Question ... re AAHDC

Jun 11 04:59 UTC 1993

I just returned a little while ago from a grueling four-hour meeting
of the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission.

Does anybody out there watch our meetings on cable?  Any reactions?

response 2 of 21:

Jun 11 11:07 UTC 1993

We watch it right after "The Simpsons".  The two programs
complement each other nicely.  :)

Actually, I haven't watched it for more than a few minutes at a
time, not long enough to form a strong impression.  Mary tends
to get into these things more than I do.  (She watches City
Council & School Board meetings with some regularity.)

So I'll second Rane's question:  What's hot?

response 4 of 21:

Jun 11 16:08 UTC 1993

Actually, I thought last night's meeting was considerably longer than
necessary.  Part of that is the fault of applicants who don't submit
all the needed information even after being reminded to do so.  The
commission always wants to please everybody as much as possible, so
rather than rejecting a proposal, we find ourselves spending lots of
time figuring out what the applicant specifically wants to do.

We had two applicants last night who had porch work done outside their
supervision.  The guy who is gutting and rebuilding the house at 512
W. William was out of town for a while, and in the meantime his
contractor, without the owner's or the city's permission, built an
awful shoddy porch on the front.

We were all agreed (Mr. Trombly, the owner, included) that the porch
had to be fixed; he said he wanted to build a porch just like one just
built across the street.  Had he brought drawings and specifications,
as is required, we surely would have approved it pronto.  The trouble
was that the other porch, though well designed, was poorly constructed
and is already rotting; and the size and shape are completely different.
I thought we could specify similar design to the porch across the street
and let the staff approve the final plans, but the rest of the Commission
didn't agree.  (More about this house in a moment.)

The other porch was on a large circa-1880 house on Catherine in the Old
Fourth Ward Historic District.  The owner asked a carpenter to look at
repairing the front porch, and the carpenter, without permission, ripped
the whole porch off and said "See?  It was all rotted.  You need a new
porch."  The owner, nervous about access to the house and liability
problems, had him replace the porch immediately, without getting a
building permit.  So again we had a fait accompli new porch.

In this case, the carpentry on the porch was of very high quality; the
trouble was that it didn't really go with the house.  There was some
evidence, though, that the old porch (the one the carpenter removed),
was not the original one, and that the new porch pretty much replicated
the one it replaced.  If so, we'd probably approve it.  Trouble is, the
documentary photos of the house, because of angles and trees and shrubbery,
don't show how the porch looked.

We also had a letter from the neighborhood association complaining about
the new porch, and advocating that we order the owner to remove it.
This didn't sit well with the commission either.  In the end, we decided
to postpone action to the next meeting, with the understanding that in
the absence of some startling revelation about the old porch, we'd
approve the new one.

Back to 512 W. William.  Mr. Trombly also wanted us to approve a new
front door for the house.  He had submitted a page from a catalog showing
the door he wanted.  The existing door is probably not the original,
and the commission had no trouble agreeing that he could replace it.
Under these circumstances, I thought, the owner should have fairly wide
leeway in choosing a door.  Unfortunately, the door that Mr. Trombly had
selected was pretty ludicrous; the architect member of the commission,
Ilene Tyler, minced no words on this point.  Mr. Trombly claimed that this
was the only door available with thermopane; Ilene was dumbfounded at that.
In any case, the catalog made no mention of theromopane.  The proposed
door was rejected unanimously.

At that point, Mr. Trombly became enraged, denounced us, threatened legal
action, etc.  I think he must have already bought the door.

response 6 of 21:

Jun 12 07:41 UTC 1993

the loooooooooooong tenticles of the pseudo-law. Soorry, Larry, the door
bit is Really going too far, way too far. As for the porch(es), that's
about as bad. 
  
Do you have to get approval to paint inside? Serious question in spite
of the preceeding.

response 8 of 21:

Jun 13 05:25 UTC 1993

What is the form of the law for the "Historic District"? Are there
separate Use Restrictions, written into the deeds, or is it an AA
ordinance? These are in effect deed restrictions. Did each landowner
have to volunteer? Were the landowners compensated for the deed
restrictions?

response 10 of 21:

Jun 13 09:21 UTC 1993

Looking at the questions again ...

Re 6.  No approval is required for painting, inside or out.  Only the
most extreme places (e.g. Charleston SC) regulate paint colors.

Re 7.  People who buy, say, a house in the Old West Side historic district
are probably aware of it, given that it seems to be a big selling point.

Also re 7.  The commission has existed, I think, since 1972 (not the
mid-1980's).  All properties within a district are covered regardless
of when they changed hands last.

Re 8.  By your reasoning, the zoning ordinance would be a deed restriction
too.  Yes, historic preservation deed restrictions do exist, but they are
created *by* a property owner, either by including them in the deed when
the property is sold, or by executing a conservation easement.  Under
certain circumstances, the owner can get a tax deduction for a conservation
easement if it's given (donated) to a qualified organization.

Also re 8.  A clear distinction is supposed to exist between government
"taking" of property (e.g., to build a highway where your house stood)
and government *regulation* (almost anything to protect the public health,
safety, welfare, etc.).  A "taking" requires "just compensation" under
the Fifth Amendment.  A "regulation" may affect your interests but creates
no right for any compensation.

For example, if the county health inspector shuts down your restaurant
for sanitation violations, it may cost you thousands of dollars in lost
business.  If your property is rezoned to residential from commercial,
it may drop in value by half or more.  These situations involve a loss
of some kind caused by government regulation, but you would NOT be
entitled to send the government a bill and collect damages.  If you could,
if anyone could, it would quickly become impossible to govern.

HOWEVER, there are two closely related exceptions to this when it comes
to real estate.

(1) If a zoning law (or historic district ordinance) has the effect of
depriving you of all economic use of your property, it is invalid.

(2) If a government regulation is seen as being so onerous that it
constitutes a "taking" of your property, you are entitled to the same
"just compensation" that would apply under eminent domain.

I should hasten to point out that historic district ordinances are not
in and of themselves counted as a "taking".  The U.S. Supreme Court in
Penn Central Transportation Co. v City of New York (the "Grand Central
Terminal case") supported their validity under the U.S. Constitution.

Another possibly counter-intuitive point: on the hierarchy of possible
historic designations, only *local* designation restricts what a private
owner can do with a structure, absent any federal/state involvement:

    (1) National Historic Landmarks [no restrictions]

    (2) National Register of Historic Places [no restrictions]

    (3) State Historic Register [no restrictions in Michigan]

    (4) City or other local historic district or landmark ordinance
           [restrictions depend on state law and wording of ordinance]

Note that a given property may have more than one type of designation.

response 12 of 21:

Jun 13 20:36 UTC 1993

Yes, that sounds like a competently thought-out design, thankxx. 
  
I guess some questions remain, though, like: financial hardship to
repair something with original or original-like materials. Guess the
biggie would be a roof.  How would the situation resolve a leaky roof
remaining "original" vs the owners willingness to spend $15,000 to make
it "original" again vs $2000 to use a better material?
 
And Trombly's door decision was a mess, but I'm not asking for
justification, just stating an opinion.
 

response 14 of 21:

Jun 14 10:53 UTC 1993

Re 12.  Financial hardship is indeed an issue (and there are provisions
for this).  However, at least in Ann Arbor, roofs are rarely a cause of
concern.  Probably 99% of houses with pitched roofs are re-roofed with
ordinary asphalt shingles whether they're historic or not.  Flat roofs,
by definition, are invisible, and so there is zero concern with what
kind of sealing materials might be used.

A house with a slate roof might be a problem if the slates had been
allowed to deteriorate.  A slate roof, with reasonable care, is extremely
durable.  Replacing one, if necessary, can be quite expensive.

There's a house in an East Lansing historic district with what some call
a "false thatched" roof.  Essentially the roof is wood shingles laid in
an intricate three-dimensional way to simulate thatch.  The house is on
West Grand River in a very conspicuous location, and people are very fond
of it.

Unfortunately, wood shingles on a roof are *not* permanent, and this one
was deteriorating, after more than 60 years in place.  Of course, the owners
of the house were not happy at the prospect of paying an enormous amount of
money to replicate the roof with new shingles.  In this case, however,
because the roof was so unique and impressive, a national wood products
company was persuaded to replace the roof at its own expense so that it
could use pictures of the finished job in its advertising.  Everybody won.

But this kind of case is uncommon.  Asphalt shingles are almost always
acceptable; replacing an asphalt shingle roof rurface with new asphalt
shingles requires no approval from AAHDC.

response 16 of 21:

Jun 15 11:48 UTC 1993

That would depend on the local commission, and probably on the importance
of the structure.  Within the outlines laid down by state law, every
local ordinance and administration is different.

response 18 of 21:

Jun 16 08:42 UTC 1993

Sounds like just the shells.

response 20 of 21:

Jan 3 13:19 UTC 1996

.:\]