Architect Anne Smith presented plans for a new home to be built on East Congress Street during Wednesday’s Savannah Historic District Board of Review meeting.
Smith answered questions from the board on behalf of the project’s architect of record, business partner Jerry Lominack.
Lominack couldn’t represent the project himself because he is a member of the review board. The board’s conflict-of-interest bylaws prohibit Lominack not only from voting on the petition but also from deliberations — including answering questions from the board as the project’s architect — on the petition.
Five hours later, the Lominack-led push to amend those bylaws met with opposition from several of his fellow board members for the second straight month. The board ultimately tabled the vote on a proposed amendment to the conflict-of-interest section of the bylaws but the tone was clear: Neither Lominack nor any other member of the board, which includes several architects, should be permitted to present projects as a petitioner.
The matter is one of public perception, the executive director of the Chatham County-Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission, Tom Thomson, told the board. Several board members agreed with that notion.
“As board members, not only do we have to be purer than Caesar’s wife, but we have to look purer than Caesar’s wife,” long-serving board member Nicholas Henry said. “Otherwise we are in trouble.”
The board tabled the amendment in order to consult with city attorney Brooks Stillwell regarding several issues. One involved whether the practicing architects on the board can even vote on the amendment — that in itself could be construed as a conflict of interest. The other question for Stillwell involves the legality of a compromise proposal, which would allow a petitioner standing in for a recused board member to consult with that board member on difficult questions. Under such a compromise, Smith would have been allowed to talk with Lominack about one of the fine details related to the Congress St. project earlier in the meeting.
“I want to serve on the board but I also want to continue to work as an architect,” said Lominack, who acknowledged he is likely to resign from the board if the amendment is ultimately defeated. “My downtown clients aren’t happy with the fact that I can design their projects but then can’t present them.”
The conflict-of-interest issue is a tricky one, acknowledged board chair Linda Ramsay, She herself is an architect and was on the historic review board in 2008 when the bylaws were amended to prohibit board members from presenting petitions. In fact, Ramsay’s recusing herself from the board to represent a neighbor in a petition contributed to the bylaw change at the time.
Leaving the bylaws as is will discourage architects who work on historic district projects from volunteering to serve on the board in the future, she said.
“By narrowing the pool of the most qualified people you are not going to get the most qualified people,” Ramsay said. “It is the architects who can read the drawings and see the inconsistencies.”