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?

21 responses total.

What's hot now in AAHDC? (No, I've never watched.)

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?

Sorry, I don't have cable, but like the others, I'm interested in
what's going on.  Please give us some news.

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.

Well - it sounds about as frustrating as the meeting must have been. 

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.

When someone purchases a house withing the Historic District are
they aware of what all is involved should they care to renovate?
Are those folks that owned prior to the council's charter (mid 1980's?)
exempt from needing to following the protocol?

I've watched the meetings and although surprised at the fine details
with which the committee involves itself, I've also been impressed with
how members tend to try to facilitate what the owners need if
at all possible.  I would expect that guy with the Williams house
is pretty much in up to his eyeballs at this point and what happened
at that last meeting was not about the door, specifically, but more
a reflection of how overwhelming his project has become.  Just a guess.

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?

Um ... gee ... I don't really have time right now to cover all these
questions in the detail they deserve, but let me address some general points.

Deed restrictions have nothing to do with this.  (That would be a private
matter between whatever parties were involved in the transaction, e.g.,
a developer who sold lots with a restriction that houses built there be
of a certain style, etc.)

Ann Arbor, like dozens of other cities in Michigan, and probably hundreds
around the country, has a historic district ordinance.  Under the state
enabling statute, a city or other local government can adopt such an
ordinance ONLY after a lengthy period of study and comment, including a
detailed recommendation from a study committee convened for the purpose.
(There are additional rules for this process, e.g., the composition of
the committee, the things which must be considered, the types of surveys
which must be done, public hearings, certified mail to property owners,
etc.)

The point of the ordinance is to restrain the destruction of historic
resources, and/or to insure that new work is generally compatible.
Most Michigan ordinances allow a city to prohibit demolition of a
designated historic building, unless certain circumstances apply.  In
some other states, it's more common to have an official delay of the
demolition permit to allow negotiation with the owner; if negotiations
to save the structure are not successful (or if the owner is not
interested in negotiating), the permit is issued at the end of the
period, usually something like 90 days.

Since it doesn't make much sense to prevent the demolition of a historic
building but at the same time permit it to be radically changed, the
ordinances typically impose some kind of review process on changes that
affect the appearance of a structure, i.e., changes to the *exterior*,
and usually limited to just the front, or the parts visible from the
street.

Ann Arbor is somewhat unusual, I think, in having a completely different
ordinance and set of standards for each of its historic districts.  For
example, on the Old West Side (the largest district), changes to the side
of the structure, more than 15 feet from the front, are exempt from the
ordinance regardless how conspicuous they might be.  However, additions
that make the house higher or wider, as seen from the street, *are* covered.

Typically, a property owner who wants to remodel a building has to get
a building permit (whether in a historic district or not).  Plans have
to be brought to the building department so that the city can be sure
that zoning and building codes are being followed.  If the property is
in a historic district, additional standards may apply.  For example, if
the remodeling calls for replacing something with an identical substitute,
like roofing or steps or windows or whatever, or doesn't affect a part
of a building covered by the ordinance, it is approved by the building
official as part of granting the permit.

If the ordinance is well-drafted, the overwhelming majority of applications
for permits can simply be granted by the building official, just as is
done with building permits normally.  Of course, this is also where all
kinds of nitpicky requirements like exits and ventilation and electrical
codes and such are carried out.

If the applicant wishes to make a change that the ordinance does not
specifically allow, the applicant might then either alter the proposal
to eliminate the conflict, or apply to the Historic District Commission
for a "certificate of appropriateness".  In my experience so far (six
months on the AAHDC), the certificate is almost always granted.  (Mr.
Trombly's door was the first "no" vote since I've been a member, I think.)

Geesh, I meant to be brief, and I'm already up to line 66.

As to notice ... the state requires certified mail (more than once? I
forget) to notify property owners that historic district designation is
under consideration for their property, dates and times of public hearings,
address to send comments to, etc.  The study committee or city council may
disregard the comments if they choose, but the final decision (yes or no
to the study committee's recomendation) is a political one, and you know
how politicians are. :-)

In most cases, a historic district gets enacted because people in the
neighborhood, or a large subset of them, support or even demand it.
This was the case in all of the residential-area historic districts in
Ann Arbor (Old West Side, Old Fourth Ward, Washtenaw-Hill).  Often a
neighborhood wants designation to forestall changes or redevelopment.
In other cases (notably the Old West Side) the neighborhood sees blight
as a threat and desires measures to recognize and maintain its "special"
character.  Such recognition and support does seem to help stabilize and
perhaps increase property values.

As a legal matter, historic preservation ordinances are like zoning.
Ironically, it means that a historic *district* (taking in a whole
neighborhood including all kinds of structures of possibly dubious
historic or architectural value) is traditionally seen much more
favorably by courts than a historic *landmark* (designating a single
structure of outstanding importance).  All the properties in the
district are benefitted by the restrictions on the adjoining properties;
the single landmark is restricted without any reciprocal benefit, like
"spot zoning".

All the questions are now lost to my scrollback buffer, and for all I
know two or three more have slipped in, so I'll stop for now.

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.

Wow, thanks for all the info.

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.
 

Thank you for the extensive elaboration. I'm currently involved in a
conservation easement matter, and asked my questions to understand how
the historical preservation ordinances/restrictions are related.

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.

Granted, I choose a repair that would be expensive, and perhaps
uncommon as well. It is it a normal course of affairs for these
preservation commissions to initiate assistance or is it the
burden of the owner?

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.

I didn't know A2 had a historical district. Where is it?

Also, if A2 does have a historical district, is any work being doing to
take the lovely old BIG houses that are all chopped up into dinky apartments
and make the buildings back into lovely big homes?

Sounds like just the shells.

Re 17.  Ann Arbor has several historic districts; I think I mentioned the
names earlier in this item.  The Old West Side is just on the other side
of the railroad tracks from downtown, south of Huron, out to Seventh or
so.  The Old Fourth Ward district includes a few blocks of N. Division,
N. State, and other streets just north of Huron between downtown and the
hospital complex.  The Washtenaw/Hill district includes a few houses along
Hill Street.  There are a few other small ones, plus some individual
landmarks like Cobblestone Farm.

The *use* of a structure is not addressed by a historic district ordinance.
How many units might exist in a given structure is a housing and zoning
matter.

.:\]

Welcome to grex, vsudha. And, by the way, a great exposition, Larry. You
should consider writing for ICLE.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss