(a) The owner shall file an application for a certificate of appropriateness with the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and utilizing such standardized forms as the administration may promulgate for such purpose.
(b) The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the application at its next regularly scheduled meeting only if it was filed at least twenty (20) days prior thereto and notice of same was published for two consecutive weeks on the same day of the week with the date of last publication being no less than five (5) days nor more than (10) ten days prior to the meeting date.
(c) The administration shall review each application, determine the completeness of an application based on paragraph (d) herein, and make recommendation thereon. The applicant may meet with the administration prior to the Planning Commission’s review of the application.
(d) The following materials, together with such other applicable information as may be required elsewhere in this chapter, shall be required for any application for a certificate of appropriateness:
(1) Photographic documentation in the form of color prints of the property including, but not necessarily limited to the following images of the property: setting and location characteristics; each facade or vertical surface affected by the construction, alteration, or demolition; and architectural features, appurtenances, or lot improvements impacted by the proposal.
(2) Samples of materials and colors of finishes, product literature or descriptions of materials and finishes to be used, when relevant.
(3) A simple drawing or rendering or written specification of the work to be performed and a site plan.
(4) Drawings or rendering of any graphic or sign to be installed on the property and its proposed location.
(e) Standards for Alteration. The following standards shall apply to evaluation of the appropriateness of a proposed alteration:
(1) Every reasonable effort shall be made to use the property for its originally intended purpose or to provide a compatible use requiring minimal alteration.
(2) The distinguishing characteristics of the property shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature shall be avoided whenever possible.
(3) Each property shall be recognized as a product of its own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
(4) Changes which have taken place over the course of time are evidence of the property’s history and environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and, if so, this significance shall be respected.
(5) Distinctive stylistic features and examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be treated with sensitivity.
(6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features shall be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures.
(7) The gentlest means possible shall be used to clean the property’s surface if necessary. Sandblasting and other cleansing methods that will damage the historic building materials are prohibited.
(8) Contemporary design for alteration to a property shall not be discouraged when such alteration does not destroy significant, historical, architectural or cultural material and its design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, its environment and surrounding contributing properties.
(9) Whenever possible, a new addition or alteration shall be accomplished so that its future removal will not impair the essential form and integrity of the structure.
(10) Exterior cladding of a structure shall be consistent with the original materials used on the property.
(11) In passing upon appropriateness, the Planning Commission shall consider, in addition to any other pertinent factor, the architectural characteristics typical of structures in the Old Village, the historical and architectural value and significance, architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the architectural feature involved and its relation to the architectural features of other contributing properties in the immediate neighborhood.
If preparation of any item above is beyond the physical or financial means of the owner, the Planning Commission may request the Department of Planning and Development provide reasonable assistance.
(f) Criteria to Determine Substantial Economic Hardship. The following criteria shall be used to determine the existence of a substantial economic hardship:
(1) Denial of a certificate will result in substantial reduction in the economic value of the property;
(2) Denial of a certificate will result in a substantial economic burden on the owner because the owner cannot reasonably maintain the property in its current form;
(3) No reasonable alternative exists consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property;
(4) Despite good faith efforts, the owner has been unable to sell the property.
(g) Criteria to Determine Unusual and Compelling Circumstances. The following criteria shall be used to determine the existence of unusual and compelling circumstances:
(1) The property has little or no historical or architectural significance.
(2) The property cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with the pertinent architectural standards and guidelines.
(3) No reasonable means of saving the property from deterioration, demolition or collapse other than the owner’s proposal exists.
(4) Additionally, for the non-profit organization owner, it is infeasible to financially or physically achieve its charitable purposes while conforming to the pertinent architectural standards and guidelines.
(h) Standards for Demolition. The following standards shall apply to the evaluation of the appropriateness of a proposed demolition:
(1) Demolition of an historic or architecturally significant structure, including any appurtenances thereon, architectural feature, or lot improvement constitutes an irreplaceable lose to the quality and character of the Old Village. No person shall demolish any structure, including any appurtenances thereon, architectural feature, or lot improvement now or hereafter within an OV District until he or she has filed an application for a certificate of appropriateness setting forth the intent to demolish such structure, appurtenance, architectural feature, or lot improvement together with a written statement that such structure, appurtenance, architectural feature, or lot improvement is not historically or architecturally significant or otherwise worthy of preservation and the reasons the applicant is seeking to demolish same.
(2) In evaluating the historic or architectural significance of any structure, architectural feature, or lot improvement the Planning Commission shall be guided by the following criteria, any one of which shall be sufficient to support a determination that an historic or architecturally significant structure, feature, or improvement exists:
A. The age of the structure, architectural feature, or lot improvement. Those 50 years of age or older shall be considered historically significant per se.
B. Any association with events of local or wider geographic historical, societal or cultural significance, regardless of the timing of such events.
C. Its uniqueness, level of design, and/or the degree of craftsmanship or artistry employed in its creation.
(3) If seeking to demolish an entire structure or major portion thereof, the applicant shall also submit definite plans for reuse of the site, evidence of commitment for funding of the new project, a time frame for project initiation and completion and an assessment of the effect such plans will have on the character and integrity of the Old Village.
(4) The Planning Commission shall be guided in its decision by balancing the historic, architectural, and cultural value of the structure, appurtenance, architectural feature, or lot improvement and the purposes of this chapter against an applicant’s proof of any unusual and compelling circumstances or substantial economic hardship in retaining the structure, appurtenance, architectural feature, or lot improvement and the merit of the replacement project.
(5) Upon the Planning Commission’s determination that any such structure, appurtenance, architectural feature, or lot improvement is not historically or architecturally significant or otherwise worthy of preservation, a certificate of appropriateness shall be issued. The owner may then apply for or be issued a demolition permit as may be required by the Code.
(6) The Planning Commission may promulgate rules and regulations designed to assist owners in demonstrating economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances. These rules and regulations shall not call for onerous production of documents and data. It is the intention of this section that the level of documentation required of an owner may vary as is appropriate to each case.
(7) For any application the owner bears the burden of providing evidence to show by clear and convincing evidence any substantial economic hardship or unusual and compelling circumstances either with the original application at the time of filing or separately thereafter. It is advisable for the owner to provide as much documentation as possible.
(8) An owner who desires to present a case for substantial economic hardship shall, at a minimum, provide credible and objectively verifiable information pertaining to the factors set forth in paragraph (f) herein as well as the following information to the extent it is available or applicable:
A. The amount paid for and date of purchase of the property if purchased within two (2) years prior to the application; copies of the two (2) most recent appraisals of the property; real estate tax bills or receipts for the two (2) years immediately preceding the application; any listings of the property for sale or rent; any written offers to purchase or rent the property, including any amendments thereof or documents pertinent thereto; any consideration of the applicant for adapting the property to a new use; and a detailed cost comparison of the work proposed by applicant and any alternative consistent with architectural standards and guidelines for the property.
B. For all income-producing property: annual gross income from and itemized operating expenses for the property for the past two (2) years; and evidence that the owner or applicant has made a reasonable effort to obtain an economic return thereon.
C. For showing substantial reduction in the value of the property: estimates of the value of the property with applicant’s requested proposal and with alternatives consistent with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property.
D. For showing that alternatives are not within the applicant’s financial means: a statement of applicant’s annual income and expenses either as an income tax return and budget or as an accountant’s statement; and an estimated differential in initial and annual costs between applicant’s proposal and conformity to architectural standards and guidelines for the property. Actual bids shall be preferred.
(9) An applicant who desires to present a case for unusual and compelling circumstances shall, at a minimum, provide credible and objectively verifiable information pertaining to the factors set forth in paragraph (G) herein as well as the following information to the extent it is available or applicable:
A. A statement of such circumstances.
B. For showing that no other reasonable means exist for saving the property: copy of condemnation or housing order based on deteriorated condition of property; a structural analysis by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties as to the structural soundness of the property or architectural feature accompanied by the individual’s or firm’s qualifications for making such analysis; documentation that the property has been offered for sale.
C. For showing that the property cannot reasonably be maintained in the manner desired by the Planning Commission: a report by a licensed architect, engineer or contractor experienced in alterations to historic properties that the unusual design, materials, texture or details prohibit the reasonable maintenance of the property or exterior architectural feature with an explanation as to how the property’s location is not conducive to its reasonable maintenance accompanied by the individual’s or firm’s qualifications for making such a report.
D. In addition to materials set forth above, for showing that a nonprofit organization cannot financially or physically achieve its purpose: a copy of its charter and bylaws or mission statement; an explanation of how the applicant’s proposed construction, alteration or demolition is essential to the charitable purpose of the organization and how the Commission’s recommendation conflicts therewith; an estimated differential in costs between applicant’s proposal and consistency with the architectural standards and guidelines for the property (actual bids are preferred); and documentation of the organization’s tax-exempt status.
(i) Issuance of a Certificate. At the public hearing the Planning Commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness to the applicant if one of the following conditions applies:
(1) The alteration, construction, lot improvement, or demolition is appropriate as defined by all applicable standards for the OV District; or
(2) Although inappropriate, such proposal, due to unusual and compelling circumstances, affects only the subject structure and not the property or Old Village generally and such certificate may be issued without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this Code; or
(3) Failure to issue such certificate will result in a substantial economic hardship for the applicant and such certificate may be issued without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this Code.
An affirmative vote by a majority of members present, but in no case less than a quorum, shall be required to cause issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.
(j) Procedure Following Denial of Certificate.
(1) If the Planning Commission determines that a proposed alteration, construction, improvement, or demolition is inappropriate, the Commission may deny a certificate. Within thirty (30) days after its decision, the Commission shall issue a written decision setting forth the reasons for denial and send a copy of such decision to the applicant by certified mail.
(2) Within ten (10) days after receipt of denial the applicant may apply for rehearing. Scheduling of the rehearing is subject to the deadlines set forth in paragraph (b) herein.
(k) Rehearing.
(1) If the owner desires rehearing before the Planning Commission to consider any unusual and compelling circumstances and/or substantial economic hardship unaddressed in the original application or hearing, the owner shall submit an application for rehearing to the Planning Commission through the Department of Planning and Development together with any alternate plan and evidence as to such circumstances and such hardship. The Commission shall hold a public hearing, the scheduling of which shall comply with paragraph (b) herein, to consider the owner’s evidence in response to its decision and any plan as an alternate thereto. Clear and convincing evidence shall be required for the Planning Commission to find unusual and compelling circumstances and/or substantial economic hardship.
(2) If the application is again denied, the Planning Commission shall within thirty (30) days after its decision issue a written decision setting forth the reasons for denial and send a copy of such decision to the applicant by certified mail.
(3) If the application is granted after rehearing, the Planning Commission shall, in its sole discretion, either clearly state in the record of the hearing or issue a written decision within thirty (30) days:
A. That clear and convincing evidence was presented of unusual and compelling circumstances or substantial economic hardship; or
B. The final plan is appropriate to the preservation of the Old Village pursuant to the purposes, architectural characteristics, guidelines and standards of this chapter; or
C. Although inappropriate, such proposal due to unusual and compelling circumstances affects only the subject structure or lot and not the Old Village generally; and
D. The reasons why the project should proceed in light of the Commission’s charge to protect the public welfare from substantial detriment and derogation of the intent and purpose of this Code.
(l) Finding on Rehearing. If the Planning Commission finds that denial of a certificate of appropriateness will result in substantial economic hardship, the administration and owner shall within the next ninety (90) days seek a mutually acceptable way to reduce the hardship. If at the end of said period no mutually agreeable solution has been found, a certificate of appropriateness shall be issued.
(m) Right to Appeal. An owner who has been denied a certificate of appropriateness may appeal the Planning Commission’s decision pursuant to Chapter 2506 of the Ohio Revised Code within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of decision.
1(Ord. 06-0-105. Passed 9-5-06; Ord. 18-O-075. Passed 9-4-18.)