Posted on 03/01/2016 1:48:06 PM PST by MichCapCon
In 2011, Louis Breskman put up a wooden fence on his Ann Arbor property that was within a historic district. Breskman said neighbors had similar fences and that since the fence was wooden, it blended in with the other historic features of the neighborhood.
Breskman failed to get a permit for a “certificate of appropriateness," however, and when he retroactively applied for it, the city’s historic district commission denied his request.
Breskman said he was threatened with a $5,000 fine and would have to hire an attorney to fight the case. So he took the fence down.
“I wasn’t doing anything that was detrimental to the neighborhood,” Breskman said this month, adding that wooden fences have been used for hundreds of years. “That’s why I put it up. I didn’t think it was going to be an issue. … It doesn’t seem like there are clear rules to what is considered historical.”
Breskman isn’t the only Ann Arbor resident who has contested rulings by the historic commission, or felt that it was overreaching. A Freedom of Information Act filed uncovered numerous concerns from the city’s residents that led to official complaints.
Two bills in the Michigan Legislature would affect how historic districts operate. House Bill 5232 and Senate Bill 720 would make it so two-thirds of property owners would have to approve a move to create a historic district; the majority of voters in that community would have to approve the restrictions imposed by the district. The bills would also limit historic districts to 10 years before having to be renewed by another vote.
“Our bill to modernize a law written 45 years ago strikes the right balance between protecting private property owners’ rights and historic preservation,” said Rep. Chris Afendoulis, R-Grand Rapids Township, in a press release. “This will help many communities maintain their historic identity while ensuring private property owners have a greater voice.”
Historic districts generally receive positive coverage in local media.
Take for example, the first few paragraphs in a recent article in the Ann Arbor News about historic districts. It reported: “With roughly 1,800 properties included in 14 historic districts, it's no secret Ann Arbor takes historic preservation seriously."
Those designations over the years have protected the integrity and charm of some of the city's oldest neighborhoods from the Old West Side to the Old Fourth Ward, where blocks of original homes from the 1800s and early 1900s remain intact.
"They've also helped maintain some of the original character of many parts of the downtown, including the Main Street area.
The Detroit Free Press also chimed in on the legislation to reform historic districts.
Staff writer John Gallagher wrote: “It’s true that over the years we’ve heard some low-level complaints about how tough local historic boards can be in protecting the integrity of their districts. But this proposed legislation goes way too far in trying to correct a so-called problem that is hardly a problem at all.”
But there is another side to historic districts that involves a potential infringement on property owner rights.
In 2008, the city of Ann Arbor's historic district denied a homeowner’s request to replace three windows. The homeowner said the windows were severely deteriorated and wanted to replace them with wood windows that replicated the existing ones.
In the letter explaining the denial, Jill Thacher, the city planner and historic preservation coordinator, described what needed to be done: "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence."
Homeowner Heather O’Neal wrote in a 2008 letter to the state’s historic preservation review board: “Decisions like this diminish the desire of people to live in the neighborhood and discourage them from buying and/or maintaining property in historic districts."
In 2008, a homeowner reported having 108-year-old windows “beyond reasonable repair.” The windows didn’t line up and wouldn’t lock, according to the homeowner.
In a letter to the state, the homeowner said one of the city’s historic district commissioners came to the house to look at the window and stated that they “weren’t that bad.”
The commission denied the request to replace the window.
Prudence Spink, the homeowner, told the state in her appeal that many other buildings in the neighborhood had replacement windows similar to what she wanted to install.
The homeowner feared she could be in Catch 22 situation: “unable to comply with the housing code with respect to windows by complying with the mandate of the historical commission to keep the old, deteriorated windows.”
In 2007, the city’s historic district commission demanded that a homeowner remove vinyl replacement windows he had already installed. The windows he removed were not the original windows, according to the homeowner, and were a safety risk to the people who occupied the house because they were too small to provide an escape.
In my historic district, the board would not even let me straighten the crooked lintels below the windows. The photo they had from 1939 had them crooked so they stay crooked.
We see cases here where the so-called historical commissions have crossed the line into being hysterical commissions.
But make sure you pay your property taxes. Because you own the place.
I remember Sacramento having a historic district and when some building or house could not be updated or etc. because of stupid rules it seemed the “homeless” people were always most timely in their willingness to burn the thing to the ground.
Maybe Ann Arbor needs some enterprising homeless people who like to play with matches?
My father lives in a legitimately historic house, but not in a “historic district”. The local historic preservation society invited him to register his house; apparently there were/are tax breaks involved. There was also a rulebook bigger than the NFL’s ... he told them to pound sand.
I heard this story from a friend. His buddy had a house in the -hysterical- district and he wanted to put on a porch. He hired an architect and they designed a porch that fitted the historic period of the house. The hysterical board refused him a permit. So, he read the rules and there was nothing about paint colors. He painted his house purple with yellow polka dots. The hysterical district took him to court and lost. But he told them he would repaint the house its original color if they would approve the porch. They approved the porch and he repainted.
Then the historical district thing hit.
They were told they would have to remove the 3 pane windows and install historically accurate windows. Remember the heating bills prior to the window installation she promptly sold to some idiot who wanted a home with "character".
There is now an average of one abandon home per block in what used to be a very desirable neighborhood.
Once you put history in a bottle and petrify it with commissions and regulations, it becomes impossible to make history any more.
With the “historical”, just remember - just because it is old doesn’t make it worth a damn.
“So, he read the rules and there was nothing about paint colors. “
—
That really surprises me——it’s usually one of the first things they want to control.
.
Historicity trumps energy efficiency?
I wonder if you can buy a home like that and ignore every other energy efficiency mandate of the feds.
They usually just include something about “historically accurate colors”. And the historically accurate colors can be quite gaudy.
But the drafts are most unpleasant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.