The November 18 Ste. Genevieve Heritage Commission meeting was essentially a carbon copy of the group’s October meeting.

At both, the commission discussed adding an economic hardship clause to the Certificate of Appropriateness process, but opted to put off adopting the measure until it could be discussed further.

Meanwhile, the commission approved its only Certificate of Appropriateness request at both meetings, with a minimal amount of discussion.

Part of the reason the hardship proposal was tabled at the October 21 meeting was because all five commission members were not present.

All commission members were present this time to discuss the matter.

The board had previously asked community development administrator David Bova to bring more specific parameters in defining economic hardship.

“I did change a few minor words,” Bova said, “But it is basically the same content as at that [October] meeting.”

Commission member Frank Myers suggested they discuss it more.

“I’m not opposed to it, believe me,” he said. “I think we need that in the community, but sometimes just a slight difference in words can make a big difference in the long run.”

Myers said he had “a series of notes” compiled with concerns about the proposed revision. He did not want to delve into them that night, preferring that a work session be scheduled.

“I think it’s important enough that we do that,” Myers said. “Because if we apply it to the right people, it’s a great improvement. If ... somehow, the population has found a way to get around it, it can be disaster to preservation.” ...

It was later agreed that a work session would take place in January.

See complete story in the November 27 edition of the Herald.