Historic Districts
Brian J Tarbox
our town common / business area. This came about after the town was
unable to block certain developments in this area. The town is not
against development, but we do want to maintain the 'look and feel'
of our small town.
I'm on the Study Committee for the District and would like feedback
from homeowners, particularly if your town has a District. We are
trying to strike a reasonable balance and would like input. We are
not trying to pass a draconian District (i.e. we won't become the
paint police). We do however want a say if someone wants to tear down
a 200 year old mill and replace it with a Walmart or something.
Thanks for your input.
Brian Tarbox
--
"If the world is night, shine your life like a light"
-Indigo Girls
Jonathan S. Goldstein
district in a city full of historic districts. Even with the districts,
nasty evil people are still able to tear down 200 year old buildings
sometimes. It certainly crimps their style, however, to have to appear
before several boards to do it.
I think they are an absolute necessity for protecting architectural and
cultural resources in our cities. I encourage you to for a district and
participate actively. You can e-mail me directly with questions.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan S. Goldstein Wolf Communciations
jona...@worldcom.com Houston, TX
_____________________________________________________________________________
"On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia." -W.C. Fields
The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of Wolf Communications
Any opinions offered herein should not be considered a substitute
for paid professional advice
patterson,george r
Jonathan S. Goldstein <jona...@worldcom.com> wrote:
>I think [historical societies] are an absolute necessity for protecting
>architectural and cultural resources in our cities. I encourage you to for
>a district and participate actively.
I have mixed feelings on that. I once saw a pre-Civil War plantation house
(sort of a seedy brick Tara) torn down to make way for a trailer park in
Knoxville.
On the other hand, there's an old farmhouse not far from here that's
condemned and rotten because the local historical group has gotten an
injunction against renovating it because George Washington "might have
slept there". It wasn't anything special before they got the injunction,
and noone was about to live in the place without putting in indoor
plumbing, so the owner just got frustrated and quit paying taxes. Now
all the windows are gone, so is the floor, and the roof leaks like a
sieve. You could build a replica cheaper than fix that one, but the
historical society "won"!
I've been told that a major cause of that problem is the fact that NJ
state law won't let you preserve a building as a historical building
unless it's kept in original condition. By getting this place put on
the roster, the society and state forced the owner to restore it to
18th century condition or move out. He chose the latter.
For interested NJ residents, the house is two houses South of Kupper
airport on Millstone Road in Hillsborough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
George Patterson - | A bud in the hand is worth two in the busch.
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lewis
patterson,george r <pat...@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> wrote:
>In article <35l1ka$1...@merengue.worldcom.com>,
>Jonathan S. Goldstein <jona...@worldcom.com> wrote:
>>I think [historical societies] are an absolute necessity for protecting
>>architectural and cultural resources in our cities. I encourage you to for
>>a district and participate actively.
>I have mixed feelings on that.
Me too.
>On the other hand, there's an old farmhouse not far from here that's
>condemned and rotten because the local historical group has gotten an
>injunction against renovating it because George Washington "might have
>slept there".
In the area I used to live there were at least 10 "mysterious" fires
that destroyed various buildings that the municipal heritage society
or municipal government slapped these sorts of conditions on.
Most were farmhouses that were nothing special other than being "old"
(old being relative. Late 1800s is classified as old there) and the
developers wanted to build something different. However, several were
houses that the owners weren't allowed to improve in any way.
Fortunately, most heritage groups that I'm aware of don't place such
restrictive rules on the *interiors* of homes. The more enlightened
ones only care about the exterior appearance of the building unless
there's something very special and significant about it.
--
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Phone: Canada 613 832-0541 Ferret list: ferret-...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*
Kamala
Tarbox) writes:
>I'm on the Study Committee for the District and would like feedback
>from homeowners, particularly if your town has a District.
Brian, I don't live in a historic district, but I worked for the state
historic preservation agency here in Kentucky for five years. A couple of
suggestions: it's advisable to make certain there is _strong_ support
among the people who would be affected by the district before trying to
have an ordinance passed. A failed effort can lead to lots of ill-will and
set you back for years. Dissenting homeowners can cause a lot of problems.
This sort of local legislation goes directly to great American traditions
(!) like the right to do whatever a propertyowner wants with his/her
property.
I also suggest you get in touch with your state preservation office or
with the National Trust for Historic Preservation in D.C. Federal grant
funds may be available to help your city government in establishing and
administering your district.
Good Luck!
Peter Neilson
>
>In article <CwDpu...@world.std.com>, bta...@world.std.com (Brian J
>Tarbox) writes:
>
>
>>I'm on the Study Committee for the District and would like feedback
>>from homeowners, particularly if your town has a District.
>
>Brian, I don't live in a historic district, but I worked for the state
>historic preservation agency here in Kentucky for five years. A couple of
>suggestions: it's advisable to make certain there is _strong_ support
>among the people who would be affected by the district before trying to
>have an ordinance passed. A failed effort can lead to lots of ill-will and
>set you back for years. Dissenting homeowners can cause a lot of problems.
>This sort of local legislation goes directly to great American traditions
>(!) like the right to do whatever a propertyowner wants with his/her
>property.
The correct American method to handle this situation is for those who
would like the district preserved to BUY ALL THE PROPERTIES. You can
incorporate a Preservation Association, solicit funds, and buy up the
houses. Maybe rent them back to the former owners. Then, as the new
owner, your Association can do whatever it wants, and won't have any
disagreements with people who want, perhaps, to restore a house to a
historically-incorrect era. (I've actually seen a situation where the
District was deemed to be "1880's" and the person with the 1920's
house in the area was told her paint and repairs had to match the
District's 1880's style, white paint and black shutters, even though
that style may be wrong for 1880, as well!)
Again, you'll need strong support, but for fundraising, rather than
for coercion of crochety homeowners.
Do not make your Preservation Association a government entity. It's
ok to get moral support from the mayor, but it really isn't kosher to
use Condemnation Laws to force people to sell at your idea of a fair
price, for a mere historic district.
Another approach, cheaper but decidedly weirder, is to buy from the
homeowners only the "historical appearance" of their houses. They
would retain everything else. And you would have not forced them into
anything. You would have to figure out how your Association would
manage such a situation.
--
>>> Act Environmentally: Eat Recycled Food! <<<
>>> Peter Neilson --- nei...@osf.org 617-621-8955 (w), 508-534-1744 (h) <<<
Work: Cambridge MA Home: Leominster MA Horses: Royalston MA, Northwood NH
Randy Casciola
Peter,
Do you know anything about historic districts, or are you just spouting
off your opinions about the "way things ought to be?"
Condemnation Laws? Buying "historical appearance?"
I have first hand experience with historic districts. I own a Victorian-era
townhouse in a restored neighborhood in Pittsburgh called the Mexican War
Streets. (It is called this because Gen. Wm. Robinson, who developed the
area in the mid 19th century, named many of the streets after generals and
battles of the Mexican War.) Our neighborhood is a historic district, as
are three other residential and four commercial neighborhoods in Pittsburgh.
Districts are nominated by the Historic Review Commission and final designation
is made by City Council. The Historic Review Commission consists of one paid
staff member (who currently is a historian and a registered architect) and
a volunteer board appointed by the mayor. In addition, there are Local Review
Boards for each of the residential districts made up of a handful of residents
from that district. I am on this Local Review Board for the Mexican War Streets.
The system works as follows:
-The HRC can say NOTHING about building use.
-The HRC can say NOTHING about the building's interior.
-The HRC can not force anybody to change anything that is already existing.
i.e., anything existing is "grandfathered" in.
-The HRC MUST approve any exterior (that can be seen from a public street or
alley) alterations, demolitions, and new construction.
The purpose of this is to make sure that the character of the neighborhood
is maintained. The HRC encourages people to NOT try to duplicate period
architecture in new construction (such as garages), but to try to design
in a compatible manner. Things that are not approved are aluminum awnings,
glass block windows, anything but wood windows on the front facade, removal
of architectural features such as door surrounds or window hoods, vinyl or
aluminum siding, etc. Historic paint selection is encouraged but not
usually required.
The approval process begins with submitting plans to the HRC staff person. He
calls a meeting of the Local Review Board. We then give him our recommendation
which he then gives to the city-wide HRC who makes the final decision. It is
usually very expedient and costs the applicant no money and very little time
for most things as the lone staff member can approve many things like painting.
So, I don't know what all this talk about condemnation laws and forcing people
to sell is about. That's not the way it works here. We realize that we don't
live in a museum and that changes happen over time. We just want to treat the
architecture with respect so that it is not lost to future generations and to
maintain the charm of the neighborhood. The people around here are smart enough
not to force the owner of a 1920's building to paint in 1880's colors as in your
above example. Oh, and having the full power of government behind it is the
only way to do it. It took zero fundraising here. Just got Council to pass
an ordinance. I guess it takes some tax dollars here to pay the staff person,
but it could be done by volunteers. I know I would volunteer to do his job
part time if they ran out of money to pay him.
Randy Casciola
Peter Neilson
>
>In article <35uqr9$7...@paperboy.osf.org>, nei...@pmin28.osf.org (Peter Neilson) writes:
>|>
>
>Peter,
>
>Do you know anything about historic districts, or are you just spouting
>off your opinions about the "way things ought to be?"
>
method. But I would never buy a home in an area that I suspected was
going to be made "historic", for I would certainly turn out to be one
of those who made the creation of the district difficult.
>Condemnation Laws? Buying "historical appearance?"
Condemnation laws have occasionally been used abusively, but not for
creating historic districts. They would be an exceptionally poor way
to do that, anyway. I mentioned them because they -are- the usual
method to "buy up all the houses," but were not what I was suggesting.
The notion of buying historical appearance is mine, and I would not
expect you to have encountered it before. I wonder if it would work?
>
>I have first hand experience with historic districts. I own a Victorian-era
[stuff cut out]
>The system works as follows:
>
>-The HRC can say NOTHING about building use.
Good.
>-The HRC can say NOTHING about the building's interior.
Good.
>-The HRC can not force anybody to change anything that is already existing.
> i.e., anything existing is "grandfathered" in.
Good.
[more stuff cut out]>
>So, I don't know what all this talk about condemnation laws and forcing people
>to sell is about.
Right. I'm suggesting that BUYING THE PROPERTY is a different way of
accomplishing the creation of an historic district, but that a forced
sale is -not- the right way to buy the property.
> That's not the way it works here. We realize that we don't
>live in a museum and that changes happen over time. We just want to treat the
>architecture with respect so that it is not lost to future generations and to
>maintain the charm of the neighborhood. The people around here are smart enough
>not to force the owner of a 1920's building to paint in 1880's colors as in your
>above example. Oh, and having the full power of government behind it is the
>only way to do it. It took zero fundraising here. Just got Council to pass
>an ordinance.
Of course. The Council simply -took- the historical appearance of the
neighbourhood as its property without paying the owners. Perhaps this
was the desire of all the owners, in which case there was no problem
at all. If it was not, then I grant you, the government power was
necessary to accomplish the goal.
Stavros Macrakis
The notion of buying historical appearance is mine, and I would not
expect you to have encountered it before....
Actually, such covenants are quite common; they are typically donated
to historical preservation societies, although I imagine there are
also cases where they have been bought. The Society for Preservation
of New England Antiquities owns "historical appearance" rights for
quite a few properties. The trick is that you need to find an
organization (like SPNEA) that is willing and able to enforce the
covenants over time.
-s
Jim Sullivan
[Stuff deleted...]
|>
|> Districts are nominated by the Historic Review Commission and final designation
|> is made by City Council. The Historic Review Commission consists of one paid
|> staff member (who currently is a historian and a registered architect) and
|> a volunteer board appointed by the mayor. In addition, there are Local Review
|> Boards for each of the residential districts made up of a handful of residents
|> from that district. I am on this Local Review Board for the Mexican War Streets.
|>
|> The system works as follows:
|>
|> -The HRC can say NOTHING about building use.
|> -The HRC can say NOTHING about the building's interior.
|> -The HRC can not force anybody to change anything that is already existing.
|> i.e., anything existing is "grandfathered" in.
I live in a historic neighborhood with the same rules.
|> -The HRC MUST approve any exterior (that can be seen from a public street or
|> alley) alterations, demolitions, and new construction.
|> The purpose of this is to make sure that the character of the neighborhood
|> is maintained. The HRC encourages people to NOT try to duplicate period
^^^^^^^^^^
|> architecture in new construction (such as garages), but to try to design
|> in a compatible manner. Things that are not approved are aluminum awnings,
|> glass block windows, anything but wood windows on the front facade, removal
|> of architectural features such as door surrounds or window hoods, vinyl or
|> aluminum siding, etc. Historic paint selection is encouraged but not
|> usually required.
Does the HPC help in paying for the extra costs of the homeowner
who must paint his house every five years rather than buy aluminum siding?
How about more expensive windows and doors? And what about the other
side of this, "encouraging" homeowners to maintain their homes. In our
historic neighborhood, a homeowner can let the house deteriorate and the
yard become overgrown. Some yards are half weeds. Houses have paint peeling.
The HPC seems to only
care about the look of NEW construction, and places the cost of their
requirements on the homeowner, not to meantion the time and effort
of submitting plans to the HPC.
|> The approval process begins with submitting plans to the HRC staff person. He
|> calls a meeting of the Local Review Board. We then give him our recommendation
|> which he then gives to the city-wide HRC who makes the final decision. It is
|> usually very expedient and costs the applicant no money and very little time
|> for most things as the lone staff member can approve many things like painting.
For a deck which I planned to build I had to draw up the plans, draw
a view of the new facade (I'm not an art major), color pictures of the
old facades, and a 6 week wait for the hearing. Getting the material
together; the plans, the drawings, the pictures, took about a week.
This is not minor.
|>
|> So, I don't know what all this talk about condemnation laws and forcing people
|> to sell is about. That's not the way it works here. We realize that we don't
|> live in a museum and that changes happen over time. We just want to treat the
|> architecture with respect so that it is not lost to future generations and to
|> maintain the charm of the neighborhood.
Why not let the homeowners decide this?
Who has better judgement here? Why does the
HPC have such power and why don't they come out
and do an assessment and offer ideas?
|> The people around here are smart enough
|> not to force the owner of a 1920's building to paint in 1880's colors as in your
|> above example. Oh, and having the full power of government behind it is the
|> only way to do it. It took zero fundraising here. Just got Council to pass
|> an ordinance. I guess it takes some tax dollars here to pay the staff person,
|> but it could be done by volunteers. I know I would volunteer to do his job
|> part time if they ran out of money to pay him.
The problem I have is that the onus is placed on the homeowner. The
homeowner is treated as the enemy who owns a historic house and the
house must be defended against him. So they force the homeowner to work
hard and submit drawings and plans (in duplicate!). Why not just
have a HPC consultant where the consultant would, for free, make
recommendations. Why not offer financial incentives for cases
where the preservation would be a higher cost than a more
modern solution, such as wood siding versus aluminum. And only
in extreme cases try to prevent a homeowner from destroying
something historic. After all, these 100 year old houses survived
to today without historic preservation for most of their lifetime.
Homeowners who own historic houses usually try to preserve them. But
the nature of the HPC is to view the homeowner as a threat and not
a partner.
--
Jim Sullivan
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD 20892
Internet: sull...@alw.nih.gov
Randy Casciola
|> In article <366m6m$j...@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu>, r...@ius4.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Randy Casciola) writes:
|>
|> [Stuff deleted...]
|> |> alley) alterations, demolitions, and new construction.
|> |> The purpose of this is to make sure that the character of the neighborhood
|> |> is maintained. The HRC encourages people to NOT try to duplicate period
|> ^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> architecture in new construction (such as garages), but to try to design
|> |> in a compatible manner. Things that are not approved are aluminum awnings,
|> |> glass block windows, anything but wood windows on the front facade, removal
|> |> of architectural features such as door surrounds or window hoods, vinyl or
|> |> aluminum siding, etc. Historic paint selection is encouraged but not
|> |> usually required.
|>
|> Does the HPC help in paying for the extra costs of the homeowner
|> who must paint his house every five years rather than buy aluminum siding?
|> How about more expensive windows and doors? And what about the other
|> side of this, "encouraging" homeowners to maintain their homes. In our
No, the HRC does not help to pay the extra costs. But, things are handled on a
case by case basis. We recently approved the replacement of aluminum siding with
vinyl siding on a house that had already been remuddled before the area became a
historic district. We asked that they used vinyl with smaller "board widths" like
the original wood siding underneath. The reason we compromised was that the lady
was on a fixed income, and while the original wood would have looked better, the
replacement of the wide, faded aluminum with vinyl would look better than doing
nothing at all. Also, the original wood was in decent shape and if a good job of
residing is done it will protect the original so that some day somebody else may
come along and restore the house to the original appearance.
|> historic neighborhood, a homeowner can let the house deteriorate and the
|> yard become overgrown. Some yards are half weeds. Houses have paint peeling.
That's a problem.
|> The HPC seems to only
|> care about the look of NEW construction, and places the cost of their
|> requirements on the homeowner, not to meantion the time and effort
|> of submitting plans to the HPC.
In Pittsburgh, you must have a building permit whether or not you live in a historic
district. So, you must draw up plans for that. And you must pay for the building
permit. So, you can just use the same plans for the HRC approval that you have to
do anyway for the permit. And there is no cost for the HRC approval. Yes, depending
on when you submit plans you will have to wait up to one month maximum for approval
(if you submit them the day after the month's meeting). But the effort required is
minimal.
|> |> The approval process begins with submitting plans to the HRC staff person. He
|> |> calls a meeting of the Local Review Board. We then give him our recommendation
|> |> which he then gives to the city-wide HRC who makes the final decision. It is
|> |> usually very expedient and costs the applicant no money and very little time
|> |> for most things as the lone staff member can approve many things like painting.
|>
|> For a deck which I planned to build I had to draw up the plans, draw
|> a view of the new facade (I'm not an art major), color pictures of the
|> old facades, and a 6 week wait for the hearing. Getting the material
|> together; the plans, the drawings, the pictures, took about a week.
|> This is not minor.
For the fence/gate I built on the back of my house I had to get a building permit
and HRC approval. The same would go for a deck. For the HRC approval, I showed
him the same plans I used for the building permit. It was a common thing, so the
staff member was able to rubber stamp it. I was out of his office in 5 minutes
and it cost me nothing. Then I went upstairs to get the building permit and it
took 45 minutes and cost $45. So for most minor things, it is painless and free.
For new construction of additions, garages and buildings, you have to have elaborate
plans anyway for the building permit, you often have to have zoning hearings
(city rules, not HRC), and you most likely plan things well ahead of time anyway,
so waiting up to a maximum of four weeks for HRC approval does not add much to an
already complex process and is often done concurrently with other procedures.
|> |> So, I don't know what all this talk about condemnation laws and forcing people
|> |> to sell is about. That's not the way it works here. We realize that we don't
|> |> live in a museum and that changes happen over time. We just want to treat the
|> |> architecture with respect so that it is not lost to future generations and to
|> |> maintain the charm of the neighborhood.
|>
|> Why not let the homeowners decide this?
The vast majority of the people in the district have bought and restored homes here
after the historic designation. That's one of the main reasons that they bought.
Everybody also knows full well what the procedures are before they buy.
|> Who has better judgement here? Why does the
|> HPC have such power and why don't they come out
|> and do an assessment and offer ideas?
The staff member (historian and architect) is always ready and willing to discuss plans
with homeowners either at his office or at the homeowner's home.
|> |> The people around here are smart enough
|> |> not to force the owner of a 1920's building to paint in 1880's colors as in your
|> |> above example. Oh, and having the full power of government behind it is the
|> |> only way to do it. It took zero fundraising here. Just got Council to pass
|> |> an ordinance. I guess it takes some tax dollars here to pay the staff person,
|> |> but it could be done by volunteers. I know I would volunteer to do his job
|> |> part time if they ran out of money to pay him.
|>
|> The problem I have is that the onus is placed on the homeowner. The
|> homeowner is treated as the enemy who owns a historic house and the
|> house must be defended against him. So they force the homeowner to work
|> hard and submit drawings and plans (in duplicate!). Why not just
|> have a HPC consultant where the consultant would, for free, make
|> recommendations.
They will!
|> Why not offer financial incentives for cases
|> where the preservation would be a higher cost than a more
|> modern solution, such as wood siding versus aluminum. And only
|> in extreme cases try to prevent a homeowner from destroying
|> something historic. After all, these 100 year old houses survived
|> to today without historic preservation for most of their lifetime.
These rules are not only to protect them from destruction, but from
thoughtless remuddling that impacts all the other houses in the neighbor-
hood.
|> Homeowners who own historic houses usually try to preserve them. But
|> the nature of the HPC is to view the homeowner as a threat and not
|> a partner.
Our particular neighborhood, like many northeastern urban neighborhoods,
suffered urban decay through the middle of the 20th century. In the 60's
it was redlined by banks and slated to be razed. Through efforts of urban
pioneers and some long time residents it was brought back to life. The
majority of the houses had their facades accurately restored by people who
spent much money. Since the house are so close together (touching actually)
and built right to the edge of the sidewalk, one thoughtless owner can destroy
the appearance of an entire block or section of a block. The rules are there
to protect the majority of homeowners from the thoughtless minority and absentee
landlords just trying to make a quick buck off of the neighborhood. The
historic designation makes it more likely that owners will spend money to
restore their own houses because they know that their neighbor won't be able to
nullify their effort by remuddling the house next door.
Most things that the HRC requires add some but not significant costs to projects.
Some things require no additional costs.
While these rules go against my libertarian ideals, it's an internal conflict
I had to resolve. I do know that the rules make my neighborhood a better place
for me to live and I am not reluctant to spend money restoring my house.
|>
|> --
|> Jim Sullivan
|> National Institutes of Health
|> Bethesda, MD 20892
|> Internet: sull...@alw.nih.gov
|>
Randy Casciola
Research Engineer
The Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pa 15213
Jim Sullivan
|> |> The problem I have is that the onus is placed on the homeowner. The
|> |> homeowner is treated as the enemy who owns a historic house and the
|> |> house must be defended against him. So they force the homeowner to work
|> |> hard and submit drawings and plans (in duplicate!). Why not just
|> |> have a HPC consultant where the consultant would, for free, make
|> |> recommendations.
|>
|> They will!
Yes, but that should be the end of it. In other words, have
an HPC consultant look over your plans and approve them on the
spot. In Kensington, MD, you must submit plans/drawings/photos
plus some essays on what you are doing, the materials involved,
etc... to a committee which meets bi-monthly. This procedure is
the same for everything from cutting down a tree to building a deck
or adding a $200K addition. Most submissions are for minor stuff
which could be approved quickly. Something which is involved, such
as an addition, might require more information and a hearing, but
the policy is to assume the job is complicated and require the
homeowner to fill out pages of forms, submit photos, etc, and wait
about a month. I know people who are actually discouraged from
doing something small, like cutting a tree, because of these
requirements.
|>
|> |> Why not offer financial incentives for cases
|> |> where the preservation would be a higher cost than a more
|> |> modern solution, such as wood siding versus aluminum. And only
|> |> in extreme cases try to prevent a homeowner from destroying
|> |> something historic. After all, these 100 year old houses survived
|> |> to today without historic preservation for most of their lifetime.
|>
|> These rules are not only to protect them from destruction, but from
|> thoughtless remuddling that impacts all the other houses in the neighbor-
|> hood.
And I agree with this idea, even though it's a bit totalitarian
in nature. However, the process, at least in my town, is not
for the HPC to be a partner but to be a hinderance in improving
your home. I would like to see the HPC come out and take the pictures,
interview the homeowner, offer advice, and either approve it on the
spot (in cases where approval is obvious, such as cutting a non-historic
tree), or tell the homeowner the reason for having the project go
to the full council which will need to decide on it and offer advice
on getting the plans passed. It is ridiculous that someone has to
take hours filling out forms, drawing pitucres, taking photos, and
waiting weeks in order to cut down a tree or build a deck. In other
words, the HPC should take a lot of the work off the homeowner.
BTW, all of this is seperate from obtaining a permit, which is also
necessary in many cases. The requirements for permits do not include
the photos, drawings of facades, etc, which the HPC requires. AND
the permit cannot be given until the HPC approves you plans, adding
additional time before you can begin your work.
One homeowner became crippled due to a fall and needed a ramp built
to get up to her front door. The family went ahead and built the thing
before obtaining approval, which took about 2 months from the time she fell.
The HPC did not take action (still not sure what they could do...)
but the threat is implied that they can.
|>
|> |> Homeowners who own historic houses usually try to preserve them. But
|> |> the nature of the HPC is to view the homeowner as a threat and not
|> |> a partner.
|>
|> Our particular neighborhood, like many northeastern urban neighborhoods,
|> suffered urban decay through the middle of the 20th century. In the 60's
|> it was redlined by banks and slated to be razed. Through efforts of urban
|> pioneers and some long time residents it was brought back to life. The
|> majority of the houses had their facades accurately restored by people who
|> spent much money. Since the house are so close together (touching actually)
|> and built right to the edge of the sidewalk, one thoughtless owner can destroy
|> the appearance of an entire block or section of a block. The rules are there
|> to protect the majority of homeowners from the thoughtless minority and absentee
|> landlords just trying to make a quick buck off of the neighborhood. The
|> historic designation makes it more likely that owners will spend money to
|> restore their own houses because they know that their neighbor won't be able to
|> nullify their effort by remuddling the house next door.
Another problem which has arisen here is that the HPC seems to have
little authority to enforce it's codes. There is a house which is
being rented. The owner "fixed up" the saging porch roof by replacing
the rotted support posts with 6X6 pressure treated posts and the porch
flooring with pressure treated 2X8's. I'm sure you'll agree that
this on the front of a small victorian style home is quite ugly. Though
this house is right next door to the Town Hall, nothing was done. Someone
brought it to the attention of the HPC which so far has done nothing.
In another incident, the Town Metting minutes reported that the town was trying to
figure out what to do to a homeowner that built a deck without HPC
approval. It seemed they didn't know if they had any enforcement abilities.
So the problem is two-fold: Honest homeowners who want to follow the rules
are penalized by the higher cost of some projects and the time and effort
spent in presenting the required materials for approval. Those who
flaunt the rules are allowed to. I understand that this problem
may be only local to us, but my feeling is that it is not.
|>
|> Most things that the HRC requires add some but not significant costs to projects.
|> Some things require no additional costs.
|>
|> While these rules go against my libertarian ideals, it's an internal conflict
|> I had to resolve. I do know that the rules make my neighborhood a better place
|> for me to live and I am not reluctant to spend money restoring my house.
I agree the rules are necessary to keep up a historic neighborhood. The
only problem I have is the way homeowners are treated by the HPC
and the lack of a partnership, which could easily be forged by a visit
from an HPC member when someone buys house in a historic neighborhood.
All I got was a letter (sent out in mass mailing 6 months after I moved
in) stating the rules and procedures for submitting the required materials.
My understanding is that the town's HPC gave it's authority away
to the county HPC. The town HPC is now only an advisory group. The
county HPC does the approvals. Since it is a county HPC, they probably
have to run things on an impersonal, form driven level. Though it
may be necessary due to the number of staff versus the number of
historic homeowners, it makes for difficulties.
Randy Casciola
|> [Stuff deleted]
|>
|>
|> Yes, but that should be the end of it. In other words, have
|> an HPC consultant look over your plans and approve them on the
|> spot. In Kensington, MD, you must submit plans/drawings/photos
|> plus some essays on what you are doing, the materials involved,
|> etc... to a committee which meets bi-monthly. This procedure is
|> the same for everything from cutting down a tree to building a deck
|> or adding a $200K addition. Most submissions are for minor stuff
|> which could be approved quickly. Something which is involved, such
|> as an addition, might require more information and a hearing, but
|> the policy is to assume the job is complicated and require the
|> homeowner to fill out pages of forms, submit photos, etc, and wait
|> about a month. I know people who are actually discouraged from
|> doing something small, like cutting a tree, because of these
|> requirements.
Oh, BTW, our HRC cannot say anything about landscaping. Maybe you should
try to tailor your HPC after our HRC. It sounds as if our system is a
bit more user-friendly to the homeowner, yet still does its job.
|> |>
|> |> |> Why not offer financial incentives for cases
|> |> |> where the preservation would be a higher cost than a more
|> |> |> modern solution, such as wood siding versus aluminum. And only
|> |> |> in extreme cases try to prevent a homeowner from destroying
|> |> |> something historic. After all, these 100 year old houses survived
|> |> |> to today without historic preservation for most of their lifetime.
|> |>
|> |> These rules are not only to protect them from destruction, but from
|> |> thoughtless remuddling that impacts all the other houses in the neighbor-
|> |> hood.
|>
|> And I agree with this idea, even though it's a bit totalitarian
|> in nature. However, the process, at least in my town, is not
|> for the HPC to be a partner but to be a hinderance in improving
|> your home. I would like to see the HPC come out and take the pictures,
|> interview the homeowner, offer advice, and either approve it on the
|> spot (in cases where approval is obvious, such as cutting a non-historic
|> tree), or tell the homeowner the reason for having the project go
|> to the full council which will need to decide on it and offer advice
|> on getting the plans passed. It is ridiculous that someone has to
|> take hours filling out forms, drawing pitucres, taking photos, and
|> waiting weeks in order to cut down a tree or build a deck. In other
I agree.
|> words, the HPC should take a lot of the work off the homeowner.
|> BTW, all of this is seperate from obtaining a permit, which is also
|> necessary in many cases. The requirements for permits do not include
|> the photos, drawings of facades, etc, which the HPC requires. AND
|> the permit cannot be given until the HPC approves you plans, adding
|> additional time before you can begin your work.
|>
|> One homeowner became crippled due to a fall and needed a ramp built
|> to get up to her front door. The family went ahead and built the thing
|> before obtaining approval, which took about 2 months from the time she fell.
|> The HPC did not take action (still not sure what they could do...)
|> but the threat is implied that they can.
In the 15 year history of our HRC, I don't know of any time they were
unreasonable. If a person needed a temporary or permanent ramp due to an
injury, I cannot imagine them giving the person a problem.
|>
|> |>
|> |> |> Homeowners who own historic houses usually try to preserve them. But
|> |> |> the nature of the HPC is to view the homeowner as a threat and not
|> |> |> a partner.
|> |>
|> |> Our particular neighborhood, like many northeastern urban neighborhoods,
|> |> suffered urban decay through the middle of the 20th century. In the 60's
|> |> it was redlined by banks and slated to be razed. Through efforts of urban
|> |> pioneers and some long time residents it was brought back to life. The
|> |> majority of the houses had their facades accurately restored by people who
|> |> spent much money. Since the house are so close together (touching actually)
|> |> and built right to the edge of the sidewalk, one thoughtless owner can destroy
|> |> the appearance of an entire block or section of a block. The rules are there
|> |> to protect the majority of homeowners from the thoughtless minority and absentee
|> |> landlords just trying to make a quick buck off of the neighborhood. The
|> |> historic designation makes it more likely that owners will spend money to
|> |> restore their own houses because they know that their neighbor won't be able to
|> |> nullify their effort by remuddling the house next door.
|>
|> Another problem which has arisen here is that the HPC seems to have
|> little authority to enforce it's codes. There is a house which is
Our HRC is tied in with BBI (Bureau of Building Inspection) and the force of
law goes through them.
|> being rented. The owner "fixed up" the saging porch roof by replacing
|> the rotted support posts with 6X6 pressure treated posts and the porch
|> flooring with pressure treated 2X8's. I'm sure you'll agree that
|> this on the front of a small victorian style home is quite ugly. Though
|> this house is right next door to the Town Hall, nothing was done. Someone
|> brought it to the attention of the HPC which so far has done nothing.
|> In another incident, the Town Metting minutes reported that the town was trying to
|> figure out what to do to a homeowner that built a deck without HPC
|> approval. It seemed they didn't know if they had any enforcement abilities.
|> So the problem is two-fold: Honest homeowners who want to follow the rules
|> are penalized by the higher cost of some projects and the time and effort
|> spent in presenting the required materials for approval. Those who
|> flaunt the rules are allowed to. I understand that this problem
|> may be only local to us, but my feeling is that it is not.
|>
We are going through some enforcement procedures right now on a house that put glass
block in the basement windows. It takes time. Sometimes years. The HRC tries to
be as friendly as possible and only goes to the next most serious step (court) when
it absolutely must. In the 15 year history there have only been a handful of cases
that weren't handled in a friendly manner.
|> |>
|> |> Most things that the HRC requires add some but not significant costs to projects.
|> |> Some things require no additional costs.
|> |>
|> |> While these rules go against my libertarian ideals, it's an internal conflict
|> |> I had to resolve. I do know that the rules make my neighborhood a better place
|> |> for me to live and I am not reluctant to spend money restoring my house.
|>
|> I agree the rules are necessary to keep up a historic neighborhood. The
|> only problem I have is the way homeowners are treated by the HPC
|> and the lack of a partnership, which could easily be forged by a visit
|> from an HPC member when someone buys house in a historic neighborhood.
|> All I got was a letter (sent out in mass mailing 6 months after I moved
|> in) stating the rules and procedures for submitting the required materials.
|> My understanding is that the town's HPC gave it's authority away
|> to the county HPC. The town HPC is now only an advisory group. The
|> county HPC does the approvals. Since it is a county HPC, they probably
|> have to run things on an impersonal, form driven level. Though it
|> may be necessary due to the number of staff versus the number of
|> historic homeowners, it makes for difficulties.
It is so well known throughout this area that our neighborhood is a historic district
that is virtually impossible not to know you are buying a house in a historic district.
And most realtors I've talked to make prospective buyers well aware that they must
get approval to make exterior changes. As a matter of fact, most make the
process sound more nasty than it really is. Some mistakenly tell people that you
CAN'T make changes to the exterior, which is not true.
But I agree that it is possible for a homebuyer to fall through the cracks here. I
don't have an answer to the problem. The only way the HRC can know of sales is through
county records and the sale is already over by that time.
|>
|> --
|> Jim Sullivan
|> National Institutes of Health
|> Bethesda, MD 20892
|> Internet: sull...@alw.nih.gov
|>
Randy Casciola
Gordon Burditt
>only problem I have is the way homeowners are treated by the HPC
>and the lack of a partnership, which could easily be forged by a visit
>from an HPC member when someone buys house in a historic neighborhood.
>All I got was a letter (sent out in mass mailing 6 months after I moved
>in) stating the rules and procedures for submitting the required materials.
Organizations like HPCs and homeowners associations should be
careful about their communications with homeowners, or they'll
become the cause of the neighborhood going downhill, in spite
of good intentions.
A friend of my father's described this situation to me a few
years back:
The association (I'm not sure whether this was historic preservation
or a homeowner's association) decided it needed to crack down on
unauthorized changes in the house appearance, and on some people
who didn't keep their lawns mowed. It sent out notices telling
people about the rules in vague language ("changes that affect the
outside appearance of the property") that could mean anything
and told certain people to keep their lawns mowed. Unfortunately
these went out in the same envelopes.
Five years later, the association was still having to send out lots
of letters telling people to mow their lawns, and although there
were only a few unauthorized changes, much of the neighborhood
was in severe need of repainting.
My father's friend, who was on the association board, got the idea
of taking a survey, and the results were absolutely horrifying:
- About a third of the residents thought the letters telling them
to mow their lawns were *PERMITS* to mow their lawns, and they
weren't allowed to mow without one. This idea seemed to be from
one homeowner who moved in with the lawn in very bad shape for
a while, had misinterpreted the letter from the association, and
the rumor spread. Many of them thought they were cheating
by mowing often, but did it anyway.
- Many of the residents wanted to repaint, without changing the
color scheme, but didn't know who or how to ask for permission.
So nobody repainted. The association had considered this as
a routine request and had a specific list of the original paint
colors. If you checked with them and used these colors,
you could get fast approval with little hassle. Few people knew this,
including some on the association board.
- 75% of the respondents had no address or a wrong address for
contacting the association, which was unfortunately the home
address of the current president, which changed every 6 months,
rather than a fixed address that would stay put from year to year.
Many of the others said "what association"?
- The houses that looked the best taken-care-of had been making
unauthorized changes because they had gotten permission from
the WRONG association.
- The claim was made that the association never approved any changes.
This wasn't true, but it turned out that the first 5 examples of
such approved changes given by the association president turned out
to be changes they approved outside the association's jurisdiction.
Half of the board had the wrong idea about the territory covered
by the association.
If you're going to have rules against people changing things, be sure
you word the rules so people don't think lawn mowing, hedge trimming,
repainting in the same color scheme, weeding the garden, raking
leaves, and shoveling snow are against the rules. (Unless they really
are.)
If you have an approval process, you're going to intimidate
a lot of people who won't bother asking because it's too much
trouble or there's no chance of approval. If you require approval
for routine maintenance, you're going to run the neighborhood into
the ground.
Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon