HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 10.28.2014 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
OCTOBER 28, 2014
The Georgetown City Council will meet on OCTOBER 28, 2014 at 2:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers, 101
E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City
Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at
113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding the City of Georgetown Fireworks
Ordinance -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
B HARC Process Review Update -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
C Guidance on Connectivity and Traffic for New Developments -- Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director
and Ed Palosek, Transportation Director
D Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Brenda Jenkins, Senior Vice President,
ECM International Inc.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular
session.
E Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the
attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- CTSUD Update
- EEOC – Ellison
- EEOC – Spencer
- EEOC -- Bermudez
- Police - Meet and Confer
- San Gabriel Park Improvements Project
- Public Safety Facility
- Williams Drive Project – County Agreement
Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- VFW parkland purchase -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer,
Assistant City Manager
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager and City Attorney: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex.
Gov. Code Section 551.074 Personnel Matters
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Discussion regarding the 2014 solar RFP. Presentation of bid offers and final rankings - Chris Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration and Neil McAndrews from McAndrews and Associates
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2014, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Presentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding the City of Georgetown Fireworks Ordinance --
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ITEM SUMMARY:
On June 24, 2014, the City Council amended Chapter 8.08 of the City Ordinances to reflect changes to the
Fireworks ordinance. A redline copy of the amended Ordinance has been included for your reference.
It is important to note that, during the first reading, much of the conversation involved the prohibition and/or
allowance of “novelty” items, such as sparklers. During the second reading, the discussion largely focused on
the language associated with storage and/or possession of fireworks.
Ultimately, the decision was made, by council majority, to permit storage and/or possession of fireworks.
This resulted in a perceived allowance of unlimited storage/possession and created a challenge for the Fire
Chief and/or Police Chief to enforce regulations that have statewide acceptance.
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss this issue in greater detail and evaluate options, on amended
language, that meets the original intent of Council and the safety of the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
TBD – Indirect fire loss and/or injury
SUBMITTED BY:
John Sullivan, Fire Chief
ATTACHMENTS:
Redline Ordinance Chapter 8.08
2013 Fireworks Report
Fireworks PowerPoint Presentation
HB 01813F
Cover Memo
Item # A
Exhibit A
Chapter 8.08 Fireworks
Sec. 8.08.010. Definitions.
"Fireworks" means and includes any firecrackers, cannon crackers, skyrockets,
torpedoes, Roman candles, sparklers, squibs, fire balloons, star shells, gerbs, or any
other substance in whatever combination by any designated name intended for use in
obtaining visible or audible pyrotechnic display and includes all articles or substances
within the commonly accepted meaning of fireworks, whether specifically designated and
defined in this chapter or not.
“Unpackaged, opened fireworks” means fireworks not in their original wrapping or
where the original wrapping has been broken.
“Passenger area,” means the area of the motor vehicle designed for the seating
of the operator and passengers of the vehicle. The term does not include:
(1) A locked glove compartment or similar locked storage area;
(2) The trunk of the vehicle; or
(3) The area behind the last upright seat of a vehicle that does not have a trunk.
Sec. 8.08.020. Prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble, store, transport, receive,
keep, sell, offer to sell, possess, use, discharge, cause to be discharged, ignite,
detonate, fire or otherwise set in action any fireworks of any description within the
corporate limits of the city or within five thousand (5,000) feet outside the city limits,
except under special permit as authorized in the Fire Prevention Code. This section
shall not apply within any portion of such five thousand foot area which is contained
within the territory of another municipality.
Sec. 8.08.030. Declared public nuisance
The presence of any fireworksAny conduct prohibited in Section 8.08.020 within
the jurisdiction of the City in violation of this chapter is declared to be a nuisance
pursuant to Local Government Code, Section 217.042.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # A
Sec. 8.08.040. Enforcement.
A. The Fire Chief or chief of police or their designee(s) are hereby authorized to enforce
this Chapter and to seize, take, remove, or caused to be removed at the expense of
the owner, any fireworks offered for sale, stored, held, possessed or discharged by
any person in violation of this Chapter..
B. Notwithstanding any penal provision of this chapter, the City Attorney is authorized to
file suit on behalf of the City or the Fire Chief, or designee, for injunctive relief as may
be necessary to prevent unlawful storage, transportation, keeping or use of
fireworksany conduct prohibited in Section 8.08.020 within the jurisdiction of the City
and to aid the Fire Chief, or designee, in the discharge of their duties and to
particularly prevent any person from interfering with the seizure and destruction of
such unpackaged, open fireworks, but it shall not be necessary to obtain any such
injunctive relief as a prerequisite to such seizure and destruction.
C. The Fire Chief, or designee, is authorized to enter any building where the unlawful
presence of fireworksany conduct prohibited in Section 8.08.020 is suspected in
order to inspect the same for the presence of such fireworksprohibited conduct, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 2.32.040. and within the provisions of
applicable state and federal law for right of entry upon the premises for the purpose
of inspection and examination of violations pursuant to the requirements of this Code
Sec. 8.08.050. Exceptions.
This chapter does not apply to signal flares and torpedoes of the type and kind
commonly used by any railroad and which signal flares and torpedoes are received by
and stored or transported by any railroad for use in railroad operations.
Sec. 8.08.070. Violation—Penalty.
A. Any person who manufactures, assembles, stores, transports, receives, keeps, sells,
offers for sale, possesses, uses, discharges, causes to be discharged, ignites,
detonates, fires, or otherwise sets in action any fireworks shall be fined as provided
in Section 1.08.010 for each offense. If the fireworks are separately wrapped or
packaged, doing any act prohibited by, or omitting to do any act required by, this
chapter shall be a separate offense as to each such separately wrapped or
separately packaged firework. Each day that a violation of this chapter continues with
respect to any package of fireworks constitutes a separate offense.
B. Any parent or guardian of any minor child below the age of 1417 who permits or
allows such minor child to use, discharge, ignite, detonate, fire or otherwise set in
action any fireworks shall be fined as provided in Section 1.08.010.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # A
Sec. 8.08.010. Affirmative Defenses.
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a charge of possession of fireworks
under this chapter if:
(1) The defendant was operating or was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was
being operated in a public place; and
(2) The fireworks were not in the passenger area of the motor vehicle.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # A
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 45
Item # A
1
Executive Summary
This report provides the results of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) staff’s analysis of data on nonoccupational, fireworks-related deaths and injuries
during calendar year 2013. The report also includes a summary of CPSC staff’s
enforcement activities during 2013.
Staff obtained information on fireworks-related deaths from news clippings and
other sources in the CPSC’s Injury and Potential Injury Incident file (IPII) and the
CPSC’s Death Certificate File. Staff estimated fireworks-related injuries treated in
hospital emergency departments from CPSC’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (NEISS). CPSC staff conducted a special study of nonoccupational fireworks-
related injuries occurring between June 21, 2013 and July 21, 2013. The special study
included collection and analysis of more detailed incident information, such as the type of
injury, the fireworks involved, and the characteristics of the victim and the incident
scenario. About 65 percent of the estimated annual fireworks-related, emergency
department-treated injuries for 2013 occurred during that period.
Highlights of the report follow:
Deaths and Injuries
CPSC staff received reports of eight nonoccupational fireworks-related deaths
occurring in six incidents during 2013. In the first incident, two victims—a 33-
year-old male and a 49-year-old female—succumbed to a building fire that was
ignited by fireworks powder. In the second incident, a 35-year-old male suffered
massive trauma to his head when a 1.3G device1 exploded in his face; the victim
died from his injuries 5 days later. In the third incident, a 54-year-old male
perished when he held a launching tube in his hand at chest level and ignited an
altered mortar shell. The explosion blew the base out of the tube and impacted the
victim’s chest. In the fourth incident, another two victims—a 34-year-old male
and a 35-year-old female—died in a house fire that was sparked by a cigarette and
fireworks. In the fifth incident, a 46-year-old male was fatally injured when an
explosion occurred in a trailer where he was making illegal fireworks. In the
sixth incident, a 42-year-old male died of an explosive injury to his head when he
leaned over to light a firework with a cigarette. Reporting of fireworks-related
deaths for 2013 is not complete, and the number of deaths in 2013 should be
considered a minimum.
Fireworks were involved in an estimated 11,400 injuries treated in U.S. hospital
emergency departments during calendar year 2013 (95 percent confidence interval
8,100–14,600).
1 A 1.3G aerial fireworks device is a professional display firework device that requires a license from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 45
Item # A
2
There is not a statistically significant trend in estimated emergency department-
treated injuries from 1998 to 2013.
An estimated 7,400 fireworks-related injuries (or 65 percent of the total estimated
fireworks-related injuries in 2013) were treated in U.S. hospital emergency
departments during the 1-month special study period between June 21, 2013 and
July 21, 2013 (95 percent confidence interval 4,900–9,900).
Results from the 2013 special study
Of the fireworks-related injuries sustained, 57 percent were to males, and 43
percent were to females.
Children younger than 15 years of age accounted for approximately 40 percent of
the estimated 2013 injuries. More than half of the estimated emergency
department-treated, fireworks-related injuries were to individuals younger than 20
years of age.
There were an estimated 2,300 emergency department-treated injuries associated
with sparklers and 300 with bottle rockets.
There were an estimated 800 emergency department-treated injuries associated
with firecrackers. Of these, an estimated 28 percent were associated with small
firecrackers, an estimated 19 percent with illegal firecrackers, and an estimated 53
percent with firecrackers for which there was no specific information.
The parts of the body most often injured were hands and fingers (an estimated 36
percent); head, face, and ears (an estimated 22 percent); eyes (an estimated 16
percent); and legs (an estimated 14 percent).
Sixty-two percent of the emergency department-treated injuries were burns.
Burns were the most common injury to all parts of the body, except the eyes,
where contusions, lacerations, and foreign bodies in the eyes occurred more
frequently.
Approximately 90 percent of the victims were treated at the hospital emergency
department and then released. An estimated 8 percent of patients were treated and
transferred to another hospital or admitted to the hospital.
CPSC staff conducted telephone follow-up investigations of fireworks-related
injuries that were reported at NEISS hospital emergency departments during the 2013
special study period and that met certain criteria. Many of these cases were selected for
follow-up interviews because they involved potentially serious injuries and/or hospital
admissions. Cases were also selected to clarify information in the hospital record about
the incident scenario or fireworks type. Thirty-nine telephone interviews were
completed. After review, four of these cases were determined to be out of scope because
the victim in one incident was injured by a punk—a stick used to ignite fireworks, and
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 45
Item # A
3
the victims in the other three incidents were treated for injuries or illnesses that were not
related to fireworks.
A review of data from telephone follow-up investigations of the 35 in-scope
incidents showed that most injuries were associated with misuse or malfunctions of
fireworks. Misuse included: igniting fireworks too close to someone or something;
lighting fireworks in one’s hand; setting off fireworks improperly; and playing with lit or
used fireworks. Typical malfunctions included: errant flight paths; tip-over incidents;
early or late ignitions; debris; and blowouts. According to the injury investigation
reports, most victims recovered from their injuries or were expected to recover
completely. However, several victims reported that their injuries might be long term.
Enforcement Activities
During 2013, CPSC’s Office of Compliance and Field Operations continued to
work closely with other federal agencies to conduct surveillance on imported fireworks
and to enforce the provisions of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).
Examples of these activities include:
CPSC staff worked with the U.S. Department of Justice on cases involving
companies and/or individuals that sold chemicals and components used to make
illegal fireworks. It remains a priority for CPSC staff to investigate the sale of
kits and components used to make illegal and dangerous explosive devices, such
as M-80s and Quarter Sticks. CPSC staff continues to take an active role with
industry to facilitate adequate understanding of the regulations and to maintain an
open dialogue, if any issues should arise.
The Compliance and Field Operations staff, in cooperation with U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), continues to conduct surveillance on imported shipments
of consumer fireworks. With assistance from CBP, CPSC staff selectively
sampled and tested shipments of imported fireworks in fiscal year 2013, for
compliance with the FHSA. Approximately 33 percent of the selected and tested
shipments were found to contain fireworks that were noncompliant. The majority
of violations centered on overloaded report composition. CPSC staff also found
an increase in violations for the fuse burn time requirement under 16 C.F.R. §
1507.3(a)(2). CPSC staff requested corrective action on these noncompliant
fireworks; and in most cases, firms voluntarily destroyed the noncompliant
fireworks. Because CPSC’s port surveillance program stops noncompliant
fireworks at import, fewer violative and dangerous imported fireworks are
reaching retail stores and roadside stands.
According to 2013 statistics from the U.S. International Trade Commission,
China manufactures more than 98 percent of all fireworks imported into the United
States. Recognizing the global economy, CPSC staff continues to work with our
counterpart in China, the General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine (AQSIQ).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 45
Item # A
4
1. Introduction
This report describes injuries and deaths during calendar year 2013, associated
with fireworks devices, as well as kits and components used to manufacture illegal
fireworks. The report also describes CPSC staff’s enforcement activities for 2013.
Reports for earlier years in this series can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-
-Statistics/Fuel-Lighters-and-Fireworks1/Fuel-Lighters-and-Fireworks-Reports/Injury-
Statistics/.
This report is organized into seven sections. Section 1 contains a description of
the data and statistical methods used in this analysis. Section 2 summarizes the 2013
fireworks incidents that resulted in deaths. Section 3 provides an annual estimate of
fireworks-related, emergency department-treated injuries for the United States in 2013,
and compares that estimate with the estimated injuries for previous years. Section 4
analyzes emergency department-treated, fireworks-related injuries occurring during the
month around July 4, 2013. Section 5 summarizes the telephone in-depth investigations
of a subsample of the injuries during that period. Section 6 describes enforcement
activities of CPSC’s Office of Compliance and Field Operations during 2013. The report
concludes with a summary of the findings in Section 7. Appendix A presents a table on
the relationship between fireworks-related injuries and fireworks imports between 1998
and 2013. Appendix B contains more detail on the completed telephone investigations.
Sources of Information
Information on nonoccupational fireworks-related deaths occurring during 2013
was obtained from the CPSC’s Injury and Potential Injury Incident file (IPII) and the
CPSC’s Death Certificate File. Entries in IPII come from a variety of sources, such as
newspaper articles, consumer complaints, lawyer referrals, medical examiners, and other
government agencies. CPSC staff from the Office of Compliance and Field Operations
conducted in-depth investigations of the deaths. The purpose of these investigations was
to determine the types of fireworks involved in the incidents and the circumstances that
led to the fatal injuries.
Because the data in IPII are based on voluntary reports, and because it can take
more than 2 years to receive all death certificates from the various states to complete the
Death Certificate File, neither data source can be considered complete for the number of
2012 or 2013 fireworks-related deaths at the time this report was prepared. As a result,
the number of deaths should be considered a minimum. Staff updates the number of
deaths for previous years when reports are received. Total deaths for previous years may
not coincide with the numbers in reports for earlier years because of these updates.
The source of information on nonoccupational, emergency department-treated
fireworks-related injuries is the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 45
Item # A
5
NEISS is a probability sample of U.S. hospitals with emergency departments.2 Injury
information is taken from the emergency department record. This information includes
the victim’s age and sex, the place where the injury occurred, the emergency department
diagnosis, the body part injured, and the consumer product(s) associated with the injury.
The information is supplemented by a 160-character narrative that often contains a brief
description of how the injury occurred.
To supplement the information available in the NEISS record, every year, during
the month around July 4, CPSC staff conducts a special study of fireworks-related
injuries. Staff focuses its efforts on fireworks incidents during this period because in
most years, about two-thirds to three-quarters of the annual injuries occur then. During
this period, hospital emergency department staffs show patients pictures of different types
of fireworks to help them identify the type of fireworks device associated with their
injuries. The type of fireworks involved in the incident is written into the NEISS
narrative. In 2013, the special study period lasted from June 21 to July 21.
After reading the incident case records, including the narrative description of the
fireworks device and the incident scenario, CPSC staff may assign a case for telephone
investigation. Cases are usually selected because they involve the most serious injuries
and/or hospital admissions. Serious injuries include: eye injuries, finger and hand
amputations, and head injuries. Cases also may be assigned to obtain more information
about the incident than what is reported in the NEISS narrative. In most years, phone
interviewers are able to collect information for one-third to one-half of the cases
assigned. Information on the final status of the telephone interviews conducted during
the 2013 special study is found in Section 5 and Appendix B of this report.
In the telephone investigations, information is requested directly from the victim
(or the victim’s parent, if the victim is a minor) about the type of fireworks involved,
where the fireworks were obtained, how the injury occurred, and the medical treatment
and prognosis. When the fireworks device reported in the telephone investigation is
different from what is reported in the NEISS emergency department record, the device
reported in the telephone investigation is used in the data for this report.
As a result of this investigative process, there are three different levels of
information that may be available about a fireworks-related injury case. For the cases
that occur before or after the July 4 special study period, the NEISS record is almost
always the only source of information. Many NEISS records collected outside the special
study period do not specify the type of fireworks involved in the incident. During the
special study period, more information is available for analysis because the NEISS record
collected by the emergency department usually contains the type of fireworks and
additional details on the incident scenario. The most information is available for the
subset of the special study cases where staff conducted telephone investigations. These
2 For a description of NEISS, including the revised sampling frame, see Kessler and Schroeder (1998). Procedures
used for variance and confidence interval calculations and adjustments for the sampling frame change that occurred in
1997 are found in Marker, Lo, Brick, and Davis (1999). SAS® statistical software for trend and confidence interval
estimation is documented in Schroeder (2000). SAS® is a product of the SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 45
Item # A
6
different levels of information about injuries correspond to different analyses in the
report, as follows:
Estimated national number of fireworks-related, emergency department-treated
injuries. This estimate is made using NEISS cases for the entire year, from
records where fireworks were specified as one of the consumer products involved.
For cases outside the special study period, as noted above, there is usually no
information on the fireworks type, and limited information on the incident
scenario is available. Consequently, there is not enough information to determine
the role played by the fireworks in the incident. This means that the annual injury
estimate includes a small number of cases in which the fireworks device was not
lit, or no attempt was made to light the device. Calculating the annual estimates
without removing these cases makes the estimates comparable to previous years.3
Detailed analyses of injury patterns. The tables in this report that describe
fireworks type, body part injured, diagnosis, age and sex of injured people, and
other such information, are based on the special study period only. Fireworks-
type information is taken from the telephone investigation or the NEISS comment
field when there was no telephone investigation. When computing estimates for
the special study period, staff does not include cases in which the fireworks
device was not lit or no attempt was made to light the device.
Information from telephone investigations. Individual case injury descriptions
and medical prognosis information from the telephone investigations are listed in
Appendix B. These listings also exclude cases in which the fireworks device was
not lit or no attempt was made to light the device. These cases represent a sample
of some of the most serious fireworks-related injuries and may not be
representative of typical emergency department-treated, fireworks-related injuries.
Statistical Methods
Injuries reported by hospitals in the NEISS sample were weighted by the NEISS
probability-based sampling weights to develop an estimate of total U.S. emergency
department-treated, fireworks-related injuries for the year and for the special study month
around July 4. Confidence intervals were estimated, and other statistics were calculated
using computer programs that were written to take into account the sampling design.4
Estimated injuries are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries. Estimates of fewer than 50
injuries are shown with an asterisk (*). Percentages are calculated from the actual
estimates. Percentages may not add to subtotals or to the total in the tables or figures,
due to rounding.
3 The only exception to the practice of including all of the cases occurred in 2003, when nine cases representing an
estimated 150 emergency department-treated injuries were excluded from the annual injury estimates. These cases
resulted from a nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI, which also caused 100 deaths. For details see Greene and Joholske
(2004).
4 See Schroeder (2000).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 45
Item # A
7
This report also contains a number of detailed tables about fireworks-related
injuries during the special study period. National estimates in these tables were also
made using the sampling weights. To avoid cluttering the tables, confidence intervals are
not included. Because the estimates are based on subsets of the data, they have larger
relative sampling errors (i.e., larger coefficients of variation) than the annual injury
estimate or the special study injury estimate. As a result, interpretation and comparison
of these estimates with each other or with estimates from prior years should be made with
caution. For example, when comparing subsets of the data—such as between injuries
associated with two different types of fireworks, or between two different age groups—it
is difficult to determine how much of the difference between estimates is associated with
sampling variability and how much is attributed to real differences in national injury
totals.
2. Fireworks-Related Deaths for 2013
CPSC has reports of eight nonoccupational, fireworks-related deaths that occurred
during 2013. Reporting of fireworks-related deaths for 2013 is not complete, and the
number of deaths in 2013 should be considered a minimum. Brief descriptions of the
incidents, using wording taken from the incident reports, follow:
Two victims—a 33-year-old male and a 49-year-old female—from Arkansas,
succumbed to a building fire that was ignited by fireworks powder on July 6,
2013. Just before the incident, a witness observed the two victims apparently
removing the powder from mortar shells and placing the powder in a pile to fill
other mortars. Both victims were smoking cigarettes at the time, according to the
witness. The fire destroyed the building and the small living quarters where the
victims were living.
On July 4, 2013, a 35-year-old male from Michigan suffered massive trauma to
his head when a 1.3G firework (display firework) exploded in his face.
According to a witness, the victim bent over the firework just before the
explosion; it is not clear whether the victim was attempting to check the firework
or light the firework. The victim was rushed to a hospital and later placed on life
support. The victim died from his injuries 5 days later.
A 54-year-old male from South Carolina bought some consumer fireworks on
July 4, 2013. The victim and his son had some beers and started shooting
fireworks on the covered porch of their house. The victim lit a mortar shell but
the shell failed to ignite. The victim slid the “dummy” shell out of the launching
tube and cut a hole into the shell using a pocket knife. Then the victim stuffed the
fuse into the hole in the “dummy” shell and inserted the shell into the tube. The
victim ignited the new fuse and held the tube at chest level in his hand. The
firework exploded, blowing the base out of the tube and impacting the victim in
the chest. The victim sustained a 2-inch hole in his chest and died en route to a
hospital.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 45
Item # A
8
On June 3, 2013, two victims from Virginia—a 34-year-old male and a 35-year-
old female—died in a house fire that was sparked by a cigarette and fireworks.
According to the medical examiner’s report, the male victim was making larger
fireworks in his home, and a cigarette ignited the fireworks, causing the explosion
and fire.
On June, 30, 2013, a 46-year-old male from Virginia was fatally injured after an
explosion occurred in a trailer located next to his home. Officials from the
sheriff’s department determined that the victim had been working on fireworks
inside the trailer. The victim was known to manufacture his own fireworks using
pre-made fireworks, fireworks components, and chemicals. The victim was
airlifted to a hospital and died of thermal injuries later that day. The officials
found and seized a large amount of commercial-grade fireworks and black
powder in the trailer.
A 42-year-old male from Virginia was found dead on a beach on July 7, 2013.
The victim suffered an explosive injury to his head. The police officer found a
large PVC pipe that was placed 11 inches into the sand next to the victim, as well
as a video camera that was set up near the pipe. Based on the video recorded on
that camera, the victim leaned over the pipe with his head and reached around the
fireworks device to light the fuse with a cigarette that he was smoking. The video
shows that the device exploded, and the screen went blank for the duration of the
recording. The death was accidental, according to the medical examiner’s report.
Including the eight deaths described above, CPSC staff has reports of 94
fireworks-related deaths between 2000 and 2013, for an average of 6.7 deaths per year.5
5 See previous reports in this series (e.g., the report for 2012: Tu and Granados (2013)). In the most recent 3 years, the
number of deaths included four deaths in 2010, five deaths in 2011, and six deaths in 2012.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 45
Item # A
9
3. National Injury Estimates for 2013
Table 1 and Figure 1 present the estimated number of non-occupational,
fireworks-related injuries that were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments
between 1998 and 2013.
Table 1
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries: 1998–2013
Year Estimated Injuries Injuries per 100,000 People
2013 11,400 3.6
2012 8,700 2.8
2011 9,600 3.1
2010 8,600 2.8
2009 8,800 2.9
2008 7,000 2.3
2007 9,800 3.3
2006 9,200 3.1
2005 10,800 3.7
2004 9,600 3.3
2003 9,300 3.2
2002 8,800 3.1
2001 9,500 3.3
2000 11,000 3.9
1999 8,500 3.1
1998 8,500 3.1
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The estimate for 2003 excludes an estimated 150
emergency department-treated injuries following the nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI. Population estimates for
2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 are from Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions,
States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 (NST-EST2013-01), and estimates for 2000 to 2009 are from
Table 1. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1,
2000 to July 1, 2009 (NST-EST2009-01). Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates from earlier years are
available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/1990s/tables/nat-agesex.txt.
In calendar year 2013, there were an estimated 11,400 fireworks-related,
emergency department-treated injuries (95 percent confidence interval 8,100–14,600).
There were an estimated 8,700 injuries in 2012. The difference between the injury
estimates for 2013 and 2012 is statistically significant.
Figure 1 shows that the highest estimated number of annual fireworks-related
injuries was 11,400 in 2013, followed by 11,000 estimated injuries in 2000, and 10,800
estimated injuries in 2005. For the other years, the estimated number of injuries
fluctuated between 7,000 and 9,800. In 2008, the estimated number of fireworks-related
injuries was 7,000, which was the lowest between 1998 and 2013. There is not a
Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 45
Item # A
10
statistically significant trend detected in the fireworks-related injury estimates from 1998
to 2013.6
Figure 1
Estimated Fireworks-Related, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries
1998–2013
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Appendix A contains a table showing estimated fireworks-related injuries and
fireworks imports between 1998 and 2013.
6 For details on the method to test a trend that incorporates the sampling design, see Schroeder (2000) and Marker et al.
(1999).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 45
Item # A
11
4. Injury Estimates for the 2013 Special Study: Detailed Analysis of Injury Patterns
The injury analysis in this section presents the results of the 2013 special study of
fireworks-related injuries that were treated in hospital emergency departments between
June 21, 2013 and July 21, 2013. During this period, there were an estimated 7,400
fireworks-related injuries (95 percent confidence interval 4,900–9,900), accounting for 65
percent of the total estimated fireworks-related injuries for the year, which is statistically
different from the estimated 5,200 fireworks-related injuries in the 2012 special study
period.
The remainder of this section provides the estimated fireworks-related injuries
from this period, broken down by fireworks device type, victims’ demographics, injury
diagnosis, and body parts injured.
Fireworks Device Types and Estimated Injuries
Table 2 shows the estimated number and percent of emergency department-
treated injuries by type of fireworks device during the special study period of June 21,
2013 to July 21, 2013.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 45
Item # A
12
Table 2
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
By Type of Fireworks Device
June 21–July 21, 2013
Fireworks Device Type
Estimated Injuries
Percent
Total 7,400 100
All Firecrackers 800 11
Small 200 3
Illegal 200 2
Unspecified 400 6
All Rockets 800 11
Bottle Rockets 300 4
Other Rockets 500 7
All Other Devices 3,700 50
Sparklers 2,300 31
Fountains 200 3
Novelties 100 2
Multiple Tube 200 3
Reloadable Shells 500 6
Roman Candles 400 6
Homemade/Altered 200 2
Public Display 100 2
Unspecified 1,800 24
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Based on 179 NEISS emergency department-reported
injuries between June 21, 2013 and July 21, 2013, and supplemented by 35 completed In-Depth Investigations (IDIs).
Fireworks types are obtained from the IDI, when available; otherwise, fireworks types are identified from information
in victims’ reports to emergency department staff that were contained in the NEISS narrative. Illegal firecrackers
include M-80s, M-1000s, Quarter Sticks, and other firecrackers that are banned under the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act (FHSA) (16 C.F.R. § 1500.17). Fireworks that may be illegal under state and local regulations are not
listed as illegal, unless they violate the FHSA. Subtotal estimates are presented below the estimates for firework type.
Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries. Percentages are calculated from the actual estimates, and they may
not add to subtotals or the total due to rounding.
As shown in Table 2, sparklers accounted for an estimated 2,300 emergency
department-treated injuries, which represents 31 percent of the total fireworks-related
injuries during the special study period. Firecrackers were associated with 800 estimated
injuries, 11 percent of the total. Small firecrackers were involved in 200 injuries. The
estimate for illegal firecracker-related injuries was 200, as well. However, some of the
estimated 400 unspecified firecracker-related injuries, and some of the estimated 1,800
unspecified fireworks-related injuries also may have involved illegal firecrackers.
Rockets were involved in 800 estimated injuries, 11 percent of the total. Among the
injuries from rockets, 300 injuries were related to bottle rockets. Reloadable shells were
Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 45
Item # A
13
associated with 500 estimated injuries, 6 percent of the total. Roman candles accounted
for 400 injuries, 6 percent of the total estimated fireworks-related injuries during the
special study period.
Fountains, multiple tube devices, novelty fireworks, public display fireworks, and
homemade or altered devices each accounted for 3 percent or less of the estimated
injuries in the special study. This is consistent with previous years. While public
display, homemade, or altered devices are not associated with a large number of injuries,
the larger load in these devices makes them involved disproportionately in serious
injuries and deaths.
Gender and Age of Injured Persons
Some 4,200 of the estimated fireworks-related injuries were to males,
representing 57 percent of the total injuries. Males experienced an estimated 2.7
fireworks-related, emergency department-treated injuries per 100,000 individuals during
the special study period. Females, with an estimated 3,200 emergency department-
treated injuries, had 2 injuries per 100,000 people. Figure 2 shows the distribution of
estimated fireworks-related injuries by gender.
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Children and young adults under age 20 constituted 51 percent of the fireworks-
related injuries. Children under 5 years old experienced an estimated 1,000 injuries (14
percent of all fireworks-related injuries during the special study period), as shown in
Figure 3 and Table 3. Children in the 5- to 14-year-old age group experienced an
estimated 1,900 injuries (26 percent of all fireworks-related injuries). Breaking down
that age group further, children 5 to 9 years old had an estimated 900 injuries and
Male
57%
Female
43%
Figure 2
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
by Gender
Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 45
Item # A
14
children 10 to 14 years old accounted for 1,000 injuries. In the aggregate, children under
15 years old accounted for 40 percent of the estimated fireworks-related injuries.
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The detailed breakdown by age and gender is shown in Table 3. The
concentration of injuries among males and people under 25 has been typical of fireworks-
related injuries for many years.
0-4
14%
5-9
13%
10-14
13%
15-19
11%
20-24
8%
25-44
33%
45-64
5%
65+
3%
Figure 3
Percentage of Fireworks-Related Injuries
by Age Group
Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 45
Item # A
15
Table 3
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
By Age and Gender
June 21–July 21, 2013
Age Group Total Per 100,000
People Male Female
Total 7,400 2.4 4,200 3,200
0–4 1000 5.0 500 500
5–14 1,900 4.7 1,100 800
5–9 900 4.6 500 400
10–14 1,000 4.8 600 400
15–24 1,400 3.3 800 600
15–19 800 3.8 600 200
20–24 600 2.7 200 400
25–44 2,500 3.0 1,300 1,200
45–64 400 0.4 300 100
65 + 200 0.5 200 *
Sources: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for
Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios:
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Release Date: June 2013. The oldest
victim was 72 years old. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries. Age subcategory estimates may not sum to
the category total due to rounding. Estimates of fewer than 50 injuries and per capita injury rates based on such
estimates are denoted with an asterisk (*).
When considering per capita injury rates, children had higher estimated rates of
injury than the other age groups during the 2013 special study period. Children younger
than 5 years of age had the highest estimated per capita injury rate at 5 injuries per
100,000 population. This was followed by children 10 to 14 years old at 4.8 injuries per
100,000 people and children 5 to 9 years old at 4.6 injuries per 100,000 people.
Age and Gender of the Injured Persons by Type of Fireworks Device
Table 4 shows the ages of those injured by the type of fireworks device associated
with the injury. For children under 5 years old, sparklers (79 percent) and firecrackers
(11 percent) accounted for 90 percent of the total estimated injuries for that specific age
group.7
7 The percentages are calculated from the actual injury estimates.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 45
Item # A
16
No clear relationship between age and fireworks type is suggested by the data in
Table 4. It is worth noting that the number of estimated injuries does not completely
represent the usage pattern because victims are often injured by fireworks used by other
people. This is especially true for rockets and aerial shells (e.g., fountains, multiple tube,
and reloadable devices), which can injure people located some distance away from where
the fireworks are launched.
Table 4
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
By Device Type and Age Group
June 21–July 21, 2013
Age Group
Fireworks Type Total 0–4 5–14 15–24 25–44 45–64 65+
Total 7,400 1,000 1,900
1,400 2,500 400 200
All Firecrackers 800 100 200 200 200 * *
Small 200 * 200 * * * *
Illegal 200 * * 100 * * *
Unspecified 400 100 * 100 200 * *
All Rockets 800 * 300 100 300 100 100
Bottle Rockets 300 * 300 * * * *
Other Rockets 500 * * 100 200 100 100
Other Devices 3,700 800 900 800 1,000 200 *
Sparklers 2,300 800 600 400 500 100 *
Fountains 200 * * 100 100 * *
Novelties 100 * 100 * 100 * *
Multiple Tube 200 * * 100 * * *
Reloadable 500 * 100 100 100 100 *
Roman Candles 400 * 100 100 100 * *
Homemade/Altered 200 * * 100 100 * *
Public Display 100 * * 100 * * *
Unspecified 1,800 100 500 200 900 * 100
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries.
Estimated injuries may not sum to subtotals or totals due to rounding. Estimates of fewer than 50 injuries are denoted
with an asterisk (*).
As shown previously in Figure 2, males accounted for 57 percent of the estimated
fireworks-related injuries, and females comprised 43 percent. Males accounted for a
Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 45
Item # A
17
majority of the estimated injuries from firecrackers, all rockets, fountains, Roman
candles, and unspecified devices. Furthermore, males were associated with all injuries
from novelty and homemade devices. Females were involved in more estimated injuries
from sparklers, multiple tube devices, reloadable devices, and public display fireworks.
Body Region Injured and Injury Diagnosis
Figure 4 presents the distribution of estimated emergency department-treated
injuries by the specific parts of the body to which the injury occurred. Hands and fingers,
with an estimated 2,600 injuries, accounted for 36 percent of the total injuries. These
were followed by an estimated 1,600 injuries to the head/face/ear region (22 percent);
1,200 eye injuries (16 percent); 1,100 leg injuries (14 percent); 500 injuries to the
trunk/other category (7 percent); and 300 arm injuries (5 percent).
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Figure 5 shows the diagnoses of the estimated injuries associated with fireworks
devices. Burns, with 4,600 estimated injuries (62 percent), were the most frequent injury
diagnosis. Contusions and lacerations were associated with 1,600 estimated injuries (22
percent), and fractures and sprains were associated with 300 estimated injuries (4
percent). The remaining 1,000 estimated injuries (13 percent) were attributed to other
diagnoses.8
8 Percentages are calculated from actual injury estimates and do not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Arm
5%
Eye
16%
Head/Face/Ear
22%
Hand/Finger
36%
Leg
14%
Trunk/Other
7%
Figure 4
Body Regions Injured
in Fireworks-Related Incidents
Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 45
Item # A
18
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission . Percentages do not sum to 100 due to
rounding.
The most frequent injuries to the head, face, hands, fingers, legs, arms, and trunk
were burns. Most eye injuries were contusions, lacerations, and other diagnoses that
included foreign bodies in the eye. This detail is shown in Table 5.
Burns
62% Contusions and
Lacerations
22%
Fractures and
Sprains
4%
Other
13%
Figure 5
Type of Injuries
in Fireworks-Related Incidents
Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 45
Item # A
19
Table 5
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
By Body Region and Diagnosis
June 21–July 21, 2013
Diagnosis
Body Region Total Burns Contusions Lacerations Fractures Sprains Other Diagnoses
Total 7,400 4,600 1,600 300 1,000
Arm 300 300 * * *
Eye 1,200 300 600 * 300
Head/Face/Ear 1,600 800 400 100 300
Hand/Finger 2,600 2,000 300 200 200
Leg 1,100
1,100
800 200 * 100
Trunk/Other 500 400 100 * 100
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Fractures and sprains also include dislocations. Other
diagnoses include all other injury categories. Arm includes NEISS codes for upper arm, elbow, lower arm, shoulder,
and wrist. Head/Face/Ear regions include eyelid, eye area, nose, neck, and mouth but not the eyeball. Leg includes
upper leg, knee, lower leg, ankle, foot, and toe. Trunk/other regions include chest, abdomen, pubic region, all parts of
body, internal, and 25–50 percent of body. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries. Estimated injuries may
not sum to subtotals or totals due to rounding. Estimates of fewer than 50 injuries are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Type of Fireworks Device and Body Region Injured
Table 6 presents estimated injuries by the type of fireworks device and body
region injured.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 45
Item # A
20
Table 6
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries
By Type of Fireworks Device and Body Region Injured
June 21–July 21, 2013
Region of the Body Injured
Fireworks Type Total Arm Eye Head/Face/Ear Hand/Finger Leg Trunk/Other
Total 7,400 300 1,200 1,600 2,600 1,100 500
All Firecrackers 800 * * 200 500 * *
Small 200 * * 100 100 * *
Illegal 200 * * * 100 * *
Unspecified 400 * * 100 300 * *
All Rockets 800 * 100 300 100 200 100
Bottle Rockets 300 * 100 100 * 100 *
Other Rockets 500 * * 300 100 100 100
Other Devices 3,700 * 700 500 1,700 700 200
Sparklers 2,300 * 400 200 1,300 300 100
Fountains 200 * * * 100 * 100
Novelties 100 * * * 100 * *
Multiple Tube 200 * * 100 * * *
Reloadable 500 * * 100 * 300 *
Roman Candles 400 * 200 100 100 * *
Homemade/Altered 200 * * 100 * * 100
Public Display 100 * 100 * * * *
Unspecified 1,800 300 200 600 300 200 100
Source: NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 injuries. Estimated injuries may not sum
to subtotals or totals due to rounding. Estimates of fewer than 50 injuries are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 45
Item # A
21
Fifty-eight percent of the estimated sparkler injuries involved the hands and
fingers. Fireworks devices that fly or emit sparks were primarily associated with eye,
head, and face injuries. These included sparklers, rockets, Roman candles, and public
display fireworks.
Hospital Treatment
An estimated 91 percent of the victims of fireworks-related injuries were treated
at the emergency department and then released; about 5 percent of victims were treated
and transferred to another hospital; approximately 3 percent were admitted to the
hospital; and the remaining 2 percent of victims left without being seen.9 The treat-and-
release percentage was the same as that for all consumer products in 2013.10
5. Telephone Investigations of Fireworks-Related Injuries
CPSC staff conducted telephone in-depth investigations of some fireworks
incidents that occurred during the 1-month special study period surrounding the 4th of
July holiday (June 21, 2013 to July 21, 2013). Completed telephone investigations
provided more detail about incidents and injuries than the emergency department
information summarized in the narrative in the NEISS record. During the telephone
interview, respondents were asked how the injury occurred (hazard pattern); what
medical care they received following the emergency-department treatment; and what
long-term effects, if any, resulted from their injury. Respondents were also asked
detailed questions about the fireworks involved in the incident, including their type,
markings, and where they were obtained.
Cases were selected for telephone investigations based on the information
provided in the NEISS narrative and coded information in the NEISS records. The
selection criteria included: (1) unusual hazard patterns, (2) severity of the injury, and (3)
lack of clear information in the narrative about the type of fireworks associated with the
injury. For these reasons, and because many victims did not respond, the telephone
investigation cases cannot be considered typical of fireworks-related injuries.
From the 199 emergency department-treated, fireworks-related injuries during the
special study period, staff selected 111 cases for telephone investigations, of which 35
were completed and determined to be in scope; four were completed and found to be out
of scope; and 72 were incomplete. Table 7 shows the final status of these investigations,
including the reasons why some investigations were incomplete.
9 Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
10For all injuries in 2013, 91 percent of patients were treated and released; 1 percent was transferred to other hospitals;
6 percent were admitted to the hospital; and 2 percent had other dispositions, including left hospital without being seen,
held for observation, or dead on arrival.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 45
Item # A
22
Table 7
Final Status of Telephone Investigations
Final Case Status Number of Cases Percent
Total Assigned 111 100
Completed Investigation 39 35
In Scope 35 32
Out of Scope 4 4
Incomplete Investigations 72 65
Failed to Reach Patient 37 33
Victim Name Not Provided by Hospital 20 18
Victim Refused to Cooperate 15 14
Note: Percentages may not add to subtotals or the total due to rounding.
Four cases were found to be out of scope after receiving information in the
telephone investigation. Of these four out-of- scope incidents, the victim in one case was
injured by a punk (a stick used for lighting a firework fuse), and the victims in the other
three cases were treated for injuries or illnesses that were not related to fireworks. Short
descriptions of the remaining 35 completed cases are found in Appendix B. The cases
are organized in order of emergency department disposition, with Admitted (to the
hospital) first, followed by Treated and Transferred, and Treated and Released. Within
dispositions, cases are in order of increasing age of the victim.
Summary Statistics11
Of the 35 completed cases that were in scope, 19 (54 percent) involved males, and
16 (46 percent) involved females. There were three victims (9 percent) younger than 5
years of age; nine victims (26 percent) ages 5 to 14 years old; 11 victims (31 percent)
ages 15 to 24 years old; eight victims (23 percent) ages 25 to 44 years old; and four
victims (11 percent) ages 45 to 64 years old. As for emergency department dispositions,
one victim (3 percent) was admitted to the hospital; two (6 percent) were treated at the
emergency department and transferred to another hospital; and 32 (91 percent) were
treated and released.
The most frequently used fireworks devices in these incidents were aerial shells,12
which were associated with 14 incidents (40 percent). Roman candles were associated
with five (14 percent) incidents. Sparklers, public display, and unspecified devices each
accounted for four (11 percent) incidents. Firecrackers were associated with three (9
percent) incidents, one (3 percent) was related to large illegal firecrackers, and two (6
11 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
12 The category “aerial shells” includes multiple tube, reloadable mortars and rockets, but excludes bottle rockets.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 45
Item # A
23
percent) were related to firecrackers of unspecified size. Fountain-type fireworks were
involved in one (3 percent) incident.
Note that the distribution of the types of fireworks and the emergency department
dispositions differ from the special study data in Section 4. These differences reflect the
focus in the telephone investigation on more serious injuries and incompletely specified
NEISS records. Note also that only 35 percent of the victims selected for the telephone
investigations responded.
Hazard Patterns
The hazard patterns described below are based on the incident descriptions
obtained during the telephone investigations and summarized in Appendix B. When an
incident has two or more hazard patterns, the hazard pattern most likely to have caused
the injury was selected. Hazard patterns are presented in Table 8, below, and a detailed
description of the incidents follows Table 8. Case numbers refer to the case numbers
shown in Appendix B.
Table 8
Hazard Patterns, as Described in Telephone Investigations of Fireworks-Related Injuries
Hazard Pattern Number of Cases Percent
All 35 100
Misuse 17 49
Igniting Fireworks Too Close to Someone 6 17
Holding (Multiple) Fireworks in Hand 5 14
Being Too Close to Lit Fireworks 2 6
Setting Fireworks Improperly 2 6
Playing with Used Fireworks 1 3
Igniting Fireworks Too Close to a Tree 1 3
Malfunction 17 49
Errant Flight Path 6 17
Tipover 4 11
Early or Late Ignition 4 11
Debris 2 6
Blowout 1 3
Other 1 3
Ash 1 3
Percentages may not add to subtotals or the total due to rounding.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 45
Item # A
24
Misuse (17 victims injured, 49 percent).
Seventeen victims were injured when fireworks were used in ways that departed
from proper usage.
Igniting Fireworks Too Close to Someone.
In Case 5, a 4-year-old male sat by a lake with his mother to watch fireworks set
off by his family. A Roman candle was lit, and debris from the Roman candle
landed on the victim’s forearm. As a reaction, the victim closed his arm and
suffered second-degree burns to his arm.
In Case 6, a 4-year-old female was visiting her paternal grandparents and father at
their home. Her father set off fireworks from the driveway, and the victim was
standing in the garage. One of the fireworks, which might have been a Roman
candle, was ignited, and then fell sideways. The firework exploded and started
shooting sparks toward the garage. Some of the sparks hit the victim. The victim
suffered first-degree burns to the left side of her face.
In Case 18, a 19-year-old female and her friends were watching fireworks on a
dry lake bed. Some of the victim’s friends were lighting their own mortars next to
the victim. One of the mortars exploded in the tube and hit the victim’s leg. The
victim sustained a laceration and burns to her leg.
In Case 24, a 24-year-old female was at an Indian reservation where people were
buying and setting off fireworks and partying. The victim was watching
fireworks when she heard a boom behind her. When she turned around to look,
she was hit in the face by an unspecified firework. The victim sustained second-
degree burns to her face and neck. Her eye was swollen shut for 3 days, and her
eye lashes and brows were burned off.
In Case 27, a 34-year-male watched as a neighbor set off fireworks on a driveway.
Several teenagers did not pay attention and knocked over a box of mortars that
had been lit already. The mortars started to fire towards the victim, and one
mortar exploded in front of him. The victim suffered a corneal abrasion.
In Case 34, a 48-year-old male was standing on a sidewalk to watch fireworks set
off by his neighbor. He looked down, saw a spark, and suddenly was hit in the
face by a mortar. The victim suffered a laceration to his cheek and bruised retina.
Holding (Multiple) Fireworks in Hand.
In Case 3, a 24-year-old male was lighting a sparkler for his son. He had three
sparklers in his hand. When he lit one sparkler, it caught others on fire and they
fired up in his hand. The victim sustained second-degree burns to his hands.
In Case 14, a 13-year-old male held an unspecified firework in his hand and
ignited it. The victim’s mother, who witnessed the incident, said that the victim
held onto the firework for too long and it burned his hand. The victim suffered
first-degree burns to his hand.
In Case 15, another 13-year-old male was walking down a street and found an
unspecified firework. The victim picked it up and lit it. The firework exploded in
his hand. The victim suffered burns to his hand and arm.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 45
Item # A
25
In Case 28, a 34-year-old male was lighting a firework that he described as an M-
80 type. When the fuse sparked, the victim got scared and threw his hand back.
As a result, the victim hit his hand on an old broken porcelain toilet that was used
as a shield in the yard. The victim suffered a laceration to his hand.
In Case 31, a 39-year-old female ignited a fountain-type firework while holding it
in her hand. The firework backfired and burned the victim’s hand.
Being too Close to Lit Fireworks.
In Case 11, a 7-year-old female lit a sparkler, twirled the sparkler around, and
moved it in circles. A piece of spark flew off and went into her e ye. The victim
suffered a corneal abrasion to her eye.
In Case 7, a 5-year-old female and her mother were lighting sparklers on their
driveway. The child’s mother had a sparkler lit, and the victim walked in front of
her. A spark from the sparkler went into the victim’s eye. The victim suffered an
abrasion to her eyeball.
Setting Fireworks Improperly.
In Case 29, a 34-year-old female was in the front yard of a neighbor’s house. A
10-year-old child just laid a bottle rocket on the ground and ignited it. The rocket
went into the victim’s foot, and the victim sustained a puncture wound to her foot.
The victim stated that the child did not set up the rocket correctly by just laying it
on the ground.
In Case 10, a 7-year-old boy was in the back yard where his mother was setting
off fireworks. His mother held a stick rocket in her hand and ignited it. The
rocket went sideways instead of upward. The rocket hit the victim on the side of
his face, causing a first-degree burn.
Playing with Used Fireworks.
In Case 21, a 22-year-female was sitting around a bonfire on the beach. Someone
threw a used Roman candle into the bonfire. The tube of the used Roman candle
exploded, and the plastic on the firework flew off. The plastic hit the victim in
her cheek and caught her hair on fire. The victim suffered a second-degree burn
to her cheek.
Igniting Fireworks Too Close to a Tree.
In Case 33, a 45-year-old male was doing a fireworks show at his house for the 4th
of July. A teenager set off a mortar, but the firework did not shoot high enough
into the sky before it exploded. The firework lit a tree on fire. The victim tried to
put out the fire, but he sustained second-degree burns to both his hands as a result.
Malfunction (17 victims injured, 49 percent).
Seventeen victims were injured when fireworks reportedly malfunctioned. These
injuries resulted from errant flight paths, tipovers, early or late ignitions, debris, and
blowout. Note that some of the errant flight path injuries may have involved tipovers, but
victims may have been unable to observe the tipover if they were far from the fireworks.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 45
Item # A
26
Errant Flight Path.
In Case 2, a 20-year-old male was at a public fireworks display set up by the local
community. A firework was ignited and went “haywire.” The firework went into
the victim’s eye. The victim sustained a blunt trauma to his eye. At least four
other people were injured in the same incident.
In Case 4, a 17-month-old baby girl was sitting on her mother’s lap watching
fireworks in the front yard. One of the fireworks came out of the sky and landed
on the baby’s legs. The victim suffered a second-degree burn to her leg.
In Case 17, a 17-year-old female was watching fireworks set off by a neighbor.
When a multiple-shot firework went off, it shot sideways instead of up in the air.
The firework hit the victim on her side. The victim sustained first- and second-
degree burns to her neck, shoulder, arm, and hand.
In Case 26, a 32-year-old male was igniting missile (rocket) fireworks on the
street outside of his home. As he lit one missile, the missile shot sideways instead
of going upward. The victim ran to get out of the way, and he fell and sprained
his neck.
In Case 30, a 37-year-old female was watching a fireworks display set up by
neighbors in their yard. One firework that was supposed to go into the air shot
into the crowd of people who were watching. The firework exploded on the
victim’s leg. The victim sustained first-, second-, and third-degree burns to her
arm and leg.
In Case 35, a 50-year-old female was at a friend’s house and they were setting off
artillery shells from a table. The last tube was ignited, and the shell went
sideways instead of upward. The shell got caught between the straps of the
victim’s shoe. The victim suffered second- and third-degree burns to the side of
her right foot.
Tip-Over Incidents.
In Case 1, a 30-year-old male was at a party for the 4th of July. People were
lighting off mortars. A mortar tube fell over and exploded. The mortar shot out
the bottom of the tube and hit the victim in his leg. The victim sustained a large
laceration to his right thigh and multiple burns and cuts to his right leg and foot.
In Case 8, a 6-year-old boy was in the yard watching fireworks being set off on
the street. One of the fireworks tipped over and shot into the victim’s shoe. The
shoe caught on fire and melted. As a result, the victim suffered first- and second-
degree burns to his foot.
In Case 16, a 16-year-old male was watching fireworks set off on the driveway by
a neighbor’s friend. A Roman candle that was ignited, fell over and shot
sideways instead of upward. One fire ball hit the victim’s chest and his T-shirt
caught on fire. The victim sustained a 9-inch second- to third-degree burn on his
chest.
In Case 19, a 20-year-old female was watching fireworks being set off on the
street. One of the multiple-shot fireworks fired off one shot and then fell over
before shooting out the remaining shots. Some of the sparks from the firework hit
the victim in her ear. The victim suffered second-degree burns to the inside of her
ear.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 45
Item # A
27
Early or Late Ignition.
In Case 12, an 8-year-old boy tried to set off a sparkler with a lighter. The
sparkler would not ignite, so the victim kept the lighter in place, trying to light the
sparkler. Suddenly, the sparkler flared up, and the victim suffered a burn to his
thumb.
In Case 13, a 9-year-old boy ignited a firecracker (size unspecified) and the
firework did not go off as expected. The victim thought the firecracker was not lit
and went to re-light it; the firecracker exploded in the victim’s face. The victim
sustained a corneal abrasion to his eyeball.
In Case 23, a 23-year-old female held a firecracker (size unspecified) in her left
hand and lit it. The victim stated that the firecracker exploded as soon as it was
ignited and did not give her a chance to throw it. The victim suffered second-
degree burns on her left hand, near the middle and little fingers.
In Case 32, a 45-year-old male took a firework from the garage and put it on the
ground. The firework could be a Roman candle, but the victim was not sure. The
victim ignited the firework, and it exploded right away. Shrapnel from the
firework went into the victim’s chest and arms, causing lacerations; shrapnel also
went up the victim’s pant leg, causing a third-degree burn on the victim’s upper
leg.
Debris.
In Case 9, a 6-year-old boy was watching a public fireworks display put on by a
homeowner’s association at a park. When the victim looked up at the fireworks
in the sky, a piece of ash went into his eye. The victim suffered a scratch to his
cornea.
In Case 20, a 21-year-old female was at a public fireworks display. The victim
was lying on the ground a good distance from where the fireworks were set off.
A piece of firework (metal) went into her eye, and her eye became swollen shut.
The victim sustained a corneal abrasion and a first-degree burn to her eye.
Blowout.
In Case 22, a 23-year-old male and his friends were at a party setting off
fireworks on a dock. One of the mortar tubes got too hot, and the firework got
stuck and exploded in the tube. The pieces of firework shot out everywhere.
Some landed on the victim’s foot. The victim suffered second-degree burns to his
right foot.
Other (one victim injured, 3 percent).
There was one victim whose injury was related to fireworks, based on the NEISS
incident narrative and telephone in-depth investigation (IDI). However, the telephone
IDI did not yield enough information to pinpoint definitively the hazard associated with
the incident.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 45
Item # A
28
Ash.
In Case 25, a 27-year-old female had attended a town’s fireworks display. As she
was leaving the area, the wind picked up. Some ash from the fireworks blew into
her eye, causing a corneal abrasion.
Long-Term Consequences of Fireworks-Related Injuries
Victims were asked whether there were any long-term consequences of their
injuries. Most (33 of 35, or 94 percent) expected complete recoveries with no long-term
effects. A few victims reported that they have experienced or might suffer long-term
effects of the injuries, as follows:
In Case 2, the victim sustained blunt trauma to his eye. He still had no vision in
his injured eye when he was interviewed and was not sure if the effect of the
incident would be long term.
In Case 18, the victim suffered nerve and muscle damage in her leg and could not
walk for a month. The effect of her injuries could be long term.
Where Fireworks Were Obtained13
Of the 35 telephone survey respondents, 19 (54 percent) knew where the
fireworks were obtained. Eleven respondents reported that the fireworks had been
obtained from a stand; four stated that the fireworks were obtained from a store; three
indicated that the fireworks were obtained from an Indian Reservation; and one said that
the fireworks were acquired from a relative.
Eleven victims (31 percent) reported that they did not know the source of the
fireworks. This is typically the situation when the victim did not purchase or light the
fireworks device that caused the injury.
Four victims (11 percent) declared that they were injured at a public display of
fireworks. The remaining victim (3 percent) stated that he found the firework on the
ground while walking down a street.
6. Enforcement Activities
The Office of Compliance and Field Operations (Compliance) oversees
enforcement activities related to the mandatory requirements for consumer fireworks
outlined in 16 C.F.R. § 1507 under the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261-1278, and the banning
provisions of the implementing regulation, 16 C.F.R. §§ 1500.17(a)(3), (8),(9),(11) and
(12).
13 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 45
Item # A
29
In 2013, Compliance staff continued enforcement of the fireworks regulations,
through screening and sampling of fireworks devices arriving in shipments at port, and by
surveillance of goods already in commerce for sale. Compliance staff conducted
inspections at fireworks retailers that import and sell consumer fireworks devices.
Inspections allowed CPSC staff to gather information regarding the business practices of
firms, and to collect samples for analysis and testing for compliance with mandatory
requirements.
CPSC staff continues to work closely with other federal partners that have an
interest in fireworks devices, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF), the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
CPSC staff continues to refer cases to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding
businesses that sell fireworks devices found in violation of mandatory requirements under
the FHSA and companies and/or individuals who are involved in the sale of chemicals
and components used to make illegal fireworks.
Compliance staff maintains as a priority, the investigation of sales of kits and
components to make illegal and dangerous explosive devices, such as M-80s and Quarter
Sticks. Staff communicates actively with the industry to ensure adequate understanding
of the mandatory requirements and to maintain an open dialogue to address any issues
that might arise with products in commerce, incident investigation, and follow-up on
trade complaints.
As in previous years, Compliance staff continues to monitor imported shipments
of consumer fireworks and works closely with CBP on this endeavor. Compliance staff
has developed triggers that may flag a shipment for examination. CPSC staff reviews the
importation data provided by CBP and notifies the importer and broker when a shipment
is selected for further examination. Follow-up correspondence is sent to the firm
indicating which items, if any, will be sampled and tested. Fireworks may be selected for
testing on a random basis or based upon a number of factors. These factors may include,
but are not limited to, the past violation history of the type of device and whether the item
had been sampled previously.
With assistance from CBP, CPSC staff sampled and tested shipments of imported
fireworks for compliance with the FHSA in fiscal year 2013. Approximately 33 percent
of the fireworks devices sampled and tested were found to be noncompliant with
mandatory CPSC fireworks regulations. These violative fireworks devices had an
estimated import value of $978,000. The majority of violations found this year involved
overloaded report composition. Section 2(q)(1)(b) of the FHSA bans fireworks devices
that are intended to produce an audible effect under 16 C.F.R. §1500.17(a)(3) to contain
more than 2 grains of pyrotechnic composition, with some exception. Compliance staff
also found an increase in the number of violations for the fuse performance requirement
under 16 C.F.R. § 1507.3 [Fuses]. In the FHSA there are mandatory standards for
cautionary labeling under on fireworks devices (see 16 C.F.R. § 1500). Items that do not
meet those standards are classified as misbranded hazardous substances. In 2013, CPSC
staff found products that did not meet the cautionary labeling requirements, as well as,
violations of other performance standards such as blowout, tipover, and pyrotechnic
Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 45
Item # A
30
leakage. Products that are stopped at import and found to not comply with mandatory
requirements for fireworks cannot be distributed in commerce.
CPSC staff’s enforcement effort continues to focus on reducing the number of
fireworks-related deaths and injuries, by stopping the sale and distribution of consumer
fireworks that violate mandatory regulations.
Most fireworks are manufactured outside of the United States. China (98
percent) and Hong Kong (1 percent) are the sources of most imported fireworks.14 CPSC
staff continues to work closely with its counterpart Chinese agency, the General
Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ).
14 These data are from 2013 statistics from the U.S. International Trade Commission. There were 180.1 million pounds
of fireworks imported, with 176.2 million pounds from China (98 percent), and 1.6 million pounds from Hong Kong (1
percent). Staff believes that most fireworks imported from Hong Kong were actually manufactured in China. The next
largest exporter was Thailand, with 1.3 million pounds.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 45
Item # A
31
7. Summary
In 2013, there were eight reported fireworks-related deaths. However, reporting
for 2013 may not be complete at this time. Emergency department-treated injuries are
estimated at 11,400 for 2013.
During the 1-month special study period from June 21, 2013 to July 21, 2013,
there were an estimated 7,400 emergency department-treated injuries. In 2013, children
under 15 years old experienced about 40 percent of the estimated injuries, and males of
all ages experienced 57 percent of the estimated injuries.
Additionally, similar to previous years, more than half the estimated injuries
during the special study period in 2013 involved burns. Burns were the most frequent
injury to all parts of the body, except the eyes, where contusions, lacerations, and other
diagnoses (mainly foreign bodies in the eye) occurred more frequently. The parts of the
body most often injured were hands and fingers (an estimated 36 percent of the injuries);
followed by the head, face, and ears (22 percent); eyes (16 percent); legs (14 percent);
trunk (7 percent); and arms (5 percent). Most of the estimated injuries (91 percent)
involved treat-and-release dispositions. An estimated 7 percent were treated and
transferred to another hospital or admitted to the hospital where the emergency
department was located.
Among the different types of fireworks, sparklers were involved in 31 percent of
the estimated injuries. Firecrackers were associated with 11 percent of the injuries;
reloadable shells and Roman candles each accounted for 6 percent of the injuries; and
bottle rockets were associated with 4 percent of the injuries.
A review of data from telephone follow-up investigations showed that the typical
causes of injuries were as follows: (1) misuse of fireworks; (2) errant flight paths; (3)
tipovers; (4) early or late ignitions; and (5) debris associated with eye irritations. At the
time of the telephone investigation, which was conducted typically 1 to 2 months after
the injury, most victims had recovered from their injuries. Two victims reported that the
effect of their injuries might be long term.
Finally, in 2013, CPSC staff continued to actively monitor import shipments of
fireworks and products in the marketplace. CPSC staff worked with CBP to sample
imported fireworks and to seize illegal shipments. Compliance staff conducted
inspections at fireworks retailers to collect samples for analysis and testing for
compliance with mandatory requirements. Staff also continued working with the Chinese
government’s AQSIQ. China is the world’s largest exporter of fireworks, and almost all
fireworks imported into the United States come from China.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 32 of 45
Item # A
32
Bibliography
Tu Y and Granados D (2013), “2012 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2012,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Tu Y and Granados D (2012), “2011 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2011,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Tu Y and Granados D (2011), “2010 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2010,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA, Tu Y and Granados D (2010), “2009 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-
Related Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities
During 2009,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Granados D (2009), “2008 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2008,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2008), “2007 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2007,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2007), “2006 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2006,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2006), “2005 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2005,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2005), “2004 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2004,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2004), “2003 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department-Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2003,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Greene MA and Joholske J (2003), “2002 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2002,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 33 of 45
Item # A
33
Greene MA and Race P (2002), “2001 Fireworks Annual Report: Fireworks-Related
Deaths, Emergency Department Treated Injuries, and Enforcement Activities During
2001,” U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington DC.
Kessler E and Schroeder T (1998), “The NEISS Sample (Design and Implementation),”
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC.
Marker D, Lo A, Brick M and Davis W (1999), “Comparison of National Estimates from
Different Samples and Different Sampling Frames of the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS),” Final Report prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by Westat, Inc. Rockville, MD.
Schroeder T (2000), “Trend Analysis of NEISS Data.” U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 34 of 45
Item # A
34
Appendix A
Fireworks-Related Injuries and Fireworks Imported
Table A-1 shows that fireworks imports have generally risen over the period
1998–2007, peaking in 2005 at 275.1 million pounds. From 2008 to 2012, fireworks
imports have been relatively steady, except for 2011. In 2011, fireworks imports
increased to 227.9 million pounds from the 199.6 million pounds imported in 2010. In
2012, fireworks imports decreased to 201.2 million pounds. In 2013, fireworks imports
declined further to 180.1 million pounds. The number of estimated emergency
department-treated injuries in 2013 was 11,400, which was the highest since 1998. The
second highest estimated injuries were 11,000 in 2000. The injury estimates have
fluctuated between 7,000 and 10,800 for the other years. As shown in Table A-1 below,
the number of injuries per 100,000 pounds of fireworks has declined from 7.5 injuries per
100,000 pounds in 2000, to 3.4 injuries per 100,000 pounds in 2006 and 2008. From
2009 to 2012, the number of injuries per 100,000 pounds of fireworks was noticeably
stable at about 4.3 injuries per 100,000 pounds. However, the estimated injuries per
100,000 pounds of fireworks imported were 6.3 in 2013, which was an increase of 47
percent from the previous year.
Table A-1
Estimated Fireworks-Related Injuries and
Estimated Fireworks Imported into the U.S. 1998–2013
Year Estimated Injuries
Estimated Fireworks
Imports
(millions of pounds)
Injuries Per 100,000
Pounds
2013 11,400 180.1 6.3
2012 8,700 201.2 4.3
2011 9,600 227.9 4.2
2010 8,600 199.6 4.3
2009 8,800 199.3 4.4
2008 7,000 208.3 3.4
2007 9,800 260.1 3.8
2006 9,200 272.1 3.4
2005 10,800 275.1 3.9
2004 9,600 230.0 4.2
2003 9,300 214.6 4.3
2002 8,800 175.3 5.0
2001 9,500 155.3 6.1
2000 11,000 146.2 7.5
1999 8,500 146.7 5.8
1998 8,500 123.8 6.9
Source: Injuries from NEISS, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. See Table 1 for further details. Estimated
fireworks imports data from the U.S. International Trade Commission, using Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS code
3604.10). Imports include consumer fireworks (1.4G HTS code 3604.10.90.10 and 3604.10.90.50) and display
fireworks (1.3G HTS code 3604.10.10.00). Display fireworks were about 9.1 percent of the total imports in 2013. In
addition to imported fireworks used in the United States, there is also a small amount of fireworks manufactured in the
United States for domestic consumption; the data for these fireworks is not available from the International Trade
Commission and is not shown in this table.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 35 of 45
Item # A
35
Although the table suggests a relationship between weight and the number of
injuries, it should be interpreted with caution. First, the logical unit of exposure is the
number of fireworks devices used, instead of the collective weight of the devices because
a person is exposed to injury when a device is consumed (i.e., lit). Injuries per 100,000
fireworks devices imported might be more meaningful, but the number of devices
imported is not available. Moreover, using weight overrepresents heavy devices and
underrepresents light devices. There is no reason to assume that a heavy device is
inherently more dangerous than a light device because the weight of the device includes
things other than just the amount of explosive material.
In addition, international trade statistics do not provide weight by fireworks
device types. Thus, it is not possible to associate injuries with the weight of different
types of fireworks imported. As shown in Table 2 earlier in this report, different
fireworks devices have different numbers of injuries. Thus, the decrease in injuries per
100,000 pounds between 1997 and 2008 may be due to different mixtures of types of
fireworks imported over time, or an overall decrease in injuries among all types of
fireworks. Similarly, the increase in injuries per 100,000 pounds in 2013 may have
resulted from different fireworks mixtures, a decrease in importation of fireworks, or just
statistical variation. The data do not provide enough information to determine the
relative contribution of these factors.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 36 of 45
Item # A
36
Appendix B
Completed Telephone Investigations
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
1 30 Male Laceration Upper
Leg Admit Aerial Shell
The victim was at a party for the 4th of July.
People were lighting off mortars. The
mortar tube fell over, and the lit mortar
inside exploded. The mortar shot out the
bottom of the tube and hit the victim in his
leg. The victim sustained a large laceration
to his right thigh and multiple burns and
cuts to his right leg and foot.
The victim was admitted to the hospital for
5 days. After discharge, the victim had
additional medical visits because he thought
that the wounded area had become infected.
The victim fully recovered in a month.
2 20 Male Other Eye Treat and
Transfer
Public
Display
The victim was at a fireworks display set
up by a local community. A firework was
ignited and went “haywire.” The firework
went into the victim’s eye. The victim
sustained blunt trauma to his eye. At least
four other people were injured in the same
incident.
The victim called his grandparents, and
they got him to the emergency department
(ED). He was transferred to another
hospital for one night. After discharge
from the hospital, the victim saw a
specialist every other day. The victim still
had no vision in his injured eye when he
was interviewed for this report.
3 24 Male Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Transfer Sparkler
The victim was lighting a sparkler for his
son. He had three sparklers in his hand.
When he lit one sparkler, the other
sparklers caught on fire in his hand. He
sustained second-degree burns to his hand.
The victim went to the ED where he was
treated and transferred. He was
hospitalized for 1 day. The victim had
follow-up medical visits to make sure his
hand healed correctly after discharge from
the hospital. He fully recovered in 2-and-a-
half weeks.
4 17
months Female Thermal
Burns Knee Treat and
Release Unspecified
The victim was sitting on her mother ’s lap
watching fireworks in the front yard. A
firework came out of the sky and landed on
their legs. The victim sustained a second-
degree burn to her leg.
The victim recuperated fully in 3 weeks.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 37 of 45
Item # A
37
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
5 4 Male Thermal
Burns Elbow Treat and
Release
Roman
candle
The victim sat by a lake with his mother to
watch fireworks set off by his family
member. A Roman candle was lit, and
debris from one of the shots came down
and landed on the victim’s forearm. The
victim reacted by closing his arm. The
victim sustained second-degree burns to his
arm.
The victim recovered in 2 weeks.
6 4 Female Thermal
Burns Face Treat and
Release
Roman
candle
The victim was visiting her paternal
grandparents and father at their home. The
victim’s father was setting off fireworks
from the driveway, and the children,
including the victim, were standing in the
garage. One of the fireworks, which might
have been a Roman candle, was ignited on
the ground and then fell sideways. The
firework exploded and starting shooting
sparks toward the garage. Some of the
sparks hit the victim on the left side of her
face, causing first-degree burns.
The victim recovered completely in 2 days.
7 5 Female Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release Sparkler
The victim and her mother were lighting
sparklers on their driveway. The mother
had a sparkler lit and the victim walked in
front of her. A spark from the sparkler
went into the victim’s eye. The victim
suffered an abrasion to her eye ball.
The victim recovered in 3 days.
8 6 Male Thermal
Burns Foot Treat and
Release
Multiple
Tube Device
The victim was standing in the yard
watching fireworks being set off on the
street. One of the lit fireworks tipped over
and shot into the victim’s shoe and set the
shoe on fire. The victim’s shoe melted and
the victim sustained first- and second-
degree burns to his foot.
The victim had not recovered when the
interview was conducted. His parent
thought it might take a month for him to
fully recover.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 38 of 45
Item # A
38
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
9 6 Male Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release
Public
Display
The victim was watching a public
fireworks display set up by the home
owner’s association at a park. When he
looked up at the fireworks in the sky, a
piece of ash from the fireworks went into
his eye. The victim sustained a scratch to
his cornea.
The victim recuperated the next day.
10 7 Male Thermal
Burns Face Treat and
Release Stick Rocket
The victim was in the backyard where his
mother was setting off fireworks. His
mother held a stick rocket in her hand and
ignited it. The rocket went sideways
instead of upward. The firework hit the
victim on the side of his face, causing a
first-degree burn.
The victim recovered in a week.
11 7 Female Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release Sparkler
The victim lit a sparkler, twirled it around,
and moved it in circles. A piece of the
spark flew off and went into her eye. The
victim suffered a corneal abrasion to her
eye.
The victim saw an eye doctor to check her
vision and to get eye drops after treatment
in the ED. She fully recovered in 1 to 2
days.
12 8 Male Thermal
Burns Finger Treat and
Release Sparkler
The victim tried to set off a sparkler with a
lighter. The sparkler would not ignite so
the victim kept the lighter in place trying to
light it. Suddenly, the sparkler flared up,
and the victim suffered a burn to his thumb.
The victim recuperated in 1 to 2 days.
13 9 Male Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release
Firecracker,
Size
Unknown
The victim ignited a firecracker but the
firecracker did not go off as expected. The
victim thought that the firecracker was not
lit and went to re-light it, and the
firecracker exploded into his face. The
victim sustained a corneal abrasion to his
eyeball.
The victim fully recovered in 2 days.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 39 of 45
Item # A
39
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
14 13 Male Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Release Unspecified
The victim held an unspecified firework in
his hand and ignited it. The victim’s
mother, who witnessed the incident, stated
that the victim held onto the firework for
too long and it burned his hand. The victim
suffered first-degree burns to his hand.
The victim recovered fully in 2 weeks.
15 13 Male Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Release Unspecified
The victim was walking down the street
and found an unspecified firework. He
picked it up and lit it. The firework
exploded in his hand. The victim sustained
burns to his hand and arm.
The victim recuperated in a few days.
16 16 Male Thermal
Burns
Upper
Trunk
Treat and
Release
Roman
candle
The victim and his father were watching
their neighbor's friend set o ff fireworks on
their driveway. When a Roman candle was
ignited, it fell over and shot sideways
instead of upward. One fire ball hit the
victim’s chest and his T-shirt caught on
fire. The victim sustained a second- and
third-degree burn that was about 9 inches
on his chest.
The victim had additional treatments to see
if the burn was healing properly. The
victim had not recovered when the
interview was conducted, and he may have
a skin graft later. His parent stated that it
might take 4 months for him to recover
fully.
17 17 Female Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Release
Multiple
Tube Device
The victim was watching a neighbor set off
fireworks on the street. When a multiple-
shot firework went off, it shot out sideways
instead of up in the air. The firework hit
the victim on her side. The victim
sustained first- and second-degree burns to
her neck, shoulder, arm and hand.
The victim followed up with her primary
care physician the next day. She recovered
fully in 2 weeks.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 40 of 45
Item # A
40
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
18 19 Female Laceration Knee Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim and her friends were watching
fireworks at a dry lake bed. A lot of people
brought their own fireworks and were
lighting them off as well. Some of the
victim’s friends were lighting off mortars
right next to the victim. One of the mortars
exploded in the tube and hit the victim in
her leg. The victim sustained a laceration
and burns to her leg.
The victim had an additional medical
treatment to remove stitches. She had
nerve and muscle damages in her leg and
could not walk for a month. The victim had
not recovered when she was interviewed.
19 20 Female Thermal
Burns Ear Treat and
Release
Multiple
Tube Device
The victim was watching fireworks being
set off on the street. One of the multiple-
shot fireworks fired out one shot and then
fell over before shooting out the remaining
shots. Some of the sparks from the
fireworks hit the victim in her ear. The
victim sustained second-degree burns to the
inside of her ear.
The victim had not recovered when she was
interviewed, and it had been 2 weeks since
she was injured. The victim hoped that it
would not take much longer for her to
recuperate fully.
20 21 Female Thermal
Burns Eye Treat and
Release
Public
Display
The victim was at a public display of
fireworks set up by the town. She was
lying on the ground a good distance from
where the fireworks were ignited. A piece
of the firework (metal) went into her eye,
and her eye became swollen shut. The
victim also sustained a corneal abrasion
and first-degree burn to her eye.
The victim recovered fully in a month.
21 22 Female Thermal
Burns Face Treat and
Release
Roman
candle
The victim was sitting by a bonfire on a
beach area. Someone threw a Roman
candle that had already been fired off into
the bonfire. The tube of the used Roman
candle exploded and the plastic flew off. It
hit the victim in her cheek and caught her
hair on fire. The victim sustained a second-
degree burn to her cheek.
After being treated at the ED, the victim
saw a dermatologist to check for infection
of her wound. The victim recovered fully
in 2-and-a-half weeks
Attachment number 2 \nPage 41 of 45
Item # A
41
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
22 23 Male Thermal
Burns Foot Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim and his friends were at a party
setting off fireworks on a dock. One of the
mortar tubes got too hot, and the firework
got stuck and exploded in the tube. The
pieces of the firework shot out everywhere.
Some landed on the victim's foot. The
victim sustained second-degree burns to his
right foot.
The victim recovered fully in a month.
23 23 Female Laceration Hand Treat and
Release
Firecracker,
Size
Unknown
The victim held a firecracker (size
unspecified) in her left hand and lit it. The
victim stated that the firecracker exploded
as soon as it was ignited and did not give
her a chance to throw it. The victim
sustained second-degree burns on her left
hand near the middle and little fingers.
The victim had not recovered when she was
interviewed for this report. She expected to
recover fully in approximately 2 months.
24 24 Female Thermal
Burns Face Treat and
Release Unspecified
The victim was at an Indian reservation
where people were buying, lighting off
fireworks, and partying. The victim was
watching the fireworks when she heard a
boom behind her. When she turned around
to look, she was hit in the face by an
unspecified firework. The victim sustained
second-degree burns to her face and neck.
Her eye was swollen shut for three days,
and her eye lashes and brows were burned
off.
The victim saw an eye doctor to check her
vision after the treatment at the ED. The
victim still had face burns, her eye lashes
and eye brows had not grown back, and she
had not recovered when she was
interviewed.
25 27 Female Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release
Public
Display
The victim had attended a display of
fireworks. She was leaving the area when
the wind picked up. Some ash from the
fireworks blew into her eye causing a
corneal abrasion.
The victim had an additional medical visit
to see how her eye was healing. She
recuperated fully in 21 days.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 42 of 45
Item # A
42
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
26 32 Male Strain/Sprain Neck Treat and
Release
Missile
Rocket
The victim was igniting missile (rocket)
fireworks outside of his home on the street.
As he lit one missile, it shot sideways
instead of going upward. The victim ran to
get out of the way, and he fell and sprained
his neck.
The victim recovered fully in 2 days.
27 34 Male Contusions
Abrasions Eye Treat and
Release
Multiple
Tube Device
The victim was standing and watching
fireworks being set off by a neighbor on a
driveway. A couple of teenagers did not
pay attention and knocked over a box of
mortars that had already been lit. The
mortars started to fire towards the victim
and one exploded in front of him. The
victim sustained a corneal abrasion.
The victim had a follow-up visit with an
ophthalmologist after the treatment at the
ED. He fully recovered in 1 to 2 weeks.
28 34 Male Laceration Hand Treat and
Release
Large
Firecracker
The victim was lighting a firework that he
described as an M-80 type. When the fuse
sparked, the victim got scared and threw
his hand back. As a result, the victim hit
his hand on an old broken porcelain toilet
that was used as a shield in the yard. The
victim sustained a laceration to his hand.
The victim recuperated in a few days.
29 34 Female Puncture Foot Treat and
Release Rocket
The victim was in the front yard of a
neighbor's house. A 10-year-old child just
put a bottle rocket on the ground and
ignited it. The rocket went into the
victim’s foot causing a puncture. The
victim stated that the child did not set up
the rocket correctly by just laying it on the
ground.
The victim recovered in 3 days.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 43 of 45
Item # A
43
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
30 37 Female Thermal
Burns
Upper
Leg
Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim was watching a firework
display set up by neighbors in their yard. A
firework that was supposed to fire into the
air shot into the crowd of people who were
watching instead. The firework exploded
on the victim's leg. The victim sustained
first-, second- and third-degree burns to her
arm and leg.
The victim had additional medical visits to
make sure that she cared for her wounds
properly. She recovered fully in 2 to 3
weeks.
31 39 Female Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Release Fountain
The victim ignited a fountain type of
firework while holding it in her hand. The
firework backfired and the victim sustained
second-degree burns on three fingers of her
right hand.
The victim fully recovered in 2 weeks.
32 45 Male Laceration Upper
Trunk
Treat and
Release
Roman
candle
The victim was at a friend's house. He took
a firework—might be a Roman candle, but
he was not sure—from the garage and put it
on the ground to ignite it. The firework
exploded right away when it was lit.
Shrapnel from the firework went into the
victim’s chest and arms causing
lacerations, and some shrapnel went up to
his pant leg causing a third-degree burn on
his upper leg.
After the treatment at the ED, the victim
went to see his doctor twice to make sure
that the wounds were healing. He
recovered fully in 2 weeks.
33 45 Male Thermal
Burns Hand Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim was having a party and doing a
fireworks show at his house for the 4th of
July. One teenager got hold of a mortar
and set it off. The firework did not shoot
high enough into the sky before it
exploded, and it caught a tree on fire. The
victim tried to put the fire out, and as a
result he sustained second-degree burns to
both of his hands.
The victim had four additional follow-up
treatments after the ED visit. He had not
recovered when he was interviewed. It
might take three months for him to
recuperate fully.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 44 of 45
Item # A
44
Case Age Sex Diagnosis Body
Part Disposition Fireworks
Type Incident Description Medical Treatment and Prognosis
34 48 Male Laceration Face Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim was standing on a sidewalk and
watching fireworks set off by his neighbor.
All of a sudden, he looked down and saw a
spark. He was hit in the face by a mortar.
The victim sustained a laceration to his
cheek and a retinal bruising.
After the treatment at the ED, the victim
saw an eye doctor and followed up with his
primary doctor as well. He fully recovered
in 1to 2 weeks.
35 50 Female Thermal
Burns Foot Treat and
Release Aerial Shell
The victim was at a friend's house and they
were setting off artillery shells from a table.
The last tube was ignited and the shell went
sideways instead of upward. The shell got
caught between the straps of the victim’s
shoe. The victim sustained a second- to
third-degree burn on the side of her right
foot. The burn was about the size of a golf
ball.
After the treatment at the ED, the victim
saw her family doctor every two weeks to
ensure that the burn was healing properly
and there was no infection. The victim was
still recovering when she was interviewed,
and she expected to recover fully in less
than 3 months.
Attachment number 2 \nPage 45 of 45
Item # A
FIREWORKS – ORDINANCE
Council Workshop - October 28, 2014
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 11
Item # A
Presenters
•Bridget Chapman, City Attorney
•Roland Waits, Police Captain
•John Sullivan, Fire Chief
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 11
Item # A
Background
•July 27, 1970 – Georgetown adopts ordinance prohibiting
possession, storage and use of fireworks.
•Regionally supported prohibition (long standing history).
•May 22, 2013 – H.B. # 1813 is enacted and creates
affirmative defense clause.
•June 24, 2014 – City Council amends ordinance to allow
possession and storage.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 11
Item # A
Primary concerns
•Safety (community and firefighter)
•Enforcement
•Education
•Regional consistency
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 11
Item # A
Injuries (10-year History)
Year Est. Injuries Injuries/100K
2013 11,400 3.6
2012 8,700 2.8
2011 9,600 3.1
2010 8,600 2.8
2009 8,800 2.9
2008 7,000 2.3
2007 9,800 3.3
2006 9,200 3.1
2005 10,800 3.7
2004 9,600 3.3
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 11
Item # A
Injuries (June 21 – July 21)
Firework Type Est. Injuries Percent
All Firecrackers 800 11%
All Rockets 800 11%
Sparklers 2300 31%
Fountains/Tubes 400 6%
Novelties/Shells/Candles 1000 14%
Homemade/Altered 200 2%
Public Display 100 1%
Unspecified 1800 24%
Total 7400 100%
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 11
Item # A
Prohibition
•Cities with similar
population (50K – 100K)
•Regionally consistent
•Austin
•Round Rock
•Cedar Park
•Leander
•Pflugerville
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 11
Item # A
Items to consider
•Allowing people to possess but not use
•Increased fire risk and life/safety hazard
•Potential to become the default “storage” area
•Enforceability issues with PD
•Regional and state anomaly
•40+ year history of prohibition = good habits
•Will community safety be enhanced?
•Goal is to determine “reasonable and acceptable”
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 11
Item # A
Amended Language - Current
It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble,
store, transport, receive, keep, sell, offer to sell, possess,
use, discharge, cause to be discharged, ignite, detonate,
fire or otherwise set in action any fireworks of any
description within the corporate limits of the city or within
five thousand (5,000) feet outside the city limits, except
under special permit as authorized in the Fire Prevention
Code. This section shall not apply within any portion of
such five thousand foot area which is contained within the
territory of another municipality.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 11
Item # A
Amended Language - Proposed
It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble,
store, sell, offer to sell, possess, use, or discharge, cause
to be discharged, ignite, detonate, fire or otherwise set in
action any fireworks of any description within the corporate
limits of the city or within five thousand (5,000) feet outside
the city limits, except under special permit as authorized in
the Fire Prevention Code. This section shall not apply
within any portion of such five thousand foot area which is
contained within the territory of another municipality.
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 11
Item # A
Affirmative Defense- Proposed
•It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a charge of
possession of fireworks under this chapter if:
–The defendant was operating or was a passenger in a motor
vehicle that was being operated in a public place; and
–The fireworks were not in the passenger area of the motor
vehicle.
•We would like your thoughts and direction
•Goal is to revise ordinance prior to New Year’s Day
City of Georgetown
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 11
Item # A
H.B.ANo.A1813
AN ACT
relating to the authority of a municipality to confiscate packaged
fireworks; providing an affirmative defense for possessing
fireworks in certain circumstances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1.AASection 342.003, Local Government Code, is
amended by adding Subsection (c) to read as follows:
(c)AASubsection (a)(8) does not authorize a municipality to
confiscate packaged, unopened fireworks.
SECTIONA2.AASubchapter B, Chapter 342, Local Government
Code, is amended by adding Section 342.013 to read as follows:
Sec.A342.013.AACONFISCATION OF CERTAIN FIREWORKS
PROHIBITED; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) A home-rule municipality that
regulates fireworks may not confiscate packaged, unopened
fireworks.
(b)AAIt is an affirmative defense to prosecution for
possession of fireworks brought under a municipal ordinance that:
(1)AAthe defendant was operating or was a passenger in a
motor vehicle that was being operated in a public place; and
(2)AAthe fireworks were not in the passenger area of the
vehicle.
(c)AAFor purposes of Subsection (b), the "passenger area" of
a motor vehicle means the area of the vehicle designed for the
seating of the operator and the passengers of the vehicle. The term
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 3
Item # A
does not include:
(1)AAa locked glove compartment or similar locked
storage area;
(2)AAthe trunk of a vehicle; or
(3)AAthe area behind the last upright seat of a vehicle
that does not have a trunk.
SECTIONA3.AAThis Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
H.B.ANo.A1813
2
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 3
Item # A
______________________________ ______________________________
AAAAPresident of the Senate Speaker of the HouseAAAAAA
I certify that H.B. No. 1813 was passed by the House on May 7,
2013, by the following vote:AAYeas 144, Nays 0, 2 present, not
voting.
______________________________
Chief Clerk of the HouseAAA
I certify that H.B. No. 1813 was passed by the Senate on May
22, 2013, by the following vote:AAYeas 31, Nays 0.
______________________________
Secretary of the SenateAAAA
APPROVED:AA_____________________
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADateAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAA_____________________
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGovernorAAAAAAA
H.B.ANo.A1813
3
Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 3
Item # A
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
HARC Process Review Update -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
On May 27, 2014, Council approved Resolution No. 052714-N directing staff to initiate a Unified
Development Code (UDC) amendment to address concerns raised during the May 13, 2014 City Council
workshop regarding the rules and regulations governing the Historic and Architectural Review Commission
(HARC), historic structures, and historic overlay districts.
Since then, a number of steps have been taken to clarify, improve, and ensure consistency in the historic
regulations and review process, including the following:
1. Staff has reviewed Council feedback, as well as feedback from the HARC, internal staff, the Zucker
report, and HARC applicants;
2. Standard operating procedures and customer bulletins have been issued to clarify processes for
completing certificates of design compliance (CDCs) to ensure consistency;
3. The Main Street Advisory Board has worked with staff to draft a downtown businesses guide to
clarify the process for securing CDCs in the downtown overlay;
4. Consultants have been brought in to complete various trainings with the commissioners on several
topics including: The National Register of Historic Places; Americans with Disabilities Act and
Historic Buildings; and Historic Architecture, Compatibility, and Alterations;
5. The HARC has revived and emphasized the availability of conceptual review for major projects that
come before the Commission;
6. Council approved installing blade signs at intersections throughout the historic districts to assist with
wayfinding and identifying historic districts boundaries;
7. On October 14, 2014, Council approved the first reading of minor adjustments to the Commission’s
bylaws and appropriated funds in September to complete an update to the historic resource survey in
FY 2014/2015.
Staff is proposing to use the updated Historic Resource Survey to designate individual structures as a
Historic Landmark. These will be structures that are designated via ordinance as the highest priority historic
resources. Due to notification requirements, property owners will become apprised of the historic status of
their property, and will have opportunities to comment at public hearings. In conjunction with the
development of the Historic Landmark designation process, the UDC language related to demolition will be
restructured and amended for process clarity. The process will be modified to simplify the properties that
must secure CDCs for demolition, penalties for demolition without a CDC, expand demolition by neglect,
and make the demolition subcommittee a recommending body to the full commission, with members from
different backgrounds including a structural engineer, an architect, or a historic preservationist.
In addition, proposed changes include increased staff review for signage and site features, demolition of non-
historic structures, and alternative parking plans. Staff will also propose changing CDCs to Certificates of
Appropriateness (COAs) to be consistent with state and national standards.
Finally, the UDC will be amended to clarify HARC’s purpose, which includes the review of exterior building
alterations. Review for building use, zoning, or Special Use Permits shall be in accordance with current UDC
requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Laurie Brewer/jd
Cover Memo
Item # B
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 052714-N
Summary of Proposed UDC Changes
Standard Operating Procedures for Certificates of Design Compliance
Customer Bulletin 112 CDC Review Process
Customer Bulletin 113 CDC for Demolition Review Process
Bulletin 114 CDC Application Submittal Requirements
DRAFT Downtown Business Guide
Historic District Blade Sign Prototype
Cover Memo
Item # B
RESOLUTION NO. DSI I y -N
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, RECOMMENDING INITIATION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ("UDC")
RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RULES AND PROCEDURES
THAT AFFECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN HISTORIC OVERLAY
DISTRICTS AND/OR ARE LISTED ON THE LIST OF PRIORITY
STRUCTURE ("HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY"); MAKING OTHER
FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2003, the City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas,
adopted a set of comprehensive development regulations known as the UDC via Ordinance No.
2003-16, which codified various zoning and subdivision standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a posted Workshop on May 13, 2014, to review the
Historic and Architectural Review Commission's policies and procedures within the City of
Georgetown; and
WHEREAS, the City Council voiced concerns regarding regulations and procedures that
affect development on properties located in a Historic Overlay District, the Historic Resource
Survey, the Historic and Architectural Review Commission's powers and duties, property
rights, and the incentives allotted for historic preservation in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a comprehensive review and modification of the
development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic
Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey is needed to create a balance
between land use regulations and historic preservation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established a Unified Development Code Advisory
Committee on November 12, 2013, to review proposed or requested amendments to the UDC
other than executive amendments, which are those amendments that are nondiscretionary,
mandatory, or legislative revisions to address state statutes or case laws, ratify published
directors determinations, incorporate recently approved Council ordinances, process City
Council designated emergency items, or address revisions otherwise determined necessary by
legal counsel;
RESOLUTION NO. 0 S PAGE 1 OF 2
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # B
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1: The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are hereby
found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim. The City Council hereby finds that this
resolution implements Chapter 3 of the City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan relative
to Land Use.
SECTION 2: City Council hereby designates amendments to the UDC relative to the
development standards, rules, and procedures that affect properties located in a Historic
Overlay District and/or listed on the Historic Resource Survey as an emergency item.
SECTION 3: This resolution shall become effective from and after its passage.
PASSED and APPROVED thisAday of
J
2014.
Dale Ross, Mayor
ATTEST:
aI
a
T{J
Jed, ica Brettle, IVCity Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 0 50-7 H —1 V PAGE 2 OF 2
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements
Chapter 2 Review
Authority
2.01.020 Review Authority Allow staff review for signs and small projects
Include a chart identifying Review Authority (Powers
and Duties) of HPO, HARC and Subcommittees
Demolition Subcommittee - Appointed by HARC; Must
include Building Official, HARC member, and a
Structural Engineer, Historic Preservationist or Architect
2.02 Administrative
Officials
Planning Director acts as the Historic
Preservation Officer
Include the HPO as an administrative official
(Designation, Powers and Duties, etc.)
Clarify that the Planning Direc tor is the HPO or may
be designated by the Planning Director
2.03.010.A.
3
Heritage Tree
Protection
HARC is final authority to allow site
alterations to accommodate Heritage Trees
Transfer to Planning Director (consistent with site plan
review)
Chapter 3 Applications
and Permits
3.01.020 Applicability of
Procedures
Include a Historic Landmark designation process (similar
to Historic District designation)
Change Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) term
to Certificate of Appropriateness (consistency with state
and national standards)
3.03.010.D Posted Notice All CDCs (to include Administrative CDCs)
require public notification
Remove posted notice (and public hearing
requirements) for Administrative CDCs - Only require
public notification for CDCs reviewed by HARC
3.03.020 Required Public
Hearing
HARC CDCs and Historic District
designations require public hearing
Require public hearing for Historic Landmark
designations (similar to Historic District designations)
3.06.020 Review Process
(Zoning Map
Amendment)
May be initiated by applicant or
recommendation from City Council,
Planning and Zoning Commission or
Director
Include recommendation from the HARC in the event
of a Historic District or Historic Landmark designation
Requires recommendation from Planning
and Zoning Commission
3.13.010 Applicability CDC required for any development of
property in a historic district (with certain
exceptions)
Clarify Applicability Section - Clearly delineate types of
CDC required and when required
Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 1 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
CDCs required only for reconstruction, alterations,
changes, removal, relocation, demolition of an existing
structure, new construction (structure) and signage -
Remove any requirements for site alterations or site
features
Revise and move Database of Priority Structures
(Subsection F) to new HPO subsection in Ch. 2
Clarify Removal vs Relocation (term) of a structure -
Provide consistency throughout document
Exclude demolition of a structure that is not designated
(or eligible to be designated) a Historic Landmark, or
that is non-contributing to the Historic district
3.13.010.B Any building or structure on the List of
Priority Structures
Move Section 3.13.010.D.1 (demolition) to
Applicability subsection to clarify applicability of
structures in Historic Districts
Clarify "List of Priority Structures" - not be all-inclusive.
Different types of review depending on the structure
(contributing vs non-contributing structures)
Define building and structures - Structures within a
Historic District and individually identified as Historic
Landmarks. Contributing vs Non-Contributing.
Clearly identify structures that are exempt from CDC
for Demolition requirement (i.e. non-contributing
structures)
Identify structures that require review by Demolition
Subcommittee and approval by HARC vs approval by
HPO
3.13.010.C No building permit issued unless
application reviewed by HARC
Clarify that there are permits eligible for administrative
(staff) review - only applicable when scope of work
requires approval by the HARC
3.13.010.D CDC for Demolition Applicability - Building or structure within
any Historic Overlay District or on List of
Priority Structures
Demolition subsection - Remove from Applicability
Section (create own (new) subsection); Restructure to
be consistent with other processes identified in UDC
(applicability, review process, criteria for approval, etc.)
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 2 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
Does not supersede Dangerous Building
Ordinance
Incorporate CLG delay period requirements (HARC
consideration immediately following end of 60-day
delay period)
Delay Period varies per level of priority
(denied CDCs)
Move and clarify applicability portion to the
Applicability Section (see above)
Demolition and permit delay period due to
work completed with no CDC
Clarify relationship with Dangerous Building Ordinance -
Remove CDC requirement if structure is a dangerous
building and necessary for the preservation of public
health, safety and welfare as determined by the
Building Official
Justification (criteria to initiate demolition request) -
Loss of Significance or Unreasonable Economic
Hardship
Move delay period to beginning of subsection. Remove
delay period requirement if CDC is denied.
Clarify delay periods - purpose, longevity, actions that
can (and should) occurred during delay period,
outcome; consistency with CLG demolition delay
period.
Move Demolition by Neglect regulations to Demolition
subsection (process)
Notification Requirements - Include mail notices for
demolition requests
3.13.020 Review Process Include review process for Administrative CDCs, and
clarify review process for HARC approved CDCs, to
include CDCs for Demolition (own subsections)
3.13.020.B Major Projects Define major projects as those exceeding 50% of the
value of the structure
Clearly define what are considered minor and major
projects - Include chart table
3.13.020.D Application for
Demolition or
Relocation
Justification Statement - one or more may
be applicable
Relocate section to new demolition subsection
Application requirements - Vary per
justification; optional (TBD by Demolition
Subcommittee)
Revise economically viable use to economically feasible
to (renovate, relocate, etc.)
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 3 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
Revise application requirements to be consistent for all
demolition requests
Remove agreement requirements
Clarify requirements for demolition vs relocation;
Relocation within same, different and outside Historic
District
Clarify difference between Subsections 1 and 4 for
Relocation
Remove "Other Evidence Requested" (Subsection 5)
Make subsections 3 and 6 part of applicability
requirements
Move Subsection 7 to Applicability Section
Revise reference to subcommittee - Make Demolition
Subcommittee a (review) recommending body.
Subcommittee makes recommendation to HARC
3.13.020.F.1 Administrative
Review
Clarify - Signs, UDC required site and structural features,
demo of non-historic structures, alternative parking
plans
Clearly identify scope of work that required
Administrative CDCs
3.13.020.F.
2
Minor Projects
Subcommittee
Paint, exterior projects not requiring a building permit
3.13.020.G Economic Review
Panel
Review financial portions of applications of
no economically viable use of the property
Look at other CDC applications that may require
review of this subcommittee - Purpose of
Subcommittee?
Look at designating the subcommittee at the same time
as other subcommittees (if needed)
Streamline the process of the Economic Review Panel
Remove if not needed
3.13.040 Supplemental
Criteria - Demolition
or Relocation
Approval
Consider 3 criteria related to uniqueness of
structure, condition of structure, and Ch. 15
status; and make applicable findings (as
determined by justification statement)
Clarify and revise approval criteria - Include
supplemental criteria for Contributing Structures and
Historic Landmarks
Establish clear and consistent approval criteria/findings
Approval criteria for demolition vs relocation
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 4 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
3.13.050 Criteria for Delayed
Demolitions or
Removal
Applicant must address criteria prior to
going back to HARC for approval
Move to Delay period Section (or vice versa). Place all
delay period requirements under one section
Revise delay period requirements - Remove references
to requirements that were needed to deem application
complete; Make requirements consistent with purpose
of delay period
365-delay period due to demolition by neglect may
defeat purpose as these buildings may have an adverse
impact on the subject property and area. Also is in
conflict with 90-day delay period to bring property
into compliance.
Delay period only applicable to historic properties
(contributing structures in historic district or identified
as individual landmarks)
3.13.070 After approval of a
Demolition or
Relocation
Applicant must complete the following: Make post-approval requirements part of the technical
review of a request. Tasks may be accomplished as the
case is under review.
Clarify requirements vs recommendations
Some requirements may be conditional approval by
HARC
3.13.070.A For Demolition: Clarify; provide clear guidelines of the salvage strategy
plan.
Permanent record of a significant structure
prior to demolition
Salvage strategy only applicable to structures with
national registration, contributing structures, and
historic landmarks.
Removal of all salvageable building
materials - Prepare a salvage strategy
Remove salvage strategy plan for buildings to be
relocated - unless portion of building will be
demolished
Clear structure quickly and thoroughly
Plant site and maintain until reused
3.13.070.B For Relocation (Removal): Clarify what happens if assessment of structural
condition determines that the structure cannot be
moved - Make part of technical review
Document site conditions prior to removal Provide guidelines on how a building proposed to be
relocated will be protected
Prepare salvage strategy for reusable
materials
Time limit for when building must be relocated
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 5 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
Assess structural condition prior to moving
structure
Protect building from weather damage and
vandalism
3.13.110 Appeals Clarify -----
Chapter 4 Zoning
Districts
Clarify that Ch. 4 is only related to the specific
development standards that apply to a zoning district -
processes and application requirements are outlined in
Ch. 3
Remove all references to applications and processes
4.08.010.C Review Authority Clarify administrative reviews allowed
Remove from Ch. 4 and include in Ch. 2 (Review
Authority)
CDC Required Exempt City projects in the ROW from HARC review,
require site plan review based upon UDC and Design
Guidelines
Remove from Ch. 4 and include in Ch. 3 (Applications
and Permits)
4.08.010.F Demolition by
Neglect
No property owner shall permit the
property to fall into a serious state of
disrepair so as to result in deterioration
Move to new Demolition section in Ch. 3 (process)
4.08.020 UDC/Guidelines
Conflict
Clarify role of guidelines/UDC
4.09.020.B Applicability Clarify Staff review in Ch. 3 - Remove review processes
from Ch. 4
4.09.020.D Land Use HARC shall not have the authority to
approve the specific use of a site.
Clarify to "HARC shall not have the authority to
approve or disapproveor disapproveor disapproveor disapprove the specific use of a site."
4.09.020.F BO and HPO determine "serious state of
disrepair"
Revise 90-day period to include CDC, building permit,
and construction periods to bring property into
compliance.
4.09.040 Setback
Modifications
ZBA grants setback modification, HARC
approves construction
Combine review authority to make it easier for the
applicant
4.10.010E Historic Overlay Secretary of Interior standards Change language to match Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Current language paraphrases and combines several in
to one.
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 6 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # B
Proposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and DistrictsProposed revisions to UDC requirements related to HARC and Historic Structures and Districts
ChapterChapterChapterChapter SectionSectionSectionSection General Topic General Topic General Topic General Topic Current RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent RequirementsCurrent Requirements Staff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended AmendmentsStaff Notes/Recommended Amendments
4.10.010.G Property owner given 90 days to bring
property into compliance. Failure to
comply will result in enforcement
proceedings under Ch. 15.40
Conflict with 365-delay period to bring property into
compliance (compliance may include demolition of
structure)
Remove requirement for CDC if enforcement is
conducted under Ch. 15.40 of City Code
Provide different CDC requirements if it is only to
address code violations
Chapter 8 Tree
Preservation,
Landscaping
and Fencing
8.02.050.B.
1
Site alterations to
protect Heritage
Trees
HARC is final authority to allow site
alterations to accommodate Heritage Trees
Transfer to Planning Director (consistent with site plan
review)
Chapter 9 Off-Street
Parking and
Loading
9.02.060 Alternative Parking
Plans in the
Downtown Overlay
District
HARC reviews Alternative Parking Plans in
Downtown, while Director reviews
throughout the city
Change approval to Planning Director
Chapter 16 Definitions 16.02 Definitions Revise and clarify definition of Demolition
Include definitions for Historic Landmark, and
contributing and non-contributing structures
Printed on 10/21/2014 Page 7 of 7
Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 1 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
TO: Reviewers and Coordinators of Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”)
applications
SUBJECT: Staff Operating Procedures (SOP) #105: Processing CDC Applications
DATE: September 26, 2014
This SOP has been prepared to establish uniform procedures and consistency in the review and
processing of Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) applications.
Sections 3.13, 4.08, 4.09 and 4.10 of the City’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”) outline the
applicability, regulations, review process, and approval criteria of a CDC. All CDC requests will
be reviewed and approved by the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (“HARC”)
with the exception of landscaping, residential fences, exterior paint colors for residential
properties in the Downtown Overlay District, and demolition of a non-historic accessory
structure, which are reviewed administratively (Administrative CDCs).
The CDC process takes approximately thirty-five (35) days from application submittal
(Attachment I); approximately sixty (60) days for CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a
Historic Structure (Attachment II). However, projects that require further review may need
additional processing time. Applications for a CDC shall be processed in accordance with the
deadlines outlined in Attachment III, as amended.
Additional information about the CDC processes and application submittal requirements may
be found in Customer Bulletins 112, 113 and 114.
It is important to note that City staff shall remain neutral and impartial (not take sides)
throughout the process. Any appearance of impropriety is in violation of the City’s governance
policy and subject to disciplinary action.
Pre-Application Conference
1) Prior to initiating the CDC application submittal and review process, a property owner must
submit to the Planning Department a request for a Pre-Application Conference.
a) A Pre-Application Conference is required for all development applications, to include
CDC applications except as noted in 1(b) below. One (1) Pre-Application Conference
Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 2 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
may be scheduled for multiple development applications, as may be required depending
on the scope of work.
b) A Pre-Application Conference may not be required in the event that the scope of work
does not require the submittal of other development applications in addition to the CDC
application, or the review of other staff members in addition to the Historic Planner.
c) The Pre-Application Conference Request form may be submitted in person at the
Planning Department’s front desk, or via email at planning@georgetown.org.There is no
fee associated with a request for a Pre-Application Conference. Pre-Application
Conferences are scheduled in accordance with the Planning Department’s policy for pre-
application conferences, found in Customer Bulletin 109 available online at
http://planning.georgetown.org/planning-department-correspondence/.
2) During the Pre-Application Conference, the Historic Planner shall record notes of the
proposed project, applicable code requirements, procedures and types of development
applications required, and complete and sign the Submittal Authorization Form. The
Historic Planner and property owner or representative must sign and date the notes form at
the end of the meeting.
a) For CDC applications that do not require a Pre-Application Conference as noted in 1(b)
above, the Historic Planner must provide a signed Submittal Authorization Form to the
applicant when the applicant is ready to proceed with the CDC application.
b) No CDC application shall be accepted without the signed Submittal Authorization
Form.
c) Type of project (administrative, minor, major, signage or demolition), required material
samples (to include number of samples required), and applicable fees shall be indicated
in the staff notes and signed Submittal Authorization Form.
3) The Historic Planner must scan the staff notes and signed Submittal Authorization Form,
and save a copy in the Planning Department’s “L:” drive at
L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Pre-Application Conferences\Pre-Application form with STAFF
NOTES, under the applicable year.
4) The Historic Planner shall provide the original copy of the staff notes and signed Submittal
Authorization Form to the applicant at the end of the meeting.
HARC Demolition Subcommittee Pre-Application Conference
5) Projects that include the demolition of a structure located in any of the City’s Historic
Overlay districts, or that is listed in the List of Priority Structures (aka Historic Resources
Survey) require a Pre-Application meeting with the HARC Demolition Subcommittee, in
addition to the Pre-Application meeting with staff noted above.
a) This requirement does not apply to requests for the demolition of a non-historic
accessory structure.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 3 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
6) To request a Pre-Application Conference with the HARC Demolition Subcommittee, the
property owner or representative must indicate in the Pre-Application Conference Request
form that the scope of work includes the demolition of a (historic) structure(s), and submit
supporting document(s) to the Planning Department.
7) In the event that the Pre-Application Conference Request form includes the demolition of a
(historic) structure(s), a copy of the form shall be provided to the HARC’s Recording
Secretary, who in turn will coordinate with the property owner or representative and
Historic Planner to schedule the Pre-Application Conference. The Pre-Application
Conference may not be scheduled less than five (5) working days from the following
business date of receipt of the request.
8) The HARC’s Recording Secretary will notify the property owner or representative, Historic
Planner and members of the HARC Demolition Subcommittee of the scheduled Pre-
Application Conference date.
a) The HARC’s Recording Secretary will route a digital copy of the submitted supporting
document(s) to each member of the HARC Demolition Subcommittee and Historic
Planner via email.
b) In the email, the HARC’s Recording Secretary must include the address, applicant,
request details, and the date, time and location of the scheduled Pre-Application
Conference.
c) In accordance with Section 3.13.020.D.8 of the UDC, in the event that members of the
HARC Demolition Subcommittee are unable to attend the scheduled Pre-Application
Conference, the Historic Planner and other applicable staff members present at the
meeting shall determine the application submission requirements.
9) The HARC’s Recording Secretary will post the meeting agenda on the City’s website and at
City Hall no less than 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting in accordance with the City’s
policy for public meetings.
10) At the Pre-Application Conference, the Historic Planner or HARC Demolition
Subcommittee may determine that a site visit is needed. If said determination is made, a site
visit may be completed at any time during the meeting. The HARC’s Recording Secretary is
responsible for arranging the appropriate transportation with Vehicle Services prior to the
meeting in the event that a site visit is needed.
11) During the Pre-Application Conference, the Historic Planner must take notes of the
proposed project, applicable submittal requirements as determined by the Subcommittee
and complete and sign the Submittal Authorization Form. The Historic Planner and the
property owner or representative must sign and date the form at the end of the meeting.
a) No application for a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure shall be accepted
without the signed Submittal Authorization Form.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 4 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
12) The Historic Planner shall scan the staff notes and signed Submittal Authorization Form,
and save a copy in the Planning Department’s “L:” drive at
L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\Pre-Application Conferences\Pre-Application form with STAFF
NOTES under the applicable year.
13) The Historic Planner must provide the original copy of the staff notes and signed Submittal
Authorization Form to the applicant at the end of the meeting.
HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review
14) Infill construction, substantial rehabilitation of an existing structure and other major
projects, require conceptual review by the HARC of the proposed scope of work prior to
submitting an official CDC application. The purpose of the conceptual review is for the
HARC to give guidance and feedback on a potential project prior to submitting an official
application.
a) When not required, property owners may elect to submit a request for conceptual
review by the HARC.
15) For purposes of scheduling this conceptual review, major projects are determined by the
value of the proposed scope of work. If the declared work value exceeds fifty percent (50%)
of the market value of the structure as determined by the Williamson County Appraisal
District, conceptual review by the HARC will be required.
16) The property owner or representative must submit to the customer counter located at the
Planning Department a digital copy of the letter of intent and preliminary plans no less than
seven (7) days prior to a regularly scheduled HARC meeting. Requests for conceptual
review may be submitted in person at the Planning Department’s customer counter, or via
email to planning@georgetown.org.There is no fee associated with a request for a conceptual
review.
17) The Planning Technician will upload the files to the Planning Department’s “L:” drive at
L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC & Historic Preservation under the applicable year and
HARC meeting date folders, and notify the Historic Planner and HARC Recording Secretary
via email.
a) All files must be labeled appropriately with the property address and date of receipt.
18) The Historic Planner will create a Novus Agenda Item for discussion and conceptual review
for the next available agenda (no final action is to be taken by the HARC), and upload the
submitted documents to the Novus Agenda Item.
a) The Novus Agenda item must include a brief description of the proposed scope of work,
and a list of applicable UDC and Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
requirements.
b) All attached documents must be properly labeled with the file name and property
address.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 5 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
c) Items for discussion and conceptual review are to be placed towards the end of the
agenda.
Application Submittal (MyPermitNow Priority 1)
19) To initiate the CDC review process, the property owner or representative must submit in
person a complete CDC application packet to the Planning Department at the Planning
Department’s customer counter.
a) Submittal of a complete application packet includes:
i) A CD or USB flash drive with three (3) PDF files containing the following
information:
(1) Application Information – Includes complete, signed and notarized Master
Application Form, signed Submittal Authorization Form, and CDC Checklist;
(2) Letter of intent – Detailed description and justification of the request(s); and
(3) Plan Review and Supporting materials – all drawings, specifications and other
supporting documents as specified in the checklist.
(4) CDs or USB flash drives must be labeled with the project name and address.
ii) Required application fee based on the pre-application notes. All fees must be paid
prior to progressing to the next MyPermitNow (“MPN”) Priority.
iii) When determined during the Pre-Application meeting and as indicated in the
application checklists, samples of each material to be used in the proposed scope of
work.
b) CDC applications that require consideration by the HARC must be submitted a
minimum of thirty-five (35) days prior to the scheduled meeting.
c) Incomplete applications may not be accepted, and must be returned to the applicant.
20) Upon receipt of a complete application, the Planning Technician will create a new case and
associated case number in MPN, upload all submitted documents, calculate the fee, and
assign the Historic Planner as the Case Manager to initiate Completeness Review (Priority
1). Any non-digital submittal materials, such as building materials samples, shall be placed
in the drop box provided for the Historic Planner. Application fee must be paid or the case
will not be progressed to the next priority level.
Completeness Review (MyPermitNow Priority 2)
21) Within the subsequent five (5) working days, the Historic Planner will review the
application to determine if the minimum required documents needed to review the
application (supporting materials listed in the checklist for a specific type of application)
were submitted, and deem the application complete or incomplete.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 6 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
22) In the event that the application is deemed incomplete, the Historic Planner must submit a
list of the missing items/documents to the applicant in writing, and update MPN (Priority
2). The Historic Planner shall cease any additional reviews until incomplete application
materials are provided and uploaded into MPN.
23) When the application is deemed complete, the Historic Planner must update MPN (Priority
2), notify the applicant on the completeness status and proceed to Technical Review.
Technical Review (MyPermitNow Priorities 3, 4 and 5)
24) Within the following five (5) working days from deeming the application complete, the
Historic Planner will review the application to determine compliance with applicable
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and UDC requirements.
a) The Historic Planner must also review the application to determine if the request must
be revised to include additional items that require a CDC.
i) If it is determined that additional requests for a CDC are needed for the proposed
scope of work, the Historic Planner shall notify the applicant in writing and make a
note in MPN.
ii) After discussing with the applicant the additional requests required, these items
shall be included in the current (open) application provided the applicant agrees, or
a new CDC application will need to be submitted for the additional items.
25) In the event that the request does not meet the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines
or UDC requirements, the Historic Planner will redline the submitted plans and supporting
documents identifying the items that need to be revised and addressed, and update MPN
(Priority 3).
a) A copy of the revised plans with staff’s plan review comments shall be emailed to the
applicant.
b) The applicant must submit revised plans and specification, a response letter addressing
all plan review comments, and signed Application Resubmittal Form.
i) Resubmittals must be submitted to the Planning Department’s customer counter.
ii) All revised documents must be submitted digitally on a CD or USB flash drive
labeled with the project name and number.
c) Upon receipt of the revised set of plans, the Historic Planner shall review the revised
documents as noted in 24 above.
26) When the Historic Planner determines that the request meets the Downtown and Old Town
Design Guidelines and UDC requirements, the Historic Planner will update MPN (Priorities
3 and 4), and notify the HARC Recording Secretary of the status. In the event the request is
for an Administrative CDC, the Historic Planner shall notify the HARC Recording Secretary
the expected decision making date to include in the notification sign.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 7 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
27) The HARC Recording Secretary shall create notification signs to be posted on site by the
applicant.
a) The notification sign(s) must include the case number, the expected date City Staff will
make a determination or the scheduled HARC public hearing date, as applicable, staff
contact information, and other information in accordance with UDC Section 3.03.
b) When ready, the applicant must pick-up the sign(s) at the Planning Department’s
customer counter on or before seventeen (17) days prior to the decision making or public
hearing date (Priority 5).
c) All signs must be maintained on site for a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the
decision making or public hearing date.
28) In addition, the Historic Planner shall:
a) For Administrative CDCs:
i) Post a copy of the request online for public comment and review. Online posting
must include the project description, plans and supporting documents, public
comment deadline and staff contact information.
ii) Within the following 15-day public comment period, gather any feedback received
and forward a copy to the applicant with additional recommendations (as
applicable).
(1) The Historic Planner and applicant must work together to address any concerns
and make any necessary revisions to the plans, as applicable.
iii) Make findings that the proposed request meets the approval criteria of UDC Section
3.13.030.
b) For HARC CDCs:
i) Place the request on the next available HARC public hearing agenda (Priority 5).
ii) Draft the staff report and recommendation to the HARC using the Staff Report
Template located in the Planning Department’s L: drive at
L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC & Historic Preservation\Templates (Priority 5).
(1) Staff report must include findings that the proposed request meets the approval
criteria of UDC Section 3.13.030 and 3.13.040, when applicable.
iii) Submit a draft copy of the staff report and recommendation to the members of the
HARC agenda review group at least 3 working days prior to the agenda review
meeting for review and comment. The Historic Planner must address each and
every comment and finalize the staff report no later than 8 days prior to the
scheduled meeting.
iv) Create the Novus agenda item using the Novus Agenda Item Template located in
the Planning Department’s L: drive at L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC & Historic
Preservation\Templates, and upload the staff report with all attachments. The Novus
Agenda item shall be finalized no later than 7 days prior to the scheduled meeting.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 8 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
v) CDC applications must be placed in the order received (by case number); continued
cases shall be placed before regular cases. Relevant back-up material for continued
cases shall be provided again with the agenda.
vi) Create the Power Point Presentation using the City’s Power Point template. All plans
and exhibits shown on the Power Point Presentation must include a title, north
arrow and legend, as applicable.
vii) When required (as determined at the Pre-Application Conference and application
submittal checklist), create a packet with all the sample materials related to cases
scheduled for consideration for each HARC member. Each sample material must be
identified with the applicable Case Number and property address.
Agenda Review Meeting
29) An agenda review meeting shall be scheduled by the Downtown & Community Services
Executive Assistant at least 10 days prior to the date of the HARC meeting. Example when a
meeting is on a Thursday, agenda review shall occur no later than Tuesday the week before.
30) The HARC agenda review meeting shall include the Downtown & Community Services
Division Director, Executive Assistant, Historic Planner and the Recording Secretary. The
Project Coordinator shall be notified of the meetings and attend only as necessary.
31) At least 3 working days prior to the agenda review committee meeting, the Historic Planner
shall provide copies of the staff reports to the members of the review meetings as discussed
in 28)(b)(iii) above.
32) The consensus of the discussion at the agenda review meeting shall be considered the final
determination with staff recommendations, submittal materials and agenda placement.
HARC Agenda
33) When all cases have been uploaded to the Novus Agenda, the HARC Recording Secretary
will add the previous meeting minutes and all other administrative items, and finalize the
HARC meeting agenda using the Novus Agenda Template located in the Planning
Department’s L: drive at L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC & Historic
Preservation\Templates.
34) The HARC Recording Secretary will post the agenda online and at City Hall no less than 72
hours prior to the scheduled hearing with a goal of posting it sooner. The HARC Sign
Subcommittee meetings are currently held on Mondays and Thursdays, and the HARC (full
commission) meetings are currently held on Thursdays. Staff shall strive to post agenda
materials the Friday before the week of the HARC meeting.
35) In addition, the HARC Recording Secretary will email the link of the agenda with staff
recommendations to all members of the HARC, Historic Planner, and Assistant City
Manager. The Recording Secretary shall not post any agenda items that are known to be
missing required materials, missing authorizations, nor that have unpaid fees. Also no
Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 13
Item # B
SOP 105: Processing CDC Applications Page 9 of 10
Issued: September 26, 2014
agenda items shall be posted that have not been corrected to reflect discussions of the
agenda review meeting.
a) When required (as determined at the Pre-Application Conference and application
submittal checklist), the HARC Recording Secretary will notify the HARC members of
all sample materials available for pick-up at the Planning Department’s front counter for
cases posted in the Agenda.
36) The Historic Planner will send the link to the posted agenda and staff recommendation to
the applicant and remind the applicant that if they choose to present at HARC that they are
limited to 3 minutes, unless a specific request in writing is made for 10 minutes of
presentation time one week in advance of the meeting.
37) The Historic Planner will coordinate with appropriate City Staff to attend the HARC
meeting to provide additional backup information on specific projects as needed.
Meeting Procedures
38) The HARC’s Recording Secretary shall load the electronic packets on to each computer or
iPad prior to the meeting. The packets must be saved on each computer or iPad to ensure
efficient meetings in a manner consistent with other City Boards and Commissions.
39) The HARC’s Recording Secretary shall take the minutes and assist the Commission Chair
with the public hearing, collecting speaker forms and monitoring the time allotted for each
speaker.
40) The Historic Planner shall present the cases and assist the HARC with technical review
during the decision making process.
Decision Making
41) For Administrative CDCs:
a) Upon completion of the Technical Review, the Historic Planner will approve, approve
with conditions or deny the CDC.
b) If approved, the Historic Planner will draft and sign the Certificate of Design
Compliance form located in the Planning Department’s “L:” drive at
L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC & Historic Preservation\Templates
i) Approved CDC must include the approved set of plans and supporting documents.
ii) If the CDC is approved with conditions, all conditions must be listed in the CDC.
Conditions must include a sunset or expiration date to complete the conditions, and
sufficient details to be enforceable.
c) If denied, the Historic Planner will draft the Decision of the Historic Planner form
located in the Planning Department’s “L:” drive at L:\Division\cd\PLANNING\HARC
& Historic Preservation\Templates.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 13
Item # B
Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 13
Item # B
ȱ ȱȬȱCDC Process FlowchartǰȱStaff Review
Applicant submits CDC
application to the
Planning Department
35 days prior to
meeting.
Planning Technician (PT) creates CDC file in MPN,
uploads information and supporting documents,
and assesses fees. If one of the required documents
for submittal is missing, incomplete application will
be returned to the applicant.
Applicant pays required
application fee.
PT assigns application to
Historic Planner (HP) and
progresses application to
Completeness Review.
Within 5 working days of submittal,
HP reviews application for completeness
and deems the application complete or
incomplete.
Within 5 working days from deeming
the application complete, the HP
reviews application to determine
compliance with the applicable
Guidelines and UDC requirements.
HP finalizes report,
creates Novus agenda
item, and uploads report
and attachments to the
Novus agenda item.
If deemed incomplete, HP emails list of
missing items to the applicant and makes
updates MPN. Application may not
proceed until application is deemed
complete.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
When deemed complete, HP
checks-off requirement in MPN,
and proceeds the application to
technical review.
APPROVED
DENIED
The Applicant collects
notification signs and posts them
on the property no less than 17
days prior to the meeting.
If HP determines the request does not meet
the Guidelines or UDC requirements, the
HP will provide a list of outstanding items
to the applicant in writing, and update
MPN. The request will not proceed for
Administrative or HARC consideration.
When HP determines the request meets
the Guidelines and UDC requirements, the
HP will post the item online (Administrative
CDCs) or place the item on the next HARC
meeting agenda; and updates MPN.
The HARC Recording Secretary will prepare
the notification signs.
Agenda Review panel
reviews the Staff Report
and provides comments
to the HP, if necessary.
HARC Recording Secretary
finalizes Novus agenda and
packet, posts agenda
online, and (e)mails agenda
packets to HARC members.
HP sends the applicant
the link to the posted
agenda and staff report,
and prepares the power
point presentation.
HARC considers the request and
approves, approves with conditions, or
denies the request.
If denied, HP drafts and signs the
“Decision of the HARC/Historic
Planner” memo. A signed copy is
emailed to the applicant and uploaded
to MPN.
If approved, HP drafts and signs the
approved CDC, to include any
conditions. A signed copy is emailed to
the applicant and uploaded to MPN.
NOT IN COMPLIANCE
IN COMPLIANCE
HP drafts
recommendation to
HARC (Staff Report).
Within the following 15 days from
notification, HP gathers public
comments on proposed request, and
makes additional recommendations
to applicant (as applicable).
ADMINISTRATIVE CDC
HARC CDC
If applicable, applicant
revises plans.
APPROVED
DENIED
Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 13
Item # B
ȱ ȱȬȱCDC for Demolition Process FlowchartǰȱStaff Review
Applicant submits CDC
application to the
Planning Department
60 days prior to
meeting.
Planning Technician (PT) creates CDC file in MPN,
uploads information and supporting documents,
and assesses fees. If one of the required documents
for submittal is missing, incomplete application will
be returned to the applicant.
Applicant pays required
application fee.
PT assigns application to
Historic Planner (HP) and
progresses application to
Completeness Review.
Within 5 working days of submittal,
HP reviews application for completeness
and deems the application complete or
incomplete.
Within 5 working days from deeming
the application complete, the HP
reviews application to determine
compliance with the applicable
Guidelines and UDC requirements.
HP finalizes report,
creates Novus agenda
item, and uploads report
and attachments to the
Novus agenda item.
If deemed incomplete, HP emails list of
missing items to the applicant and makes
updates MPN. Application may not
proceed until application is deemed
complete.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
When deemed complete, HP
checks-off requirement in MPN,
creates CLG notification sign,
and proceeds the application to
technical review.
APPROVED
DENIED
The Applicant collects
notification signs and posts them
on the property no less than 17
days prior to the meeting.
If HP determines the request does not
meet the Guidelines or UDC requirements,
the HP will provide a list of outstanding
items to the applicant in writing, and
update MPN. The request will not proceed
for Administrative or HARC consideration.
When HP determines the request meets
the Guidelines and UDC requirements, the
HP will post the item online (Administrative
CDCs) or place the item on the next HARC
meeting agenda; and updates MPN.
The HARC Recording Secretary will prepare
the notification signs.
Agenda Review panel
reviews the Staff Report
and provides comments
to the HP, if necessary.
HARC Recording Secretary
finalizes Novus agenda and
packet, posts agenda
online, and (e)mails agenda
packets to HARC members.
HP sends the applicant
the link to the posted
agenda and staff report,
and prepares the power
point presentation.
HARC considers the request and
approves, approves with
conditions, or denies the
request.
If denied, HP drafts and signs the “Decision of
the HARC/Historic Planner” memo. A signed
copy is emailed to the applicant and uploaded
to MPN.
If approved and following conclusion of 60-day
delay period, HP drafts and signs the approved
CDC, to include any conditions. A signed copy is
emailed to the applicant and uploaded to MPN.
NOT IN
COMPLIANCE
IN COMPLIANCE
HP drafts
recommendation to
HARC (Staff Report).
HARC CDC
The Applicant collects
CLG notification signs
and posts them on the
property for 60 days.
Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 13
Item # B
HARC
Meeting
Date
Public
Notice
Agenda
Deadline
CR
Deadline
1st TR
Deadline
Staff finalizes
notice items
on Agenda
Signs ready
for pick up
after
12 PM
Final TR
Deadline
Agenda
Review
Meeting
Staff reports
finalized
Items finalized
by 12 PM and
given to the
HARC Recording
Secretary
Packet ready for
delivery by
12 PM.
Agenda posted
online and City
Hall by 5 PM
2nd Mondays (SS)
& 4th Thursdays 35 days prior 28 days prior 21 days prior 20 days prior 17 days prior 13 days prior 10 days prior 8 days prior 7 days prior 6 days prior
SS Jan 13 Dec 9 Dec 16 Dec 23 Dec 23 Dec 27 Dec 31 Jan 3 Jan 6 Jan 6 Jan 7
SS & HARC Jan 23 Dec 19 Dec 26 Jan 2 Jan 3 Jan 6 Jan 10 Jan 13 Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17
SS Feb 10 Jan 6 Jan 13 Jan 17 Jan 21 Jan 24 Jan 28 Jan 31 Feb 3 Feb 3 Feb 4
SS & HARC Feb 27 Jan 23 Jan 30 Feb 6 Feb 7 Feb 10 Feb 14 Feb 17 Feb 19 Feb 20 Feb 21
SS Mar 17 Feb 10 Feb 17 Feb 24 Feb 25 Feb 28 Mar 4 Mar 7 Mar 10 Mar 10 Mar 11
SS & HARC Mar 28 Feb 21 Feb 28 Mar 7 Mar 8 Mar 11 Mar 15 Mar 18 Mar 20 Mar 21 Mar 22
SS Apr 14 Mar 10 Mar 17 Mar 24 Mar 25 Mar 28 Apr 1 Apr 4 Apr 7 Apr 7 Apr 8
SS & HARC Apr 24 Mar 20 Mar 27 Apr 3 Apr 4 Apr 7 Apr 11 Apr 14 Apr 16 Apr 17 Apr 18
SS May 12 Apr 7 Apr 14 Apr 21 Apr 22 Apr 25 Apr 29 May 2 May 5 May 5 May 6
SS & HARC May 22 Apr 17 Apr 24 May 1 May 2 May 5 May 9 May 12 May 14 May 15 May 16
SS Jun 9 May 5 May 12 May 19 May 20 May 23 May 27 May 30 Jun 2 Jun 2 Jun 3
SS & HARC Jun 26 May 22 May 29 Jun 5 Jun 6 Jun 9 Jun 13 Jun 16 Jun 18 Jun 19 Jun 20
SS Jul 14 Jun 9 Jun 16 Jun 23 Jun 24 Jun 27 Jul 1 Jul 3 Jul 7 Jul 7 Jul 8
SS & HARC Jul 24 Jun 19 Jun 26 Jul 3 Jul 3 Jul 7 Jul 11 Jul 14 Jul 16 Jul 17 Jul 18
SS Aug 11 Jul 7 Jul 14 Jul 21 Jul 22 Jul 25 Jul 29 Aug 1 Aug 4 Aug 4 Aug 5
SS & HARC Aug 28 Jul 24 Jul 31 Aug 7 Aug 8 Aug 11 Aug 15 Aug 18 Aug 20 Aug 21 Aug 22
SS Sep 8 Aug 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 19 Aug 22 Aug 26 Aug 29 Aug 29 Aug 29 Sep 2
SS & HARC Sep 25 Aug 21 Aug 28 Sep 4 Sep 5 Sep 8 Sep 12 Sep 15 Sep 17 Sep 18 Sep 19
SS Oct 13 Sep 8 Sep 15 Sep 22 Sep 23 Sep 26 Sep 30 Oct 3 Oct 6 Oct 6 Oct 7
SS & HARC Oct 23 Sep 18 Sep 25 Oct 2 Oct 3 Oct 6 Oct 10 Oct 13 Oct 15 Oct 16 Oct 17
SS Nov 10 Oct 6 Oct 13 Oct 20 Oct 21 Oct 24 Oct 28 Oct 31 Nov 3 Nov 3 Nov 4
SS & HARC Dec 11 Nov 6 Nov 13 Nov 20 Nov 21 Nov 24 Nov 26 Dec 1 Dec 3 Dec 4 Dec 5
SS Dec 8
SS & HARC Dec 25
SS Jan 12, 2015 Dec 8 Dec 15 Dec 22 Dec 23 Dec 26 Dec 30 Jan 2, 2015 Jan 5, 2015 Jan 5, 2015 Jan 6, 2015
SS & HARC Jan 22, 2015 Dec 18 Dec 25 Dec 31 Jan 2, 2015 Jan 5, 2015 Jan 9, 2015 Jan 12, 2015 Jan 14, 2015 Jan 15, 2015 Jan 16, 2015
* Dates adjusted due to holiday or weekend - subject to change depending on updates to holiday calendars, etc.
*** Meeting cancelled ***
*** Meeting cancelled ***AA
ATTACHMENT III - HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (HARC) 2014
Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 13
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 1 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
TO: Planning and Downtown and Community Services departments Customers
SUBJECT: Customer Bulletin #112 – The Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) Process
DATE: May 6, 2014
This Customer Bulletin was created as a customer service initiative to provide a guide on the
Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) process to property and business owners located
within the Downtown and Old Town Overlay districts.
A location map of each overlay district and of properties listed in the Historic Resources Survey
may be viewed online using the City’s interactive online maps located at
https://maps.georgetown.org/interactive-maps/ (Geoguide: Historic Resources Survey Map).
Information available includes the district boundaries, as well as a structure’s level of priority,
construction year, architect, architectural style and building materials.
For questions and further information, please contact the Historic Planner at (512) 930-3581.
THE CDC PROCESS
Sections 3.13, 4.08, 4.09 and 4.10 of the City’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”) outline the
applicability, regulations, review process, and approval criteria of a CDC. The UDC may be
viewed online at https://udc.georgetown.org/unified-development-code/.
In accordance with UDC Sections 3.13.010(A)(1) and (B), 4.08.010(C), 4.09.020(B) and 4.10.010(B),
a CDC is required before a property may be developed or work is made upon any building or
structure under the circumstances identified in the table below:
TYPE OF REQUEST TOWN SQUARE HISTORIC
& DOWNTOWN OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
OLD TOWN OVERLAY
DISTRICT
Awnings and Canopies (single and two-
dwelling unit uses/structures)
Awnings and Canopies (all other
uses/structures)
Demolition of a historic resource*
Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 2 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
TYPE OF REQUEST TOWN SQUARE HISTORIC
& DOWNTOWN OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
OLD TOWN OVERLAY
DISTRICT
Demolition or Relocation of a historic
structure†
Demolition or removal of a building
façade with street frontage (single and
two-dwelling unit uses/structures)
Exterior Building or Site Alterations (single
and two-dwelling unit uses/structures)‡
Exterior Building or Site Alterations (all
other uses/structures)‡
Exterior Paint Color (single and two-
dwelling unit uses/structures)
Exterior Paint Color (all other
uses/structures)
Fence (related to a non-residential outside
eating or sitting area, or front yard fence)
Landscaping (not applicable to single-
family and two-family residential uses)
New Construction - Additions (single and
two-dwelling unit uses/structures)
(only required if addition is made to a street
facing façade; or
if the single or two-dwelling unit structure
exceeds the height, setback or FAR limitations of
the Overlay)
New Construction - Additions (all other
uses/structures)
New Construction – Infill (single and two-
dwelling unit uses/structures)
(only if the single or two-dwelling unit structure
exceeds the height, setback or FAR limitations of
the Overlay)
New Construction - Infill (all other
uses/structures)
(only for non-residential uses, or if the property is
in the TH, MF or other non-residential base
zoning district)
Ordinary Maintenance and Repair§
Signage
*Historic Resource is any property, structure, feature, object or district that is determined to be of historical significance.
†Demolition or Relocation of a Historic Structure listed in the Historic Resources Survey requires the approval of a CDC
regardless if the property is located in the Downtown or Old Town Overlay Districts. For additional information on the CDC for
Demolition process, please refer to Customer Bulletin 113 available online at https://planning.georgetown.org/planning-
department-correspondence/.
‡Exterior Building or Site Alterations only include the following: alteration or restoration of any exterior features of a historic
resource; applying a new exterior siding material; adding a new window, door or dormer; a change to the dimensions or
configuration of the roof height or building footprint; a change in the primary structural frame or secondary members of a
Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 3 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
building, such as columns, beams and girders; creating a driveway or parking area; adding mechanical equipment; building or
enclosing a porch, carport, deck, fence or garage; and adding outdoor heaters or electronic items.
§Ordinary Maintenance and Repair is any work, the sole purpose of which is to prevent or correct deterioration, decay or
damage, including repair of damage caused by fire or other disaster and which does not result in a change in the existing
appearance and materials of a property.
The CDC process takes approximately thirty-five (35) days from application submittal to final
decision (see attached EXHIBIT). However, please note that projects that require further review
may require additional processing time. All CDC requests will be reviewed and approved by
the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (“HARC”) with the exception of
landscaping, residential fences, exterior paint colors for residential properties in the Downtown
Overlay District and demolition of a non-historic accessory structure, which are reviewed
administratively (Administrative CDCs).
Please be advised that any development or modification to a property or structure located in
one of the historic districts must comply with the applicable UDC regulations and should be
consistent with the Downtown and Old Town Guidelines, as amended, even when a CDC is not
required for the proposed scope of work.
Pre-Application Conference
Prior to submitting a CDC application, a request for a Pre-Application Conference must be
completed and submitted to the Planning Department to schedule a meeting with appropriate
staff members. Pre-Application Conference Request forms may be submitted in person at 300-1
Industrial Avenue, or via email at planning@georgetown.org. The purpose of this meeting is to
provide an applicant the opportunity to present the proposed project to City Staff, and obtain
the City’s professional opinion and input on potential code requirements and procedures that
an applicant must undertake to complete the project. There is no fee associated with a request
for a Pre-Application Conference. Additional information about the Pre-Application Conference
may be found in Customer Bulletin 109 available online at
http://planning.georgetown.org/planning-department-correspondence/.
When completing the request form, it is highly recommended that the applicant provide as
much detail and information as possible. Once the Pre-Application Conference is complete, an
applicant will have up to ninety (90) days from the date of the staff comments and signature(s)
to submit the related applications or a new Pre-Application Conference will be required. The
Pre-Application Conference Request form is available online at
http://udc.georgetown.org/development-manual/.
HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review
Infill construction, substantial rehabilitation of an existing structure and other major projects,
require conceptual review by the HARC of the proposed scope of work prior to submitting an
official CDC application. For this purpose, major projects are determined by the value of the
proposed scope of work. If the value of the scope of work exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the
market value of the structure as determined by the Williamson County Appraisal District,
conceptual review by the HARC will be required.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 4 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
The HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review is in addition to the Pre-Application
Conference with staff referenced in the section above, as other requirements and procedures
may be applicable (depending on the scope of work) that are beyond the purview of the HARC.
Both meetings may be scheduled simultaneously and do not require consideration by one prior
to the other. Materials for the conceptual review must be submitted in digital format (PDF) at
least seven (7) days before the regularly scheduled HARC meeting. Requests for Conceptual
Review and supporting materials may be submitted to the Planning Department in person at
300-1 Industrial Avenue, or via email at planning@georgetown.org. To learn if your project will
require conceptual review by the HARC, please contact the City’s Historic Planner at (512) 930-
3581.
Application Submittal
In order to facilitate the application submittal process, completed applications may be
submitted at any time. Submittal of a complete application includes the Application Form, all
supporting documents as listed in the application checklist, and applicable fees. For
applications that require HARC review and consideration, it is recommended that an
application be submitted a minimum of thirty-five (35) days prior to a scheduled HARC Public
Hearing. This is to allow for sufficient time to review the application, create the HARC staff
report and packet when applicable, and comply with the public notice requirements of UDC
Section 3.03. The City strives to process your request efficiently to avoid any unnecessary
delays; however, please be advised that projects that require further review may require
additional processing time.
Completeness Review
Upon receipt of an application, City Staff will review all submitted information within five (5)
working days to determine if the minimum items needed for proper review (submittal
requirements) are present in the application packet. In the event the application is deemed
incomplete, a list of missing items will be provided to the applicant in writing. Additionally,
the request will be placed on hold and not scheduled for consideration by the HARC, when
applicable, until such time the missing items are submitted and the application is deemed
complete. When the application is deemed complete, the request will proceed to technical
review and be placed on the next available HARC Public Hearing agenda, when applicable.
Technical Review
Technical review of the application consists of the review of the request to determine if and how
the proposed scope of work meets the approval criteria outlined in the UDC and the Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines. City staff may contact the applicant to obtain additional
information, further clarification or revisions of the plans if deemed necessary. Please be
advised that a site visit may be completed by staff during this time.
Administrative CDCs will be issued upon completion of the technical review no earlier than
fifteen (15) days after the posted notice, provided the UDC approval criteria are met and the
request complies with the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Appeals of an
Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 5 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
administratively issued CDC will be considered by the HARC in accordance with procedures
established for new applications. Such appeal must be submitted within fifteen (15) days of an
administrative action.
For CDC applications that require consideration by the HARC, staff will draft a
recommendation to the HARC as part of the staff report that is written during this stage of the
review process.
Public Notification
In accordance with Section 3.03.010(D) of the UDC, all CDC applications require public
notification. Each applicant is required to post public notice of the CDC application no less than
fifteen (15) days prior to the expected date City Staff will make a determination or the
scheduled HARC public hearing, as applicable, on the property. The public notice to post on the
property will be provided by City Staff and may be picked-up at the Planning Department,
located at 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626. City Staff will notify the applicant
when the sign(s) is(are) ready for pick-up. Please note that public notice signs must be kept on
the property until final action is made by City Staff or the HARC, as applicable. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to remove the sign(s) after City Staff or the HARC takes final
action.
In addition, CDC applications that require administrative review will be posted online fifteen
(15) days prior to making a final decision for public review/comment to comply with the Public
Notification requirements of the UDC [Section 3.03.010(D)].
HARC
The HARC Public Hearing includes the presentation of the staff recommendation, explanation
of the proposed scope of work by the applicant and/or property owner [up to ten (10) minutes],
and public comments in support or in opposition of the request. During the public hearing, each
constituent that signs up to speak on the request will have three (3) minutes to present their
comments to the HARC. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum time
of six (6) minutes. Upon closing of the public hearing, the HARC will deliberate and discuss the
case, and vote to take final action on the application.
It is important to note that the HARC may only consider and take action on the specific items
presented before them; any new or additional item(s) will require the submittal of a new
application, or postponement of the current application so it may be amended and rescheduled
at a future public hearing. In both cases, new public notification will be required.
The HARC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request by a majority vote of all
members of the HARC; a minimum of four (4) votes is required to approve a CDC. Should the
request be approved or approved with conditions, the applicant may proceed to obtain the
necessary approvals to complete the project (i.e. Building Permit). When applicable, the
conditions of the CDC must be met within the time frame established by the HARC.
However, should the request be denied, no application for the same project may be considered
within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date the request was denied by the HARC. In this
Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 6 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
case, the applicant may submit a design for a new project or revised design that substantially
responds to the reasons for denial.
Approved CDCs will expire if no work is commenced within twenty-four (24) months from the
date of the approval.
Any person aggrieved by the HARC’s final decision on a CDC may appeal to the City Council
within thirty (30) days in accordance with Section 3.13.0110 of the UDC.
For information on the HARC’s role on a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Historic
Structure, please refer to Customer Bulletin 113.
Approval Criteria
UDC Section 3.13.030 establishes the approval criteria for all CDC requests. City staff and the
HARC must use the criteria outlined in this Section to determine whether to grant a CDC.
Additionally, any property within the boundaries of the Districts must also meet the standards
set forth in the UDC and the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
Postponed Cases
An applicant may postpone a case by submitting a written request to the Historic Planner prior
to the posting of the HARC meeting agenda, or by making the request before the HARC at the
dais in the event that the agenda has already been posted. When the applicant is ready to move
forward with the postponed application, the request will be placed on the next available HARC
Public Hearing. In addition, the applicant will be responsible for obtaining from the Planning
Department and placing on the posted public notice sign a revised notification with the new
hearing date no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the new scheduled hearing.
Continued Cases
At the HARC Public Hearing, the HARC or applicant may request a continuance to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, which allows the request to be considered at a future date without
incurring additional fees or re-notification requirements. Cases may only be continued under
limited circumstances, such as the applicant wishing to submit new and/or additional
information, or revise the request or plans to show an alternate design.
It should be noted that the HARC must make a final action within forty-five (45) days of the
public hearing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Thus, when requesting a
continuance, please note that all requests must be to a date certain of a regularly scheduled
HARC meeting, as agreed by both the HARC and applicant.
Application Withdrawal
An applicant may withdraw an application at any time during the CDC process, prior to the
request being called forward for consideration at the HARC Public Hearing. Please note that if a
request to withdraw the application is received after an application is deemed complete, all
paid application fees will be forfeited.
Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 7
Item # B
CB 112 – CDC Process Page 7 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
The following is a list of additional resources available to provide guidance on historic
buildings and sites, as well as design guidelines and preservation:
• City of Georgetown Downtown Master Plan - https://historic.georgetown.org/downtown-
master-plan
• City of Georgetown Unified Development Code - https://udc.georgetown.org/unified-
development-code
• City of Georgetown Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines -
https://historic.georgetown.org/downtown-design-guidelines
• National Alliance of Preservation Commissions - http://napc.uga.edu
• National Trust for Historic Preservation - www.preservationnation.org
• National Main Street - www.mainstreet.org
• Texas Historical Commission - www.thc.state.tx.us
• Texas Main Street - www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-main-street
• Georgetown Heritage Society - www.georgetownheritagesociety.com
• American Planning Association - www.planning.org
Attachment number 4 \nPage 7 of 7
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 1 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
TO: Planning and Downtown and Community Services departments Customers
SUBJECT: Customer Bulletin #113 – The Certificate of Design Compliance (“CDC”) for
Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process
DATE: May 6, 2014
This Customer Bulletin was created as a customer service initiative on the Certificate of Design
Compliance (“CDC”) for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure process to provide a guide to
property and business owners located within the Downtown and Old Town Overlay districts,
or that own a building listed in the City’s List of Priority Structures (Historic Resources Survey).
This Customer Bulletin does not apply to requests for the demolition of a non-historic accessory
structure.
A location map of each overlay district and of properties listed in the Historic Resources Survey
may be viewed online using the City’s interactive online maps located at
https://maps.georgetown.org/interactive-maps/ (Geoguide: Historic Resources Survey Map).
Information available includes the district boundaries, as well as a structure’s level of priority,
construction year, archite ct, architectural style and building materials.
For questions and further information, please contact the Historic Planner at (512) 930-3581.
THE CDC FOR DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE PROCESS
Section 3.13 of the City’s Unified Development Code (“UDC”) outlines the applicability,
regulations, review process, and approval criteria of a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a
Structure. The UDC may be viewed online at https://udc.georgetown.org/unified-development-
code/.
In accordance with UDC Sections 3.13.010(B) and (D)(1), a CDC is required to demolish or
relocate a structure that is in the Downtown or Old Town Overlay Districts, or that is on the
City’s List of Priority Structures (Historic Resources Survey).
The CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure process takes approximately sixty (60)
days from application submittal to final decision (see attached EXHIBIT). However, please note
Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 2 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
that projects that require further review may require additional processing time. All CDCs for a
demolition or relocation will be reviewed and approved by the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission (“HARC”).
Please be advised that any development or modification to a property or structure located in
one of the historic districts must comply with the applicable UDC regulations and should be
consistent with the Downtown and Old Town Guidelines, as amended, even when a CDC is not
required for the proposed scope of work. For additional information on other CDC applications
and processes, please refer to Customer Bulletin 112 available online at
https://planning.georgetown.org/planning-department-correspondence/.
Pre-Application Conference
Prior to submitting a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure application, a request for
a Pre-Application Conference must be completed and submitted to the Planning Department to
schedule a meeting with appropriate staff members. Pre-Application Conference Request forms
may be submitted in person at 300-1 Industrial Avenue, or via email at
planning@georgetown.org. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant the
opportunity to present the proposed project to City Staff, and obtain the City’s professional
opinion and input on potential code requirements and procedures that an applicant must
undertake to complete the project. There is no fee associated with a request for a Pre-
Application Conference. Additional information about the Pre-Application Conference may be
found in Customer Bulletin 109 available online at http://planning.georgetown.org/planning-
department-correspondence/.
When completing the request form, it is highly recommended that the applicant provide as
much detail and information as possible. Once the Pre-Application Conference is complete, an
applicant will have up to ninety (90) days from the date of the staff comments and signature(s)
to submit the related applications or a new Pre-Application Conference will be required. The
Pre-Application Conference Request form is available online at
http://udc.georgetown.org/development-manual/.
HARC Demolition Subcommittee Pre-Application Conference
In addition to the Pre-Application Conference with staff referenced above, the applicant must
meet with the HARC Demolition Subcommittee prior to submitting the application. The
purpose of this meeting is to establish the minimum submission requirements to be included in
the application for a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure . A site visit may be
completed during this meeting if deemed necessary. All required Pre-Application conferences
may be scheduled simultaneously and do not require consideration by one prior to the other.
When completing the request form, it is highly recommended that the applicant include with
the Pre-Application Conference Request form one (1) digital copy of the detailed scope of work,
photographs of the structure and site, and other supporting documents that detail the structural
and historical condition of the structure to be demolished or relocated. This information should
be submitted in advance so that it may be distributed to the Subcommittee and staff members
prior to the meeting.
Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 3 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review
If a structure is proposed to be relocated within a historic overlay district, a CDC for the
structure to be relocated may be required. Likewise, if the structure to be demolished or
relocated will be replaced by a new structure, a CDC for the new structure may be required.
When applicable, requirement of a CDC prior to approval of a CDC for Demolition or
Relocation will be determined by the HARC Demolition Subcommittee at the Pre-Application
Conference. In this event, the conceptual review by the HARC will be required. Please refer to
Customer Bulletin 112 for additional information on the process of other CDC applications.
Application Submittal
In order to facilitate the application submittal process, completed applications may be
submitted at any time. Submittal of a complete application includes the Application Form, all
supporting documents as listed in the application checklist including those required by the
HARC Demolition Subcommittee , and applicable fees. The application must be submitted a
minimum of sixty (60) days prior to a scheduled HARC Public Hearing. This is to allow for
sufficient time to review the application, create the HARC staff report and packet, and comply
with the public notice requirements of UDC Section 3.03, as well as the City’s Certified Local
Government (CLG) Program Certification Agreement.
Completeness Review
Upon receipt of an application, City Staff will review all submitted information within five (5)
working days to determine if the minimum items needed for proper review (submittal
requirements) are present in the application packet. In the event the application is deemed
incomplete, a list of missing items will be provided to the applicant in writing. Additionally,
the request will be placed on hold and not scheduled for consideration by the HARC until such
time the missing items are submitted and the application is deemed complete. When the
application is deemed complete, the request will proceed to technical review, and be placed on
the next available HARC Public Hearing agenda.
CLG Delay Period and Public Notice
Per the City’s CLG Program Certification Agreement, all demolition requests require a 60-day
delay period prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. The purpose of this delay period is to
allow the opportunity to reach a satisfactory resolution that preserves the structure while
addressing the property owner’s individual rights. As part of this effort, a sign must be posted
on site to give notification to the public, and allow the public the opportunity to propose
alternatives for preserving or relocating the existing structure. Signs will be provided by the
Historic Planner after the application is deemed complete. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to post the sign on the subject property; the sign must be kept until the end of the 60-
day delay period, which may be after the HARC final action.
Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 4 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
Technical Review
Technical review of the application consists of the review of the request to determine if and how
the proposed scope of work meets the approval criteria outlined in the UDC and the Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines, when applicable. City staff may contact the applicant to
obtain additional information, further clarification or revisions of the plans if deemed necessary.
Please be advised that a site visit may be completed by staff during this time. Staff will draft a
recommendation to the HARC as part of the staff report that is written during this stage of the
review process.
Public Notification
In accordance with Section 3.03.010(D) of the UDC, all CDC applications require public
notification. Each applicant is required to post public notice of the CDC application on the
property no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled HARC public hearing. The public
notice to post on the property will be provided by City Staff and may be picked-up at the
Planning Department, located at 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, Texas 78626. City Staff
will notify the applicant when the sign(s) is(are) ready for pick-up. Please note that public
notice signs must be kept on the property until final action is made by the HARC, as
applicable. It is the responsibility of the applicant to remove the sign(s) after the HARC takes
final action.
HARC
The HARC Public Hearing includes the presentation of the staff recommendation, explanation
of the proposed scope of work by the applicant and/or property owner [up to ten (10) minutes],
and public comments in support or in opposition of the request. During the public hearing, each
constituent that signs up to speak on the request will have three (3) minutes to present their
comments to the HARC. A speaker may allot their time to another speaker for a maximum time
of six (6) minutes. Upon closing of the public hearing, the HARC will deliberate and discuss the
case, and vote to take final action on the application.
The HARC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request by a majority vote of all
members of the HARC; a minimum of four (4) votes is required to approve a CDC for
Demolition or Relocation of a Structure. Should the request be approved or approved with
conditions, the applicant must meet the post-demolition requirements outlined in UDC Section
3.13.070 (see Post-requirements section below), and may proceed to apply for the necessary
approvals to complete the project (i.e. Demolition Permit). When applicable, the conditions of
the CDC must be met within the time frame established by the HARC.
However, should the request be denied, the demolition delay period outlined in UDC Section
3.13.010(D)(2) will come into effect. The HARC may impose conditions to be met during the
delay period, the extent of which will be determined by the HARC (see UDC’s Demolition
delay period below).
Please note that applications for a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure submitted
based on no economically viable use of the property exists, will be presented to the HARC at a public
Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 5 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
hearing within forty-five (45) days of the date the application is deemed complete. The purpose
of this public hearing is to select the HARC’s appointee to the Economic Review Panel [please
refer to UDC Section 3.13.020(G) for additional information on the Panel’s review process]. The
proposed appointee will be forwarded to City Council at their next available meeting for
confirmation. If the City Council does not agree with the selected appointee, it will designate
the panel representative for the HARC. The HARC will hold a public hearing within forty-five
(45) days of the hearing held by the Economic Review Panel, and approve or deny the request.
Approved CDCs will expire if a Demolition Permit is not issued, or work authorized by the
CDC is not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days.
Any person aggrieved by the HARC’s final decision on a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a
Structure may appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days in accordance with UDC
Section 3.13.0110.
Approval Criteria
UDC Section 3.13.030 establishes the approval criteria for all CDC requests; UDC Section
3.13.040 establishes the supplemental approval criteria specifically for a CDC for Demolition or
Relocation of a Structure request. The HARC must use the criteria outline in these sections to
determine whether to grant a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure. Additionally,
the HARC must make the applicable findings specified in UDC Section 3.13.040(D), which
varies depending on the justification and basis of the demolition request as determined by the
applicant.
Post-requirements for an APPROVED CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure
In accordance with Section 3.13.070 of the UDC, once a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a
Structure is approved, the applicant must complete a set of requirements with the purpose of
documenting the structure to be demolished and its historical features, to include construction
style and materials. Additionally, the applicant and Historic Planner will assess the structure to
determine any materials that may be salvaged and 1) use on the new (proposed) structure, or 2)
use on other preservation and restoration activities. The proposed plan for salvageable
materials must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Planner prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit.
UDC’s Demolition Delay Period (DENIED CDCs)
In accordance with UDC Section 3.13.010(D), if a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a
Structure is denied, a demolition delay period will come into effect that prohibits the demolition
of the structure for an established period of time as determined by the HARC. The purpose of
the delay period is to find an alternative to demolition or relocation of the structure. The delay
period will depend on the (historic) priority level; however, this period may not exceed the
maximum number of days established by the UDC (175 for low priority structures, and 365
days for medium and high priority structures). During the delay period, the applicant must
meet a set of conditions as established in the UDC (please refer to Section 3.13.050), as well as
any additional conditions imposed by the HARC.
Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 6 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
At the end of the delay period or when all the conditions have been met by the applicant, the
request will be placed on the next regularly scheduled HARC meeting for final action. The
applicant will be notified of the scheduled hearing date, and provided with the public notice
signs to be posted on site no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled meeting.
Postponed Cases
An applicant may postpone a case by submitting a written request to the Historic Planner prior
to the posting of the HARC meeting agenda, or by making the request before the HARC at the
dais in the event that the agenda has already been posted. When the applicant is ready to move
forward with the postponed application, the request will be placed on the next available HARC
public hearing. In addition, the applicant will be responsible for obtaining from the Planning
Department and placing on the posted public notice sign a revised notification with the new
hearing date no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the new scheduled hearing.
Continued Cases
At the HARC Public Hearing, the HARC or applicant may request a continuance to the next
regularly scheduled meeting, which allows the request to be considered at a future date without
incurring additional fees or re-notification requirements. Cases may only be continued under
limited circumstances, such as the applicant wishing to submit new and/or additional
information, or revise the request or plans to show an alternate design.
It should be noted that the HARC must make a final action within forty-five (45) days of the
public hearing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Thus, when requesting a
continuance, please note that all requests must be to a date certain of a regularly scheduled
HARC meeting, as agreed by both the HARC and applicant.
Application Withdrawal
An applicant may withdraw an application at any time during the CDC for Demolition or
Relocation of a Structure process, prior to the request being called forward for consideration at
the HARC Public Hearing. Please note that if a request to withdraw the application is received
after an application is deemed complete, all paid application fees will be forfeited.
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
The following is a list of additional resources available to provide guidance on historic
buildings and sites, as well as design guidelines and preservation:
• City of Georgetown Downtown Master Plan - https://historic.georgetown.org/downtown-
master-plan
• City of Georgetown Unified Development Code - https://udc.georgetown.org/unified-
development-code
• City of Georgetown Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines -
https://historic.georgetown.org/downtown-design-guidelines
Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 8
Item # B
CB 113 – CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process Page 7 of 7
Issued: May 6, 2014
• National Alliance of Preservation Commissions - http://napc.uga.edu
• National Trust for Historic Preservation - www.preservationnation.org
• National Main Street - www.mainstreet.org
• Texas Historical Commission - www.thc.state.tx.us
• Texas Main Street - www.thc.state.tx.us/preserve/projects-and-programs/texas-main-street
• Georgetown Heritage Society - www.georgetownheritagesociety.com American Planning
Association - www.planning.org
Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 8
Item # B
EXHIBIT—CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Review Process Flowchart ₍overview₎
Pre-Application Conference
Prior to submitting a CDC application, a Pre-Application Conference is
required. The purpose of the meeting is to go over the project with City
staff from various Departments to obtain information and guidance on
applicable requirements and procedures. Pre-Application Conferences
are valid for up to 90 days.
HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review
If a CDC is required for a new structure, or existing structure to be
relocated in the District, a conceptual review by the HARC will be
required prior to submitting a CDC application for the new/relocated
structure.
CDC Application Submittal
Complete applications may be submitted at any time (no application
deadline). For applications that require HARC consideration, it is
recommended that applications are submitted at least 30 days prior to
the scheduled public hearing. Complete applications will be scheduled
for the next available scheduled HARC meeting.
Completeness Review
Within 5 working days from receipt of an application, City
staff will review the submitted information to determine if the
minimum items needed for review were included in the
packet. An incomplete application will be placed on hold until
it is deemed complete for processing.
Technical Review
When an application is deemed complete, staff will review the request to
determine if it complies with the UDC’s approval criteria and the
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Additional information or
revisions may be requested of the applicant. A site visit may also be
completed during this time.
Applicant revises application & plans
Proposed project must comply with all applicable
requirements of the UDC and Guidelines. If
necessary, revised plans or additional information
may be required.
Public Notice
All CDCs require public notification. No less than 15 days prior to the
meeting, City staff will provide the applicant a public notice sign to be
posted on site. Public notice signs must be kept on site until final action
(determination) is made on the request or 5 days after the public hearing.
HARC
Public Hearing
Final action must be taken
within 45 days of public
hearing.
Post-Approval requirements:
1) Document existing structure and historic
resources
2) Create a salvage strategy for the reuse of building
materials (to be approved by the Historic Planner)
3) Plant (landscape) and maintain the property, if
applicable
Demolition Delay Period
Structure may not be demolished during the established
delayed period. Additionally, any conditions established by
the HARC must be met.
Appeal Decision to City Council
Request for an appeal must be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of HARC’s
decision.
Applicant addresses missing information
If an application is deemed incomplete, a list of
missing items will be provided to the applicant in
writing, and the request will not proceed to
Technical Review until all items are submitted.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
DENIED
APPROVED
Staff Recommendation
For CDCs that require HARC consideration, staff will draft a
recommendation to the HARC. Agendas with staff reports and
recommendations will be posted online the Friday before the scheduled
public hearing.
HARC Demolition Subcommittee Pre-Application Conference
CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure requires a Pre-Application
Conference with the HARC Demolition Subcommittee to establish the
minimum application submittal requirements. A site visit may be completed
if deemed necessary.
CLG Delay Period and Public Notice
All demolition requests require a 60-day delay period prior to
the issuance of a demolition permit per the City’s CLG Program
Certification Agreement. Signs must be posted on site during
this period to allow the public to propose alternatives for
preserving the existing structure .
HARC (re)consideration
Upon completion of the
delay period, the HARC will
reconsider the request to
determine if the conditions
have been met.
Proceed to obtain Demolition Permit,
Site Plan, Building Permit, etc., as required
for proposed project
APPROVED
DENIED
Appeal Decision to City Council
Request for an appeal must be submitted to the
Planning Department within 30 days of decision.
DENIED
CB 113 - CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process
Issued: May 6, 2014
Attachment number 5 \nPage 8 of 8
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 1 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
TO: Planning and Downtown and Community Services departments Customers
SUBJECT: Customer Bulletin #114 – Procedures for completing and submitting a Certificate
of Design Compliance (“CDC”) Application (Submittal Requirements)
DATE: May 8, 2014
This Customer Bulletin was created as a customer service initiative to provide a guide to
property and business owners located within the Downtown and Old Town Overlay Districts,
or that own a building listed in the City’s List of Priority Structures (Historic Resources Survey)
on the application submittal requirements when requesting a Certificate of Design Compliance
(“CDC”).
A location map of each overlay district and of properties listed in the Historic Resources Survey
may be viewed online using the City’s interactive online maps located at
https://maps.georgetown.org/interactive-maps/ (Geoguide: Historic Resources Survey Map).
Information available includes the district boundaries, as well as a structure’s level of priority,
construction year, architect, architectural style and building materials.
For questions and further information, please contact the Historic Planner at (512) 930-3581.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Please refer to the table below to determine the materials required for a specific type of CDC
request. The application may not move forward until all required information is provided
and the application is deemed complete.
The applicability of each type of request will be based on the applicable Overlay District as
determined in the UDC, in the Pre-Application Conference with staff and the Demolition
Subcommittee when applicable, and application checklists. Please refer to Customer Bulletins
112: The CDC Process, and 113: The CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure Process,
for additional information. Customer Bulletins are available online at
https://planning.georgetown.org/planning-department-correspondence/.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 2 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
TYPE OF REQUEST
LEV
E
L
O
F
REV
I
E
W
HA
R
C
PRE
-APP
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
CON
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
REV
I
E
W
HA
R
C
SUB
C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
REV
I
E
W
/A
PP
R
O
V
A
L
APP
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
FOR
M
CD
C
CHE
C
K
L
I
S
T
SIG
N
E
D
SUB
M
I
T
T
A
L
AUT
H
O
R
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
FOR
M
LET
T
E
R
O
F
INT
E
N
T
SIT
E DES
I
G
N
(P
LO
T
) PLA
N
LAN
D
S
C
A
P
E
PLA
N
ARC
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
DRA
W
I
N
G
S
(E
LE
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
)
ARC
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
DRA
W
I
N
G
S
(F
LO
O
R
PLA
N
S
)
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
DET
A
I
L
S
REN
D
E
R
I
N
G
S
MAT
E
R
I
A
L
(S) SAM
P
L
E
S
PHO
T
O
G
R
A
P
H
S
OTH
E
R
INF
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
APP
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
FEE
(IN
C
L
U
D
E
S
TE
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
F
E
E
)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Awnings and Canopies HARC * * * * * * * * * * $160
Demolition of a Historic
Resource; or removal of a
building façade with street
frontage
HARC * * * * ~ * ~ * ~ $160
Demolition or Relocation of a
Historic Structure HARC ~ * * * * * * ~ * * $160
Demolition of a Non-Historic
Accessory Structure Staff * * * * * * * $160
Exterior Building Alterations
(<5,000 sq.ft.) HARC ~ * * * * * * ~ * * * * ~ $160
Exterior Building Alterations
(>5,000 sq.ft.) HARC ~ * * * * * * ~ * * * * ~ $265
Exterior Site Alterations HARC ~ * * * * * ~ * ~ * * ~ $160
Exterior Paint Color HARC * * * * * * * * * $31
Exterior Paint Color
(Residential in Downtown
Overlay District)
Staff * * * * * * * * * $31
Fence (Residential) Staff * * * * * * ~ * $31
Fence (Non-Residential) HARC * * * * * * * * $31
Landscaping Staff * * * * * * * $160
New Construction - Additions HARC ~ * * * * * * ~ * ~ * * ~ $265
New Construction - Infill HARC * * * * * * * * ~ * * ~ $265
Signage HARC * * * * * * * * * * * $31
LEGEND: [*] ITEM IS REQUIRED [~] ITEM MAY BE REQUIRED (TO BE DETERMINED AT THE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE)
A copy of the application form and all supporting documents (exhibits, drawings, photos,
etc.) must be submitted on a compact disc (CD) or USB flash drive in PDF format (maximum
file size 50MB; 300 dpi resolution; no layers, digital signatures or passwords).
Master Application form, signed Submittal Authorization Form and Checklist must be saved
as one PDF file; letter of intent, plans, specification of details, renderings and photographs
must be saved as a second separate PDF file (only two (2) files on CD or drive). Each required
set of documents must be appropriately labeled as specified in the application checklist.
CDs or drives must be clearly labeled with the project name on the outside.
Required plans do not need to be prepared, signed or sealed by a licensed architect or
registered engineer for the CDC application process. Plans may be hand drawn provided
they are legible, to scale and with dimensions, and properly labeled.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 3 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
A. LEVEL OF REVIEW
CDC applications that are related to landscaping, residential fences, exterior paint colors of
residential properties in the Downtown Overlay District, and demolition of a non-historic
accessory structure will be reviewed and considered administratively (Administrative
CDCs). All other CDC applications will be reviewed and considered by the Historic and
Architectural Review Commission (“HARC”) for final action. In all cases, a public notice of
the CDC application will be posted on the property.
B. HARC PRE-APPLICATION CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Materials to be submitted for Conceptual Review should include, at a minimum, Letter of
Intent, preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Drawings, Specification of Materials, and
Photographs. Materials for the conceptual review must be submitted at least seven (7) days
before the regularly scheduled HARC meeting. There is no fee for a Conceptual Review. For
additional information on the HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review, please refer to
Customer Bulletins 112 and 113.
C. HARC SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW OR APPROVAL
CDC Applications for signage are reviewed and approved by the HARC Sign
Subcommittee, unless the Subcommittee determines that the request requires review and
consideration from the HARC (full commission). Applications to be considered by the
HARC Sign Subcommittee will follow the same review process and timeline as other CDC
applications (the HARC Sign Subcommittee meets twice a month for expediency).
CDC Applications for Demolition of Relocation of a Structure require a Pre-Application
meeting with the HARC Demolition Subcommittee to establish the minimum submission
application requirements for the application. When submitting a request for the HARC
Demolition Subcommittee Pre-Application meeting, one (1) digital copy of the detailed
scope of work, photographs, and other supporting documents (i.e. details of the structural
and historical condition of the structure to be demolished or relocated) must be submitted
with the Pre-Application Conference request form. Please be advised that the minimum
requirements established in this meeting must be submitted with the CDC Application for
Demolition or Relocation of a Structure for processing. Please see Other Requirements (Item
P) below. For additional information on the demolition or relocation process, please refer to
Customer Bulletin 113.
D. APPLICATION FORM
All fields of the application form must be completed accurately and signed by the applicant
and/or property owner. All applicable information must be legibly printed or typed for
processing. Incomplete application forms will not be accepted. Please be advised that any
inaccurate information may cause a delay in processing the request.
Required property information such as the legal description of the property may be found
in the Williamson County Appraisal District’s website at http://www.wcad.org/property-
Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 4 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
search. Historic, Zoning and City Council district information may be found in the City’s
interactive map website at https://maps.georgetown.org/interactive-maps/.
E. CDC CHECKLIST
The applicant must complete the CDC Checklist acknowledging submittal of all required
documents. The application may not move forward or be scheduled for a public hearing
until all required information is provided and the application is deemed complete.
F. SIGNED SUBMITTAL AUTHORIZATION FORM
A signed copy of the Submittal Authorization Form and staff notes provided at the Pre-
Application Conference must be included in the submittal packet.
G. LETTER OF INTENT
A detailed description of the proposed construction, external changes or signage, and how it
meets the Design Guidelines and applicable UDC requirements must be included with the
submittal packet. For applications with multiple items (landscaping, signage, paint,
addition, etc.), each item being sought must be included as a part of the application.
H. SITE DESIGN (PLOT) PLAN
Site Design or Plot plans must be dated, drawn to scale and have north arrows and
directional labels. In addition, Site Plans must include the following information:
Graphic Scale
Dimensions of the site and all improvements, to include setbacks (existing and
proposed) and building separation
Location of property lines, streets, walkways, parking, driveways, mechanical
equipment, fences, and other hardscape features.
Existing and proposed buildings and additions
Portion(s) of structure to be demolished (if applicable)
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed signage
* For a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure application, the Site Design (Plot)
Plan must be a post-demolition site plan addressing what will be developed on the site
after the demolition or removal of the existing structure is complete.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 5 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the drawing above is only for reference purposes on information and details that must be included
on a Site Design (Plot) Plan, and does not necessarily show compliance with applicable requirements of the UDC, Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, or building codes. For other graphic samples, please refer to the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
I. LANDSCAPE PLAN
Landscape plans must be dated, drawn to scale and have north arrows and directional
labels. In addition, Landscape Plans must include the following information:
Graphic Scale
Dimensions of the site and landscape improvements
Location of property lines, streets, walkways, driveways, and other landscape features
Existing and proposed buildings and additions
Proposed plantings with corresponding legend
Non-residential planting requirements summary table
Calculation formulas for each landscaping requirement
List of species, sizes and quantities of all plantings
Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 6 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
J. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS (ELEVATIONS)
Elevation of each building façade must be dated, drawn to scale and have directional labels.
In addition, Elevations must include the following information:
Graphic Scale
Dimensions of the building and architectural features, to include overall building height,
width and depth of doors, windows and other openings
Materials
Roof Pitch
Types of windows, doors and dormers (i.e. aluminum, vinyl, wood, one over one, etc.)
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed signage
* For a CDC for Demolition or Relocation of a Structure application, the Elevation must be a
post-demolition elevation addressing what will be developed on the site after the
demolition or removal of the existing structure is complete.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the drawing above is only for reference purposes on information and details that must be included
on an Elevation, and does not necessarily show compliance with applicable requirements of the UDC, Downtown and Old Town
Design Guidelines, or building codes. For other graphic samples, please refer to the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
K. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS (FLOOR PLANS)
Floor Plans must be dated, drawn to scale and have directional labels. In addition, Floor
Plans must include the following information:
Graphic Scale
Dimensions of the building and openings on exterior walls
Room Labels
Proposed alterations (if applicable)
Attachment number 6 \nPage 6 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 7 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the drawing above is only for reference purposes on information and details that must be included
on a Floor Plan, and does not necessarily show compliance with applicable requirements of the UDC, Downtown and Old Town
Design Guidelines, or building codes. For other graphic samples, please refer to the Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
L. SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS
Specifications and details of architectural features, doors and windows, lighting, signage
and other applicable hardscape and landscape features and improvements must be included
in the submittal packet. Details must be dated, drawn to scale and labeled accordingly. All
details must include dimensions, materials, type, color, and proposed location.
For proposed replacement and/or installation of windows, doors, dormers, awnings or
shutters, please provide a window and door opening schedule. The schedule should consist
of a sketch of each floor and/or elevation of the structure with openings clearly defined as
existing in terms of quantity, size, style and material corresponding appropriately to a
proposed window and door schedule as a result of the requested action.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 7 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 8 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
Source: Building Elevation – City of Georgetown Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that the drawing above is only for reference purposes on information that must be included on
specifications and details, and does not necessarily show compliance with applicable requirements of the UDC, Downtown and Old
Town Design Guidelines, or building codes. For other graphic samples, please refer to the Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines.
M. RENDERINGS
A three-dimensional sketch or drawing of the Street View or Street Elevation must be
included with the submittal packet. All renderings provided shall be an accurate
representation of the property and any proposed changes.
N. MATERIAL(S) SAMPLES
Fifteen (15) samples of each material to be used in the proposed scope of work, to include
paint color chips must be submitted with the application. All color renderings and samples
must be an accurate representation of the proposed or existing color. In the event that
material samples are not available (i.e. materials for a proposed type of stone or brick),
photographs or catalog pictures and specifications identifying the proposed material may be
submitted. Each (set of) sample must be submitted in an 8” by 10” envelope with the name
of the project and property address written on the top right corner of the envelope.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 8 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 9 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
O. PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of all sides of the structure and site, as well as of the sign structure and all
other improvements must be included in the submittal packet. Photographs must be in color
and no smaller than 4” by 6”.
P. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
These types of applications must include the following information:
Demolition/Relocation of
a Structure
The following items are required:
1) Justification Statement in accordance with UDC Section
3.13.020(D)(1).
2) A post-demolition Site Plan addressing what will be
developed on site.
3) In the event the structure will be relocated in a Historic
District, supporting documentation that addresses the
architectural compatibility of the structure to be relocated
with adjacent buildings; site development standards
according to the Guidelines; and buildings and character of
the district, in accordance with UDC Section 3.13.020(D)(4).
4) Application requirements and additional information as
determined by the HARC Demolition Subcommittee (see
application checklist).
It is also recommended that the following information be
provided:
1) Study, report or assessment on the historic value and
significance of the structure completed by a qualified
Historian, Historic Preservation Architect or Preservation
Consultant.
2) A certified engineer’s report testifying to the structural
condition of the structure.
3) Letters of support from the surrounding property owners.
Demolition of a non-
historic accessory
structure
Documentation identifying the date of construction.
Exterior Building
Alterations (Remodel of
structure)
For substantial rehabilitation and other major projects (50% or
more of the value of the structure), additional
application/submittal requirements as recommended at the
HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review.
Infill/New Construction Additional application/submittal requirements as recommended
at the HARC Pre-Application Conceptual Review.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 9 of 10
Item # B
CB 114 – CDC Application Submittal Requirements Page 10 of 10
Issued: May 8, 2014
Q. APPLICATION FEE
Required fees must be paid to the City at the time of application submittal. For a detailed list
of application fees, please refer to the Fee Schedule in the UDC’s Development Manual
available online at http://udc.georgetown.org/development-manual/. Applications that are
not accompanied with the appropriate fee will not be accepted by the City. Fees may be
paid in person by check (payable to the City of Georgetown) or credit card, or
arrangements may be made to pay over the phone. The fees for a specific application will
also be noted by staff at the Pre-Application Conference.
Attachment number 6 \nPage 10 of 10
Item # B
WO
R
K
WO
R
K
The Georgetown Main Street Program works
to enhance downtown vibrancy and historic
preservation through a proven economic
development and historic preservation approach.
Main Street makes the following grants and
services available to downtown businesses:
Facade Reimbursement Grant
Available to property owners and some tenants for
proposed exterior work on storefronts and for roof and
foundation work on commercial buildings located in the
Downtown Overlay District (see map). Reimbursements
are provided on a 50/50 matching basis up to $10,000
per grant. Grants must be approved prior to initiating
work on the project.
Sign Reimbursement Grant
Available to business owners for proposed business
signage on commercial buildings located in the
Downtown Overlay District. Funds are provided on a
50/50 matching basis up to $500 per grant.
Texas Main Street Design Assistance
Free design assistance (not for regulatory approval,
permit or construction) to property owners or tenants of
commercial buildings located in the Downtown Overlay
District. Assistance includes building investigation,
preservation consultation, facade renderings, business
sign design and graphics, investment tax-credit
assistance and ADA accessibility on-site consultation.
Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program
A 20% tax credit is available for the costs associated
with substantially rehabilitating income producing
properties that are certified historic structures. A 10%
tax credit is available for the rehabilitation of non-
historic, income producing buildings built before 1936.
State of Texas Historic Preservation Tax Credit
A 25% business franchise tax credit is available for
income producing certified historic properties. The
property must be designated at the Federal, State or
local level to be eligible.
Preservation Incentives 512.930.2027
Georgetown Utility Systems
512.930.3558
gus.georgetown.org
Inspection Services
512.930.2550
inspections.georgetown.org
Planning Department
512.930.3575
planning.georgetown.org
Historic Planner
512.930.3581
historic.georgetown.org
Texas Disposal Systems
512.930.1715
texasdisposal.com
Atmos Energy
1.888.286.6700
atmosenergy.com
Texas Historical Commission
512.463.6047
thc.state.tx.us
National Park Service
202.513.7270
nps.gov
Gu
i
d
e
f
o
r
N
e
w
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ow
n
e
r
s
Preservation Incentives
512.930.2027 | MainStreet@Georgetown.org
LIVE WORK PLAY
Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 2
Item # B
Before changing any building or property in the
Downtown Overlay District (see map), please contact:
Historic Planner in the Downtown
& Community Services Department
512.930.3581
A Pre-Application Meeting will determine what is
needed to complete your project. All projects in the
Downtown Overlay District require an approved
Certificate of Design Compliance (CDC) before work
may begin. We recommend you allow a minimum of
60 days from the time of your Pre-Application Meeting
for the review process and CDC approval. Please review
Customer Bulletin 114 for more information on CDCs.
What is a Certificate of
Design Compliance?
A Certificate of Design
Compliance (CDC) is a permit
obtained from the Historic
Planner documenting
approval of a project within
the Downtown Overlay District.
CDC approval is based upon conformance with
the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code and the
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines. Please review
Customer Bulletin 114 for more information on CDCs.
What is the Historic and Architectural Review
Commission (HARC)? HARC is a City Council appointed
commission tasked with reviewing CDC applications. The
HARC meets once a month to review CDCs for projects
located within the Downtown Overlay District.
I want to put up a new business sign. Do I need to
get approval for it? Yes, an approved CDC is required
prior to putting up your sign. The Historic Planner will go
over what materials are needed for your CDC application
and how to get your sign permit from Inspection Services.
I want to make changes to the outside of my
building. Does this need to be approved?
Yes, you will need an approved CDC and permits from
Inspection Services prior to commencing work. The
Historic Planner will discuss materials needed for your
CDC application and how to obtain all the proper
building permits.
How do I get my Certificate of Occupancy?
As soon as you know that you are moving into a new
building, visit the Inspection Services office. The application
review process takes up to 10 business days. During this
time, staff from Inspection Services, as well as the Historic
Planner, will review the business for compliance with
zoning regulations and building codes.
I want to make changes to my building. Who do
I need to talk to first? The project begins with a Pre
Application meeting, arranged through the Planning
Department. The appropriate staff members will attend
the meeting to discuss your project and the required
permits. You are encouraged to bring any conceptual
materials to the meeting.
Do I need a permit for my new business sign?
Yes, in addition to HARC approval, a sign permit is
required for all new signs being installed. You will need
to contact the Historic Planner for details on what is
required for the sign permit.
Can I put up a banner? Yes, but only for a limited time.
You will need to fill out an application for a temporary
banner with the Inspection Services office. For quick
review and possible approval, please submit a digital
rendering of the banner, including dimensions and
proposed location. A fee will be charged upon permit
approval and your banner will be good for 45 days. All
banners are subject to review from the Historic Planner.
Schedule a Pre Application Meeting
with the Planning Department. The
Historic Planner and any additional city staff will attend
the meeting to discuss the project. You are encouraged
to bring any conceptual materials to the meeting for
review. Staff will identify the necessary applications to
complete your project.
Submit all required applications for
the project. Each component of the project
will be reviewed by the appropriate city staff to ensure
compliance with all local regulations, including local
development codes and building codes. The application
process may require additional review by the Historic
and Architectural Review Commission, Planning and
Zoning Commission or other City commissions.
Once the applications are complete,
all permits are issued. You may then begin
work on your project. Please be sure to schedule the
appropriate inspections throughout the process to avoid
any unnecessary delays.
FREE retail business listing on city websites:
MainStreetGeorgetown.com
VisitGeorgetown.com
Town Square Directory sign business listing
Quarterly networking & training opportunities:
Downtown Low Down Meetings and Breakfast Bites
small business trainings
FRequently Asked Questions
The P roject Process
1
2
3
Building Projects and Planning
Other Resources and Opportunities
Application Type CDC Building Permit
Certificate of Occupancy
Business Signage
Exterior Alterations
Interior Alterations
City Facebook page postings:
Downtown Georgetown Texas, Shop Georgetown
and Live and Play in Georgetown, Texas
512.930.2027 | MainStreet@Georgetown.org
LIVE WORK PLAY
Attachment number 7 \nPage 2 of 2
Item # B
Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 1
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Guidance on Connectivity and Traffic for New Developments -- Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director and Ed
Palosek, Transportation Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
This workshop item is a follow-up on the connectivity discussion at the October 14th City Council meeting.
Georgetown development regulations have long considered street connections between properties as
important to both the transportation network and the public safety network. Some of the benefits of providing
multiple access points include reduced trip lengths and travel times, opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle
circulation, improved air quality and a sense of neighborliness between communities - consistent with
development schemes of the older sections of the City.
The 2003 UDC solidified this practice with minimum standards set by the amount of lots within a given
subdivision. Since the adoption of that standard, dozens of subdivisions have been approved by the City with
street stubs that have connected to other subdivisions and many more that are awaiting connections to future
subdivisions. Historically the City has not waived these requirements but it may warrant reconsideration as
regional growth impacts travel behavior.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Policy development only. None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Ed Polasek, Andrew Spurgin, Jordan Maddox
Cover Memo
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center -- Brenda Jenkins, Senior Vice President, ECM
International Inc.
ITEM SUMMARY:
General update on Public Safety Operations and Training Center.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Wayne Nero, Chief of Police
Cover Memo
Item # D
City of Georgetown, Texas
October 28, 2014
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
- Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has
a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- CTSUD Update
- EEOC – Ellison
- EEOC – Spencer
- EEOC -- Bermudez
- Police - Meet and Confer
- San Gabriel Park Improvements Project
- Public Safety Facility
- Williams Drive Project – County Agreement
Section 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property
- VFW parkland purchase -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant
City Manager
Sec. 551.074: Personnel Matters
- City Manager and City Attorney: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment,
duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee as allowed under Tex. Gov. Code Section
551.074 Personnel Matters
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Discussion regarding the 2014 solar RFP. Presentation of bid offers and final rankings - Chris Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration and Neil McAndrews from McAndrews and Associates
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # E