying the item forward to the next agenda. “This is something important that we should all think about,” she said.

At the Oct. 6 meeting, the commissioners briefly discussed extensions for Certificates of Appropriateness. They had heard reports that some applicants had received multiple extensions. Hevrdejs explained that a COA expires after a year, and an applicant can request a six-month extension. After that, the application process would start again from scratch. All voted to set this policy in place.

Consent Agenda items expanded

The agenda for each meeting has a list of Administrative Approvals for work which does not involve any change of materials. A Consent Agenda includes items which may not require a vote. Any commissioner or member of the public can request that items from the consent agenda should come to the table for discussion. A recent case brought attention to the process, and commissioners considered ways to keep the category without missing out on important details.

Hevrdejs said she thought more items should go on the consent agenda, to increase the commission’s efficiency. Commissioners voted to retain the consent agenda, but they asked Hevrdejs to include the applications for those projects in the packet they receive before meetings.

Talk about not being able to talk

Commissioners discussed a letter from Mayor Butch Berry regarding ex parte discussions with the public. Ex parte refers to improper contact with a party or a judge. Commissioner Steve Holifield summed up his response to such situations. “If someone approaches us and wants to talk, we can’t,” he said. “It’s a small town, and if I run into someone on the street, I tell them I can’t talk about it until it’s over.” Bright said she refers such questions to Hevrdejs. “I tell them, ‘I have to vote on this, and if you continue, I’ll have to recuse,’” she said.

Hevrdejs took that one step further. “If a project is going to come before you, you can’t talk about it outside of a public meeting,” she said.

In other business

• Commissioners approved a belated application for work already in place at 17 Breezy Point Rd. for applicant Cecilia Athey. The work included a tiny house, 11 by 24 feet, a storage building 10 by 16 feet, and a privacy fence. The commissioners noted the standing-seam metal roof and the placement of the structures.    
• Jeff Danos, director of the Eureka Springs Historical Museum, appeared at the Sept. 1 HDC meeting to discuss the removal of the cabin in front of the museum. He described the overall decline in the cabin, exacerbated by a tree falling across it. Commissioners had opposed a demolition request last year, but agreed in September that the cabin was beyond repair, and suggested an application for demolition as the next step in the process.

Last week, the commissioners unanimously agreed to the demolition. The property had become a clear public safety problem, and the cabin had been moved from its original location and much of the material had already been replaced. Danos said he could not yet tell what materials might be salvageable. Bright acknowledged the regrets of the commissioners and the museum board, and added, “It’s bad, and it needs to come down.”

• Sandy Martin, chairman of the Eureka Springs Arts Council, spoke on behalf of an application to paint six manhole covers. Martin explained that the Arts Council has worked on at least one project each year with the Eureka Springs High School Arts Club. A previous project focused on painting storm drains, but the paint quickly deteriorated.

Martin said the six manhole covers would be painted in early November. She said the students will use paint designed for this application, and the finished product will have a non-skid finish. A grant from the Arkansas Arts Council will fund the project.

In response to questions from the table, Martin said the project would not have an explicit termination date. “Our intention is that it would be permanent, but we have a review process,” she said. She explained that some projects, like the Art Trail sculptures at Harmon Park, are designed to be permanent, while other installations are created for a specific period.

All approved the project.

• Commissioner Judy Holden asked to create a public comments period at the end of each meeting. The commission currently hears public comments on each application, but this period could cover more general comments.

“We want to hear from the community if they have issues,” Holifield said. The discussion touched upon the need to keep comments appropriate. Bright said commissioners would have to resist the impulse to respond. Any issues raised during a comments period would not be on the agenda for discussion. All approved establishing a comments period, with a three-minute limit for each speaker.

• Commissioner Marty Cogan asked to place an item on the upcoming agenda concerning the requirements in an application. She said applications should include elevations, and not just a site plan sketched on a piece of paper. Holifield agreed that “we get lazy about that.”

The HDC will next meet at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Level III applications were due Oct. 21, and other levels were due Oct. 27.