Webinar: Division of Liquor Control Temporary Permits
Wednesday, July 6th – 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
The Ohio Division of Liquor Control Licensing Section will provide an overview of temporary permits including who can apply, what’s permitted and not, and how they interact with Designated Outdoor Refreshment Areas (DORAs). The Division will explain how to apply for temporary permits online, too.
Preservation Month Webinar: Design Review: How NOT to be the Hysterical Review Board
Tuesday, May 24th – 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
As design review boards go, it seems like landmines are lurking everywhere: bad applicants, misinformed board members, apathetic city governments, bullying property owners, and murky ordinances can cause the board’s best efforts to go awry. Hear from Ohio design review veterans on how they’ve reacted to difficult situations, and have built design review programs to function fairly and efficiently.
Preservation Month Webinar: Design Review 101
Wednesday, May 11th – 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
Join us for an introduction to design review with Nathan Bevil of the State Historic Preservation Office. We’ll touch on topics such as legal framework, design guidelines, board service, the decision-making process & framework, and running fair & efficient meetings.
Our Presenter
Nathan Bevil, Community Planning & Preservation Manager, holds a bachelor’s degree in history and historic preservation from Mary Washington College and a Master of Historic Preservation degree from the University of Georgia. He administers the CLG program, manages the Building Doctor program, guided the development of the State Historic Preservation Plan, and provides technical assistance to communities on local historic preservation matters.
Is Ohio Next?
Have you kept up with the recent proposals coming from the Wisconsin and Michigan legislatures? Legislators in both states have sought to weaken laws when it comes to local design review. In Wisconsin, perhaps the most chilling language in the proposed legislation (you can read the full text here) focuses on what a property owner can do with his/her property:
“A city may not designate a property as a historic landmark without the consent of the owner. A city may not require or prohibit any action by an owner of a property related to the preservation of special character, historic or aesthetic interest, or any other significant value of the property without the consent of the owner.”
Would you think historic buildings would be endangered species in a local historic district? They will, if Michigan and Wisconsin legislators get their way.
Do you read this the way I do? If passed, this legislation would allow the owner of a property in a local district the right to alter or demolish the property, regardless of its historic significance. Which means that maybe the local district’s most important reason for existence, preventing shortsighted demolitions that erode the strength of the district, gets tossed out the window.
In Michigan, the legislature proposes (bill text here) additional hurdles for keeping their local districts in existence:
“A historic district in existence on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection shall dissolve 10 years after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection unless the question of its renewal is submitted to the electors in the local unit at the regular election immediately preceding the date that the historic district would otherwise dissolve and a majority of those electors voting at the election approve the renewal of the historic district.”
So, if you like and want to keep your historic district, not only does it go away as a rule after 10 years, but in order to keep your district you have to convince a majority of voters in your city to grant the district another 10 years of existence. Interestingly enough, when deciding to delist a local district, the legislation doesn’t seem to require the same popular vote hurdle.
So, what’s wrong with private property owner rights? Nothing. But cities need to balance community needs with individual rights. In a historic district, you can’t just protect your investment by keeping your property in great shape. If every owner surrounding your property decided to replace their historic buildings with vacant, weeded lots, what would happen to the value of your property? That could be a real possibility if Michigan’s proposed legislation is allowed to pass.
Whenever I see copycat legislation pop up in nearby states to Ohio, I always wonder when the same proposal may find its way to Ohio. I hope our General Assembly doesn’t have proposed legislation up its sleeve to gut the benefits of our local design districts, but after seeing what’s happening in Wisconsin and Michigan, I wouldn’t be especially surprised to see something like this proposed.
Historic districts, significance, and current integrity v. future integrity
An article caught my eye the other day. The Durham, North Carolina, Herald-Sun posted an article about the expansion of the Cleveland-Holloway historic district, and the ensuing controversy regarding which properties to include in the expansion, and which properties to exclude. You can read the article here.
Particularly, one 2-acre lot has been at the center of the conversation: a vacant (but prime for development) parcel. So, why would a vacant parcel be included in a historic district? Without any historic resources, how does the parcel warrant inclusion? The answer may have something to do with the properties surrounding the lot, and what future development on the lot might look like. However, before we try to get to the bottom of the vacant lot and the historic district, let’s talk a little about the initial process for determining the inclusion of resources in a historic district.
Evaluating a property to understand its historic significance can sometimes get complicated. The National Park Service (NPS), through its National Register Bulletins, provides a framework we can use to guide us through the evaluation process. By determining integrity, which the NPS defines as “the ability of a property to convey its significance,” we can come to a good conclusion about whether a property would be eligible for inclusion in the National Register, or a contributing resource in a local design review district.
When we consider the integrity of a resource, we’re looking for signs of how the resource has changed or hasn’t changed through the decades. If I’m asked to judge the integrity of a resource, I ask myself this question first: if we could bring the original builder/occupant of the property forward in time to join us today, would he or she recognize the property as their own? Has the neighborhood changed radically since the building was constructed? Has the building itself changed radically over the years? The less sure I am that time traveler would recognize the building, the less sure I am that building retains the integrity needed to be considered a historic resource.
And when we judge integrity, the NPS asks to us to judge based on seven different aspects, including location, design, and setting, among others. Location often comes down to, as you might expect, physical placement, and usually comes into play when a property has been moved. Design may focus on the single property and its appearance, a streetscape, or the entire district, and oftentimes these aspects all help to determine significance and integrity. Not only is the alteration of the building important to consider; alterations in the vicinity of the building that alter design must also be considered. Finally, setting considers the character of the property in question. A good example of loss of setting: the historic 1830s farmstead constructed on a 200 acre farm that has been subsequently swallowed up by subdivisions of new homes on the land. Even though the original house still exists, the surrounding land has been so severely altered that it would be difficult to capture the feel of the property as a working farm. If you want to dive into the different aspects of integrity, you can read more here.
In the case of the Durham expansion, I think the central issue comes down to this: future construction on the vacant lot could compromise the integrity of the local district as a whole, based on the aspects of design and setting. Therefore, one way to stave off future construction that doesn’t fit into the character of the district is to add the vacant parcel to the district, thereby (if the ordinance is written to provide oversight for infill/new construction) putting future construction under design review. In the case of the Durham expansion, the current property owners don’t want the added layer of regulation, while many of the adjacent owners don’t want an out-of-scale development that could jeopardize the character of the district.
If this controversy came before you, how would you resolve this issue? Traditionally, historic districts were enacted to preserve significant properties. But, when we consider design and setting when evaluating the integrity of significant properties, adjoining parcels and what’s built on them can influence the look of the district, for better or worse.
You can provide your thoughts in the comments section below.