My post really only linked to Lori's and did not add any commentary of the
However, I see they've now put up a more extensive newer draft dated 6-30-2010; it can be downloaded from the following page. (I'd go off on a tangent with complaints on the poor design of the town's website, but I'm trying to stay focused here.)
And because I put that post up well past the witching hour, I didn't really have time to add any commentary. So that's what this follow-up post is all about.
As I read through all the current draft of proposals, it's not difficult to see how potentially damaging this is to property owners within the currently proposed local historic district (PDF).
The approvers
To begin, the Waxhaw Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for both "reviewing proposals for alterations ... in historic districts" but also for "adopting the design guidelines and rules of procedure to ensure consistent review of procedures". What this means to me is the WHPC are those who okay any changes to structures in the historic district. So the people overseeing property within the district (current members of the WHPC) is comprised of Denise Kuntz, Vivian Riegleman, Emmy Lou Haywood, Brian Jones, Deborah Kniegge, Tracy Horton, and Terry Settle. And a WHP council member to be named later, according to this page.
If the WHPC rejects your application to perform minor or major work on your property, it can be appealed to the Waxhaw Board of Adjustment, which is handled by the Town Planning Department.
The Waxhaw Board of Adjustment consists of Fred Caldwell, Flora Russell, John Cannamela, Robert Steere, and Frank Aikmus. They are tasked with "hear[ing] hardship cases when a property owner is requesting a variance or is appealing a decision made by the Town Planning Department."
NOTE: The current draft also states that the appeals to the Board of Adjustment are handled by the town's Planning Department. I cannot find a specific Town Planning Department web page, so I suspect it's what the town website labels the Planning Board. The Planning Board currently consists of: Blake Duty, David Godfrey, Phillip Gregory, Rad Pate, Tom McCrory, Gary Underwood, and Josh Grant. I'm not exactly sure if they have a significant role in the appeals process or if they act simply as a conduit to the Board of Adjustment.
Appeals of the Board of Adjustment's decision may be appealed to the superior court of Union County, and I imagine as far up the judicial system your money will take you.
Kinds of work
As currently drafted, the kind of work that wouldn't require permission from the WHPC council members includes:
* Painting a previously painted surface"Minor work" would require the approval of the aforementioned bureaucrats. This includes:
* Replacing a deteriorated baluster with the same design and material
* Replacing a fence picket or section with the same design and material
* Repairing damaged siding with the same design and material, or
* Replacing damaged shingles with the same design and material.
* Replacing storm windows or doorsI'm not sure how many denizens of the proposed historic district would be interested in signing away their rights to quickly modify their property in a way they deem fit. But let's continue...
* Replacing or removing gutters and downspouts
* Replacing asphalt or fiberglass shingle roofs
* Installing an exterior light fixture
* Repairing or repointing masonry and chimneys, or
* Replacing missing siding or trim
And since "minor" projects require approval of the WHPC, of course "major" projects require the same approval. This currently includes:
* Replacing doors and windowsImmediate but minor question: does this require approval for political signs in the yard or is this referring to signs on the historic structure in question? It's currently vague enough to restrict political speech in this manner or so it seems to me. And don't even think about painting a previously unpainted surface without prior approval, lest the bureaucrats will stick it to you, perhaps in triplicate.
* Replacing a roof with a different material
* Rebuilding a porch or storefront
* Installing new siding
* Installing a walk, steps, patio or driveway
* Rebuilding a foundation or chimney
* Painting a previously unpainted surface
* Erecting a sign
* Building an addition, deck, garage, etc., or
* Building a new building
The process
To obtain your "certificate of appropriateness", the town recommends setting up a "pre-application review meeting" with the Preservation Commission Liaison/Coordinator (not sure if this position has been assigned at this time) prior to filing your formal application to make modifications to your own property. Your formal application must include the following information:
* Property addressIt seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for "minor" modifications. It makes working with a homeowner's association look like a walk in the park.
* Applicant and owner information
* Description of work to be undertaken
* Detailed information on repair/replacement materials (design, dimensions, color, texture, material, etc.), including any needed specification sheets or samples
* Pictures of property and work area
* Names and addresses of adjoining property owners
Additionally, applications for "major work" must be received thirty days in advance of the Preservation Commissioner's monthly meeting and may require a filing fee of some sort.
My thoughts
While I have no doubt the WHPC and the powers that be mean well by trying to protect the historic charm of Waxhaw, I do not think these proposed regulations are the way to achieve such protection as property rights would essentially be a thing of the past for those homeowners in the ultimately decided upon historic district. In fact, I cannot imagine a plurality, or even a significant minority of property owners who would willingly submit themselves to these new regulations.
Unfortunately because these onerous regulations would affect only a small minority of property owners, this is exactly why I think it has a much better chance of passing than if these new regulations applied to all of Waxhaw. Those looking to get these regulations put into law may be able to round up support from subdivisions outside the historic district. These residents of Waxhaw, who wouldn't have to deal with the hardships imposed by the current draft, might be more interested in protecting Waxhaw's charms than protecting the property rights of a few.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
2 comments:
So, do think think the Waxhaw Historic Preservation Commission should be done away with? If you were the sole person in charge, would you have any regulations at all? How would you do this job? I'd really like to hear your solution.
Ruth Mather
Hello Ruth,
To answer your questions:
1) I'm not calling for the dismantling of the WHPC, but I sure don't like what their current proposal does to property rights. I'm guessing this commission does yeoman's work with regard to historical preservation in town making them a worthwhile entity, but I'm really not fully versed in everything they do.
2) I'm definitely not interested in being the sole person in charge, let alone signing up for a 3-year stint on the WHPC. That being said, most of the talk on this proposal is that its purpose is to prevent Waxhaw's historic homes from being demolished by developers like in the past. (See Sunday's Exchange article for an example of this.)
But it seems to me, if preventing demolition was the main concern, that the WHPC could be crafting a proposal specifically targeting that unlikely event rather than crafting a needlessly broad proposal requiring home-owners in the proposed district to get permission to paint previously unpainted surfaces or replace their doors. As currently configured, it seems like the WHPC is trying to kill two birds with one stone.
A proposal that tries solely to halt/delay the demolition of historic buildings would be a more ideal solution and I suspect would've generated far fewer opponents than the WHPC's current proposal. That's my layman's take on it.
Post a Comment