Flanders Mansion
Portion of Ridge which William’s Roofing “Repaired”
April 2007
Close-Up of “Repaired” Ridge
Original Tiles & Replacement Tiles Visible
After Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell issued his decision on Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea instructed Special Counsel William Conners to file an objection to the decision arguing that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is not obligated to maintain the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion. Judge O’Farrell then agreed to a Motion Hearing on Friday, 18 May 2007 at 9:00 A.M.
In April 2007, the City contracted with William’s Roofing Company for “REPAIRS TO FLANDERS MANSION ROOF,” at a cost of $3960.00 Apparently, the “repair” was to the ridge as pictured above. Is appears that tiles were either removed or replaced with dissimilar material tiles along the ridge in discontinuous fashion, i.e. a temporary “repair.”
Comments & Questions:
1. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,Roofs
not recommended
Removing a major portion of the roof or roofing material that is repairable, then reconstructing it with new material in order to create a uniform, or "improved" appearance.
(Source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/rhb/roofs01.htm)
For more information, click on post title above.
2. Was the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation complied with by the City and William Roofing Company when the Flanders Mansion roof “repair” was made to the ridge?
3. Since the Historic Resources Board (HRB) did not meet in April 2007, it appears that the Flanders Mansion roof “repair” was not on their agenda prior to the “repair.” Why was the “repair” not on a HRB agenda prior to contracting with Williams Roofing Company?
References:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Cultural Resources
Historic Preservation
P1-106 Recognize existing architectural features and styles when reviewing alterations to historic resources. Strive to achieve compatibility between these historic elements and proposed changes. Allow historic resources included in the Carmel Inventory to retain existing land use and/or design nonconformities when proposed rehabilitation or repairs are found to be consistent with the Secretary of Interios's Standards and Guidelines. Allow changes to historic resources in the Carmel Inventory that expand an existing design nonconformity or create a new design nonconformity only when this is found to be necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standands and Guidelines. (LUP)
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.140 Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards.
A. All major and minor alterations to historic resources shall require a determination of consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. The Department shall make consistency determinations for minor alterations. Staff may shall retain a qualified professional, when necessary, to assist in making the determination.
17.32.150 Historic Evaluation Process for Minor Alterations.
A. For the purposes of evaluating alterations to historic resources, the following shall constitute minor alterations:
8. Repair or replacement of roofing, gutters and downspouts when replacement is done in-kind to match existing materials and form.
D. Staff shall issue a determination of consistency for minor alterations that comply with the Secretary’s Standards. In approving minor alterations, staff shall ensure that integrity of the resource is maintained, that all character-defining features are maintained and that no change will be authorized that would diminish the historic resource’s value or result in a subsequent determination that the resource is no longer eligible for the Carmel Inventory. Staff may prepare and process a categorical exemption for the proposed alteration. The Department shall then cause the processing of the permit application to continue pursuant to standard City practices. Minor alterations that are found not to comply with the Secretary’s Standards shall be considered and processed as major alterations requiring an evaluation by a qualified professional and final action by the Historic Resources Board. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)
GNM76728: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al
Motion Hearing
5/18/2007
09:00:00
Courtroom 15
(Source: https://www.justicepartners.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Public/)
Checks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
April 2007 Check Register
(Includes Checks Dated 3/27/07)
112871 4/20/07 WILLIAM'S ROOFING COMPANY $ 3,960.00 REPAIRS TO FLANDERS MANSION ROOF
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
2 comments:
Ignoring the Historic Resources Board is typical. McCloud routinely ignores or fails to allow to do their jobs the various regular city commissions, boards and committees. Part of her need to micromanage and her fear of getting a suggestion she doesn't like. The mayor is much more comfortable listening to the advice from "ad hoc" committees she creates and stacks with people whose opinions she knows before they even start their work. Besides that, the regular bodies have to allow public input while McCloud claims she doesn't have to allow public input when her "ad hoc" committees meet.
It's difficult to understand what the mayor is up to with Flanders this time. If the city loses its appeal, which seems very likely,she will have spent money for something that needs to be done again properly and probably at even greater expense. The mayor and city council cry poor, although the city has a great deal of money and is increasing its reserves every fiscal year, and are constantly paring the budget for their most significant responsibilities. Doing a half baked job that will have to be redone makes no sense. Maybe the city council was trying to make it look as if it was doing something constructive at the lowest possible cost so it can try to pull the wool over the voters eyes at the next election.
Post a Comment