5200 Saint Charles Ave.

Staff Recommendations: 

This case was deferred from the last meeting to give the applicant and Staff time to discuss ways to remediate the violation in question.  Large, visually prominent conduit was installed to service pool equipment under electrical permit, but the conduit was not disclosed within the scope submitted with the application, and Permit Intake did not route it to the HDLC .  As the HDLC did not have an opportunity to review, the inappropriate work was done without a CofA. There was previously existing conduit in the same location, beneath the rear overhang of the house, but its gauge was much smaller and it did not extend downward as the current conduit does.  As the previous conduit was in the same location, it is appropriate for new conduit to be run under the overhang; but the extension of the new conduit to the ground, the size of the conduit, and the PVC material, as well as wires beneath that remain uncontained, contribute to the inappropriateness of the current condition. While the conduit is on the rear elevation of the building, the house's location on a corner lot make the inappropriate conduit highly visible from the public right of way.

At the previous meeting, the applicant requested to simply paint the PVC, but it was Staff and the Commission's perspective that PVC does not hold paint reliably over time, regardless of specialized primers.  During the deferral period, Staff and applicant spoke about other solutions.  The applicant consulted with utility companies and reported to staff that as the system must remain visible and accessible to utility companies, its location and configuration may not change.  The applicant states that the cost of replacing the PVC housing with metal housing, to match the previous condition, would cost $10,000.  The applicant is requesting that, due to prohibitive costs of replacement, that they be permitted to retain the PVC housing, remove decommissioned wires that are running outside of the conduit, and apply appropriate primers to the PVC that will allow paint to adhere more reliably to the material.  

As it appears to be cost-prohibitive to replace the conduit, and as the applicant operated in good faith, and permits were issued by DSP, Staff does not object to the retention of the conduit in its current material and configuration, provided that the excess wires surrounding it are removed, that it is primed appropriately and painted to match the house, and that this paint is maintained to prevent chipping or peeling over time.