The Heights Historic Districts

[20thStDad]

I imagine it would work like an HOA and the owner would be responsible for all the costs.

What true enforcement do they have? What if someone just says no, and also refuses to pay a fine or something?

[AtticaFlinch]

What true enforcement do they have? What if someone just says no, and also refuses to pay a fine or something?

HOAs can sue for breach of contract, as you have to sign one of those contracts when you move into a neighborhood with an existing HOA. I have no idea how this historic district thing would work since it would not only affect new residents. If someone opted not to sign a contract, and because that wasn't a condition upon moving into the neighborhood, it would seem that civil courts wouldn't have much say in this. Perhaps criminal fines (or jail time) could be levied. I don't know. It all sounds so draconian that way, and I think this is yet another one of those ideas that sounds better on paper but falls apart with the details.

[SCDesign]

In the district you have to have a CoA to get a permit issued by the City. Working without a permit in the City can result in a fine of $2,000 per day. The enforcement would be through Planning Department Inspection Division which has about 20 inspectors whose sole job is to find unpermitted work. Normally they will put up a "Stop Work" order on your property and give you the chance to get a permit. If you continue working without a permit the fines will start to add up. Eventually it will result in a lien on the property for the amount of fine which will be collected when the structure is sold.

[20thStDad]

Ok so fines and liens, that's what I figured.

I'm assuming that if this passes they still can't force people to change what is already on their property, it would only affect new work. What does it accomplish then? If something gets built it has to be some kind of neo-craftsman? Meanwhile, the old codger who lets vegetation grow up to where you can't see how dilapidated his house has become continues to be a worse problem, IMO.

[little frau]

There is a homeowner in my neighborhood who is having an outbuilding built, like a little cottage behind the house. There is no permit for it, according to the COH permits web site.

Would one of these 20 inspectors be interested in this?? The homeowner is well aware of the requirements, having run into problems in the past with putting up a new structure. This particular home has an unusually large lot for the neighborhood.

Or, are certain sized buildings exempt from permitting?

Also, in my original question, I was talking about changing the outside paint color. Is there a permit required for this?

[Marksmu]

You can get one at Boulivard Realty on Heights Blvd, or Susan Anderson at 11th. I'll see if I can get a scanned one to post. Also, if you want a sign you can get on at Boulivard Realty, there are a couple of hundred that we are trying to get out.

What do the yard signs at Boulivard say? I'm really looking for something that will really upset the snobby historic folks.

[Marksmu]

In the district you have to have a CoA to get a permit issued by the City. Working without a permit in the City can result in a fine of $2,000 per day. The enforcement would be through Planning Department Inspection Division which has about 20 inspectors whose sole job is to find unpermitted work. Normally they will put up a "Stop Work" order on your property and give you the chance to get a permit. If you continue working without a permit the fines will start to add up. Eventually it will result in a lien on the property for the amount of fine which will be collected when the structure is sold.

If you start and finish a job without getting caught, I don't think (key word think) that they can make you undo what you have completed even if they find out. I believe they can only make you stop what you are doing or try to issue a fine. It would be mighty hard for them to prove that you changed something without proof if it having been the other way.

I would tell any inspector who came by that he was trespassing and that he needed a warrant to enter. I would love to see him come back with a warrant.

[SCDesign]

I like hte idea of making them get a warrant. I wonder if that would work with HCAD appraisers. You can only really get into trouble if they catch you building without a permit, once it is finished they would have a pretty hard time proving that it wasn't there before. As for a neighbor building something without a permit there are certian things you can build without one and an outbuilding or storage shed that wasn't living space, under, I believe it's 140 sq.ft, wouldn't need one. I heard that the City will actually pay a reward if you turn someone in that is working without a permit but that could very well be a rumor. You do't typically need a permit to paint your house but in the Historic Distric under the new ordinance you would. I think there will be a thriving business in weekend painting and contracting in the future.

[SCDesign]

What do the yard signs at Boulivard say? I'm really looking for something that will really upset the snobby historic folks.

Sorry, it's not really offensive. It jst says "Yes to Preservation, No to (something)" and gives a list of why it's bad. It's something though, and if we can get a number of them up and down a street we may have an impact. BTW, the South Heights District does not appear to be on the Council Adgenda for this week so if enough people go to the meetings and protest there may still be a chance to keep it from being adopted right away. I don't know what good it does to delay it but I guess that as long as it isn't officially voted as a District there is always the chance of stopping it from happening.

[AtticaFlinch]

I heard that the City will actually pay a reward if you turn someone in that is working without a permit but that could very well be a rumor.

Bahahaha!

I really hope the Walmart gets built now. It may be the only thing that can prevent the Heights from becoming a police state.

I may go join the pro-Walmart Facebook page now.

[poyea]

Can someone explain why the email I received today from the HHA regarding the HAHC meetings only lists the one meeting designated for the Heights Historic Districts, but NOT the one for all of the districts? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but shouldn't this email also show the date for the primary meeting for ALL of the districts, which is tomorrow (27th). And, generally speaking, am I the only one ticked off about the 3-4 day notice on the primary meeting for tomorrow. I imagine they've had these places/times reserved for more than 3 days. This just smells wrong.

Meeting

Public Meeting for Proposed amendments to Houston Historic Districts Ordinance Including Heights East, West, & South

Tuesday, August 10, 6-8 p.m.

United Way, 50 Waugh Drive

Click HERE for proposed admendments.

[poyea]

Here is an email I just received from one of the supporters of the new proposed changes. Not my views, just passing along the information as it came across.

"The meeting is tomorrow night Tuesday, July 27 at 6:00 p.m. at Houston Community College, Central College, San Jacinto Auditorium, 1300 Holman Street.

The meeting is about Protected Historic Districts. Protected Historic Districts protect your investment in your home and in your quality of life living in Houston's history by keeping your historic district safe from demolitions of historic buildings (like the Ashland Tea room) and safe from incompatible new construction (like the massive project at W. 15th and Rutland) when the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission rejects the project.

The meeting is for all the historic districts in Houston and will be a question and answer session. We understand that cards will be passed out for you to write questions on. We suggest that whether or not you have a question, take the card and write on it "I support Protected Historic Districts" and then write some question on it. The idea is to show the Mayor and City Council there is huge support for Protected Districts. If we do, it will head off the possibility that the City will require us to petition for it".

Finally, preservationists from all historic districts in Houston have formed a Coalition of Historic Districts and historic preservationists to work for the passage of the Protected Districts Ordinance. The Coalition has a website which is a really good resource and has a lot of information that may answer most any question you have. www.preservehouston.org <http://www.preservehouston.org>

[20thStDad]

Can someone explain why the email I received today from the HHA regarding the HAHC meetings only lists the one meeting designated for the Heights Historic Districts, but NOT the one for all of the districts? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but shouldn't this email also show the date for the primary meeting for ALL of the districts, which is tomorrow (27th). And, generally speaking, am I the only one ticked off about the 3-4 day notice on the primary meeting for tomorrow. I imagine they've had these places/times reserved for more than 3 days. This just smells wrong.

Meeting

Public Meeting for Proposed amendments to Houston Historic Districts Ordinance Including Heights East, West, & South

Tuesday, August 10, 6-8 p.m.

United Way, 50 Waugh Drive

Click HERE for proposed admendments.

I didn't see the part that said they would/would not be targeting my house for having to submit an application and post a sign if I want to change the address number style on my house. Is that published yet?

[poyea]

I didn't see the part that said they would/would not be targeting my house for having to submit an application and post a sign if I want to change the address number style on my house. Is that published yet?

Maybe starting around page 20....it just references exterior changes, but it could easily be taken to include paint colors, etc. Unless you have a photo showing there were numbers on your house in 1925 in the same style, color, size, etc. (sarcasm rears its' ugly head).

[20thStDad]

Maybe starting around page 20....it just references exterior changes, but it could easily be taken to include paint colors, etc. Unless you have a photo showing there were numbers on your house in 1925 in the same style, color, size, etc. (sarcasm rears its' ugly head).

Sorry I'm vague lately - probably due to insufficient bourbon consumption. I meant I'm looking for any boundaries of proposed districts. I did take a decent read through, vegetation seems to be safe for now, I can plant or dig up whatever I want.

[poyea]

Sorry I'm vague lately - probably due to insufficient bourbon consumption. I meant I'm looking for any boundaries of proposed districts. I did take a decent read through, vegetation seems to be safe for now, I can plant or dig up whatever I want.

Go to this site, and at the top they have all of the districts listed. If you click on them, a map pops up. Based on your screen name and past posts about Mam's, my guess is you're in Heights West.

http://www.preservehouston.org/

[20thStDad]

Go to this site, and at the top they have all of the districts listed. If you click on them, a map pops up. Based on your screen name and past posts about Mam's, my guess is you're in Heights West.

http://www.preservehouston.org/

The current district doesn't go north of 16th St. I didn't see a link to future/possible extended boundaries.

[Porchman]

Go to this site, and at the top they have all of the districts listed. If you click on them, a map pops up. Based on your screen name and past posts about Mam's, my guess is you're in Heights West.

http://www.preservehouston.org/

He's not. He and I are the bastard children of the Heights. And we get to act out here. If the ordinance passes, our property values will increase because people will be able to modify their property the way they want.

Block people from building homes that look like Jiffy Lubes. However do not tell people that they cannot modify the crown molding above their door, that they cannot use Hardiplank, that they cannot modify the color of their house, or that they cannot replace the windows on their porch with French doors. This ordinance feels like an over-reach. As others have suggested ,it could do more harm than good. The perspective I would seek is preserve the front-porch aspect of the neighborhood, not the specifics individual buildings.

[TheNiche]

Bahahaha!

I really hope the Walmart gets built now. It may be the only thing that can prevent the Heights from becoming a police state.

I may go join the pro-Walmart Facebook page now.

Some people secretly hope for a decriminalization of pot. I secretly hope for a decriminalization of arson. ...but only in historic districts. Maybe I should start a social-media-based petition to that effect.

Edited July 27, 2010 by TheNiche

[Marksmu]

I like hte idea of making them get a warrant. I wonder if that would work with HCAD appraisers. You can only really get into trouble if they catch you building without a permit, once it is finished they would have a pretty hard time proving that it wasn't there before. As for a neighbor building something without a permit there are certian things you can build without one and an outbuilding or storage shed that wasn't living space, under, I believe it's 140 sq.ft, wouldn't need one. I heard that the City will actually pay a reward if you turn someone in that is working without a permit but that could very well be a rumor. You do't typically need a permit to paint your house but in the Historic Distric under the new ordinance you would. I think there will be a thriving business in weekend painting and contracting in the future.

A little searching on the city web site, and I came across the historic district agenda. There is a place where you can send an email to comment on the current proposal if you cannot attend.

Everyone who opposes this measure but cannot attend the meetings should send a strongly worded email to this address: historicpreservation@houstontx.gov

I sent a strongly worded, yet polite email.

I believe a case can be made that this historic district ordinance as it is currently worded, that requires certain styles, certain materials, etc, is a taking of private property development rights.

I think a case could be made, that by imposing a set of restrictions that so severely limits property owners in their ability to utilize their property, that is not for the express purpose of promoting the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens, is essentially a form of condemnation without just compensation. The question will be whether or not the rules are so restrictive as to amount to a taking.

I think if you can show that the additional costs imposed by the ordinance essentially makes the property worth less, then you have succeeded. Very few people can truly afford to build within the ridiculous confines set forth in this ordinance. Even fewer will be able to repair their existing homes within the guidelines.

Send emails opposing the measure...it is important that the silent majority be heard. We need to stop letting the very loud minority of people take control of everything because they make more noise. Stand up and be heard. Oppose the measure...use your real name, and address, and go on record.

[chester77008]

There is now a website posted by a group opposed to the new ordinance. They have a good Q&A section regarding the changes.

www.responsiblehistoricpreservation.org

If you previously signed the petition and do not agree with the proposed changes please sign the petition-retraction form.

There are also yard signs available to help generate debate.

[LookyHere]

He's not. He and I are the bastard children of the Heights. And we get to act out here. If the ordinance passes, our property values will increase because people will be able to modify their property the way they want.

Block people from building homes that look like Jiffy Lubes. However do not tell people that they cannot modify the crown molding above their door, that they cannot use Hardiplank, that they cannot modify the color of their house, or that they cannot replace the windows on their porch with French doors. This ordinance feels like an over-reach. As others have suggested ,it could do more harm than good. The perspective I would seek is preserve the front-porch aspect of the neighborhood, not the specifics individual buildings.

My partner and I discussed this and we feel the City is starting at the extreme end because they know there will be opposition and this gives them wiggle room for negotiating. I know many die hard preservationists and the thing that most of them want to see is an end to the 90 day rule and adoption of a "No Means No" for tear downs. I don't think anyone who supports preservation really want to control their neighbors' paint color but they also want to save buildings like Ashland Tea House and the historic homes on Heights Boulevard that were torn down in the last few years. We do not think this will go forward as proposed and that the current proposition is as much a smoke screen as anything.

[Marksmu]

My partner and I discussed this and we feel the City is starting at the extreme end because they know there will be opposition and this gives them wiggle room for negotiating. I know many die hard preservationists and the thing that most of them want to see is an end to the 90 day rule and adoption of a "No Means No" for tear downs. I don't think anyone who supports preservation really want to control their neighbors' paint color but they also want to save buildings like Ashland Tea House and the historic homes on Heights Boulevard that were torn down in the last few years. We do not think this will go forward as proposed and that the current proposition is as much a smoke screen as anything.

I have talked with many of these historic preservationist people. They oppose almost all new builds in the neighborhood. There are many beautiful new construction homes that fit perfectly in the neighborhood, even with their large size. The people who are supporting this ordinance, do not want ANY new construction. Look at Nicholson between 12th and 13th as a good example of new/old mixing well. You have the worst house on the street Corner of Nicholson/12th proudly supporting the historic ordinance....while the house is nothing more than a bunch of garbage that the owner thinks is art...rebar with winebottles, a stack of rocks still in the metal packaging it came in growing weeds out of it, an overgrown sidewalk, and 20' tall bamboo sticking straight out of the back.

Then look down Nicholson towards 13th...you have a older home, then one huge home that takes which looks nice, but could have done more to fit in, then 2 smaller old homes, and 2 new homes that look great and fit in perfectly, followed by a small home, and then a tear down.

This block is an attractive block with the exception of the ugly old support the historic district home on the corner.

These people want to pass all of their dream ordinances/laws/restrictions before the public wakes up and realizes what has happened and then votes them out. It is ugly politics, but I believe that they truly do want to control every aspect of everything they have proposed.

These people are losers with nothing better to do than waste their time imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

[AtticaFlinch]

Some people secretly hope for a decriminalization of pot. I secretly hope for a decriminalization of arson. ...but only in historic districts. Maybe I should start a social-media-based petition to that effect.

Now that you mention it, the Heights arsonist will probably make a huge comeback should this preservation thing be enacted. If a property owner wants to do a teardown/rebuild but the red tape is too costly and problematic to allow it, you can bet the arsonist will resurface, and this time he'll have graduated from sheds and garages to the entire house.

[chester77008]

My partner and I discussed this and we feel the City is starting at the extreme end because they know there will be opposition and this gives them wiggle room for negotiating. I know many die hard preservationists and the thing that most of them want to see is an end to the 90 day rule and adoption of a "No Means No" for tear downs. I don't think anyone who supports preservation really want to control their neighbors' paint color but they also want to save buildings like Ashland Tea House and the historic homes on Heights Boulevard that were torn down in the last few years. We do not think this will go forward as proposed and that the current proposition is as much a smoke screen as anything.

Don't kid yourself. The City is in a perfect position to pass this thing. They managed to do it in the Old 6th Ward and the Heights is next.

They are using the public meetings as another subjective measure of support. City Council can and will pass this if there is not enough opposition.

[LookyHere]

I have talked with many of these historic preservationist people. They oppose almost all new builds in the neighborhood. There are many beautiful new construction homes that fit perfectly in the neighborhood, even with their large size. The people who are supporting this ordinance, do not want ANY new construction. Look at Nicholson between 12th and 13th as a good example of new/old mixing well. You have the worst house on the street Corner of Nicholson/12th proudly supporting the historic ordinance....while the house is nothing more than a bunch of garbage that the owner thinks is art...rebar with winebottles, a stack of rocks still in the metal packaging it came in growing weeds out of it, an overgrown sidewalk, and 20' tall bamboo sticking straight out of the back.

Then look down Nicholson towards 13th...you have a older home, then one huge home that takes which looks nice, but could have done more to fit in, then 2 smaller old homes, and 2 new homes that look great and fit in perfectly, followed by a small home, and then a tear down.

This block is an attractive block with the exception of the ugly old support the historic district home on the corner.

These people want to pass all of their dream ordinances/laws/restrictions before the public wakes up and realizes what has happened and then votes them out. It is ugly politics, but I believe that they truly do want to control every aspect of everything they have proposed.

These people are losers with nothing better to do than waste their time imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

I wouldn't call myself a preservationist, certainly not by your definition. However, houses like this were here when we bought our house and are part of what we like about the Heights. It will be a sad day when the old or eclectic residents that made the Heights desirable for the rest of us are gone.

[chester77008]

I wouldn't call myself a preservationist, certainly not by your definition. However, houses like this were here when we bought our house and are part of what we like about the Heights. It will be a sad day when the old or eclectic residents that made the Heights desirable for the rest of us are gone.

Everyone agrees that we like the old homes. The issue is how do we move forward with protecting them. The proposed ordinance aims to halt new construction and SERIOUSLY limit what can be done to remodel a bungalow. The HAHC desires that all additions to bungalows be done to the rear of the home, and that the addition be able to be removed at some point in order to return the home to its original state.

This means that you will not be allowed to do tasteful additions to your home even though they may be attractive and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. You will not be allowed to widen the home, add to the front porch, or add to the height. I see a lot of additions going on that look great, the HAHC has a different agenda.

[Marksmu]

I wouldn't call myself a preservationist, certainly not by your definition. However, houses like this were here when we bought our house and are part of what we like about the Heights. It will be a sad day when the old or eclectic residents that made the Heights desirable for the rest of us are gone.

Well they will be gone more quickly when the ordinance passes because I am certain that the house and its "improvements" will not meet the boards definition as historic. First time they need a permit to fix an air conditioner or a roof or a window, they will likely be required to bring the rest of the house into accordance with the restrictions, or they wont issue the permit.

While I think the house is ugly, and the person an idiot for supporting the ordinance, I understand your like of that weird eclectic look, and I also support THEIR right to have a weird ugly art yard. With deed restrictions, and historic ordinances, this would not be allowed at all...Its probably a reason they moved there in the first place. There is not a suburb out there that would allow this monstrosity to stand...but its cool in the Heights.

I may not like it, but I support others rights to like it, and their right to do it.

[SCDesign]

LOOKHERE & Porchman: What everyone who is not in a current Historic District needs to realize is that the ultimate objective of the HAHC is to make ALL OF THE INNER LOOP A HISTORIC DISTRICT. If they get this ordinance passed they have stated, publically, that they will immediately extent the Heights East District to the north limit of the Heights proper, which is 22nd Street. They will also name Sunset Heights, Oak Forest, Garden Oaks and Timbergrove Manor as Historic within the year. I'm not making that up, it has been stated publically and if you read the ordinance you can see that they have included the language that they need to make it as easy as possible to do it. If you think because you are outside of the Historic District this is going to be good for you, you need to wake up becuase you are going to find one day soon, without any prior notice, that you are subject to these regulations.

For everyone who thinks that what is proposed is just a negotiation start point please look at the history of the Historic Distric debates from the time they were first enacted 8 years ago. It started with a 30 day wait period, then a 90 & 90 period, now they want "no means no". It started with only contributing and partially contributing structures having to comply to the Guidlines, then it went to new construction on non contributing lots having to comply, now with no means no it will mean everything must comply, even changes to non contributing existing structures. The City has a history of taking what they want bite by bite, little by little. If they back off of something in the proposed ordinance now you can be SURE they will TAKE it later, and that will be at a time when they feel there will be little or no opposition. They will take your property rights bite by bite unless you stop it NOW!

[sevfiv]

LOOKHERE & Porchman: What everyone who is not in a current Historic District needs to realize is that the ultimate objective of the HAHC is to make ALL OF THE INNER LOOP A HISTORIC DISTRICT.

Was this said and gone with the wind, or can you point us in the direction of a source for this information? Or is this just hyperbole?