One notable matter on the agenda was the application for a certificate of appropriateness for a property on Sesame Street, which involved partial demolition and an addition to the registered historic property. The board discovered that the application lacked comprehensive plans, raising concerns about the uninhabitable condition of the structure, notably its missing roof. Board members emphasized the necessity of a complete restoration plan, particularly for the front of the building, to distinguish between existing elements and proposed additions. Consequently, the board unanimously decided to defer the resolution until the next meeting in January, allowing time for the submission of a more detailed application.

In another discussion, the board addressed a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of ten windows and two doors on Shirar Avenue. The conversation focused on ensuring that the replacements adhered to historic property standards. Concerns were raised about the absence of historical photographs, which would have provided context for the existing window designs. The board discussed the implications of replacing operable windows with fixed models, which could affect emergency egress and ventilation, potentially violating Florida building codes. Suggestions were made to explore alternatives that preserved the building’s historical character while meeting safety requirements. The issue of replacing the Masonite door with one that better matched the architectural style of the home was also discussed.

The board considered the broader need for improving the permit application process for historic properties. This included the possibility of implementing pre-application meetings to guide property owners through the board’s expectations, potentially reducing the need for revisions. The board recognized the importance of comprehensive documentation, such as additional photographs, to assist in evaluating property conditions and making informed decisions.

This was particularly relevant for properties undergoing unpermitted renovations, where clearer guidance could facilitate compliance with local regulations.

Budget considerations were also a focal point, with discussions on the potential hiring of a professional group to develop historic preservation guidelines. The board revisited a previous proposal to engage a firm for this purpose, with an estimated cost of $25,000. The feasibility of such an initiative was discussed, highlighting the need for updated guidelines in light of fluctuating costs. The board clarified the budget approval process, noting that expenditures over $25,000 would require a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

Proposed changes to the board’s structure were discussed, including reducing its size from seven to five members to improve quorum during meetings, alongside adding alternates. Increasing the frequency of meetings from four to six annually was also considered to enhance engagement. Attendance issues were addressed, with a call for stricter guidelines to ensure accountability among members, given the absence of current attendance standards.

The board examined the process for issuing administrative certificates of appropriateness versus special certificates, proposing a bifurcated approval process. This would allow routine applications, such as roof replacements, to be handled administratively while retaining board oversight for more complex changes impacting historical integrity. There was a consensus on the need for detailed guidelines on acceptable materials and designs, particularly for windows and doors, to preserve the historical fabric of structures.

The meeting also delved into the timeline for permit application processing, noting inefficiencies in the current system. A recent application took two months for approval, prompting comparisons with other municipalities and highlighting the challenges faced by property owners in navigating bureaucratic processes.