Norhill Information & Developments

[Subdude]

Proctor Plaza Neighborhood Association and the City of Houston are cooperating to preserve the area

[Norhill Dennis]

Please join us for the third Norhill Historic Home Tour October 15 and 16 from 1 -5. Five homes are featured, including my own. The pressure is on to get everything finished in time! Here's a link:

http://proctorplaza.com/events/tour_default.php

Dennis Sigut

[Scott08]

http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...mp;backButton=Y

I am selling my North Norhill cottage with the intention of moving to something modern or contemporary in the future. I have lived in the house since 1991, rented until I bought it from the landlord in 1998. Great location with access to I10, I610, and I45 all nearby. The house has been very trouble free for me...the only "maintenance" item I have replaced since living there is the hot water heater, central air and heat were added in 2001. In the last year, I have painted outside and in, new roof, and updated the bath and kitchen. I'll be glad to answer any questions, or talk to my realtor if you'd like to view.

[mnicholls]

My fiancee and I just started our home search in the Heights and we both love the Norhill Heights area. We were surprised at the asking price for some 2/1 bungalows. We are looking for a 2/1 bungalow with a garage, on a good street, for less than 275k. Our ideal street is Cottage Street.

Is this unrealistic? Looking through HAR - that seems to be the case.

We haven't found a realtor yet, so if there are any recommendations for one that knows this area - we'd appreciate it!

[barracuda]

My fiancee and I just started our home search in the Heights and we both love the Norhill Heights area. We were surprised at the asking price for some 2/1 bungalows. We are looking for a 2/1 bungalow with a garage, on a good street, for less than 275k. Our ideal street is Cottage Street.

Is this unrealistic? Looking through HAR - that seems to be the case.

We haven't found a realtor yet, so if there are any recommendations for one that knows this area - we'd appreciate it!

Here are a few that are located on Cottage. It looks like the first one already has an offer and is outside your price range, but it's good for comparison. Go to HAR and enter the MLS #'s.

25720334

10881743

Here are others in the vicinity.

49421945

36593314

68339321

Like you mentioned, if you find a decent realtor, he/she can pull up a complete set of listings for your criteria...

[EMME]

Here are a few that are located on Cottage. It looks like the first one already has an offer and is outside your price range, but it's good for comparison. Go to HAR and enter the MLS #'s.

25720334

10881743

Here are others in the vicinity.

49421945

36593314

68339321

Like you mentioned, if you find a decent realtor, he/she can pull up a complete set of listings for your criteria...

realtor: John and Brenda Erickson with Suzanne Anderson. They live in and know the Heights. John has been my realtor on three home sales/purchases. 713-864-4012

[cwrm4]

My 1200 sq ft 2/1 bungalow in Woodland Heights, on a 5000 sq ft lot, with garage, was just appraised for $295k for a refinance, and I got the full-on cavity search from the appraiser (due to the new appraisal rules).

I would think $260k is the absolute lowest you will find for a 2/1 in Norhill. Go Below that price and you are going to be looking a myriad of needed upgrades that will quickly blow whatever money you thought you were saving. Woodland Heights will be slightly (5%) higher. In the Houston Heights, most 2/1 bungalows that are left will be on larger lots and thus more expensive. Sunset Heights is the cheapest but there are almost zero land use rules, so you could easily end up with townhomes next door.

In Norhill especially be aware of the quick-turn remodels...some are OK, some are not.

[Porchman]

My 1200 sq ft 2/1 bungalow in Woodland Heights, on a 5000 sq ft lot, with garage, was just appraised for $295k for a refinance, and I got the full-on cavity search from the appraiser (due to the new appraisal rules).

I would think $260k is the absolute lowest you will find for a 2/1 in Norhill. Go Below that price and you are going to be looking a myriad of needed upgrades that will quickly blow whatever money you thought you were saving. Woodland Heights will be slightly (5%) higher. In the Houston Heights, most 2/1 bungalows that are left will be on larger lots and thus more expensive. Sunset Heights is the cheapest but there are almost zero land use rules, so you could easily end up with townhomes next door.

In Norhill especially be aware of the quick-turn remodels...some are OK, some are not.

mnicholls, welcome to HAIF!

cwrm4 has much more skinny than I. However, my sense is that 275k is going to lock you out of much of Norhill. You may want to look at Brookesmith. Best of luck in your search, and have fun with it.

[mnicholls]

Thanks for the quick responses all!

cwrm4: You pretty much identified why Norhill Heights appeals to us, since there are established land use rules and a lack of new construction. We have time to wait for something to come on the market, but are open to expanding our search to other areas.

I've found this website to be very helpful in our home search and also being aware of everything going on in town. So thanks to the Admin/Owner!

[Melwood]

Here are a few that are located on Cottage. It looks like the first one already has an offer and is outside your price range, but it's good for comparison. Go to HAR and enter the MLS #'s.

25720334

10881743

Here are others in the vicinity.

49421945

36593314

68339321

Like you mentioned, if you find a decent realtor, he/she can pull up a complete set of listings for your criteria...

I live on Melwood, as my username implies. Melwood is 2 streets away from Cottage, so I know the neighborhood pretty well - most of these houses that the links show are on/near busy streets and should be avoided in my opinion. In particular, avoid the one on Studewood. If possible, avoid anything on Michaux which is a north/south street that gets some traffic, though nothing like Studewood.

Having said that, the link to HAR # 10881743 (915 Cottage) looks like a solid candidate - it is several houses in off of Michaux, and a short walk to Proctor Plaza - should you lose your sanity and have children at some point, this is an invaluable resource and a nice park - our kids play there all the time.

You may have to shop a little bit, but I think your price range is realistic.

[EMME]

Actually, many of the blocks in Sunset Heights and East Sunset Heights have now established minimum lot size and minimum building line protection. I have just petitioned for it on E. 25th in East Sunset Heights with 80+% buy in by neighbors.

HCAD will have a showing of them somewhere.

[kylejack]

http://HAR.com/mapsearch is definitely my favorite way to search HAR.

[gardener06]

I have a friend who has lived on 14th in Norhill and she says it's not that noisy. It probably affects property values, so you might be able to find something a little cheaper on the slightly busier streets.

[tanith27]

Our first house was a couple of doors down from Michaux in the Woodland Heights and it wasn't that bad trafficwise except for the primary commute-to-work times. After people go to work, it really quieted down a lot and same for in the evening. Weekends seemed fairly quiet too. Although Michaux is often used as a cut-through to get to Norhill, its still pretty much a street used by residents of the area. My biggest gripe about Michaux were those random cars that had their stereo too loud or were going too fast. But they certainly weren't the norm and can probably happen on any street.

[mnicholls]

Thanks for the advice!

We're still early in our search so things are subject to change. My fiancee and I are still negotiating the 1 bathroom topic and whether that's enough space. We might be increasing our price range to give us some more options. It's already a learning experience, but a fun one.

[fwki]

The Woodland Heights Civic Association is circulating a petition for revised deed restrictions on the original Norhill Addition. Today (November 5) I received a copy for signature (or opt out) from Norhill neighbor Gabe T Vick. The cover letter is dated October 4, 2012. Gabe is on the WHCA board, and the WHCA has been pushing additional restrictions for some time now. They do not give a summary of changes, so I dug through it and found that these revisions set neighbor against neighbor for enforcement with no protection from the Radical Preservationists. Even a renter can take legal action against you and recover damages and legal costs for so-called "attempted violations" on your part. Of course you have to hold-harmless the WHCA if they set one of these crazies on you. The stated objective is to limit side line set-back from zero currently to three feet, however, if you reside in the original Norhill Addition, READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT because there are other relevant changes. In order to assist others, please post any changes to the existing restrictions that you identify when reading both the original and revision. I plan to vote no AND opt-out under Texas Property Code 201.009.

[RedScare]

Any time they ask for your approval, yet won't tell you what you are approving, it is a sure bet that it is against your best interests. This is just another example of the so-called preservationists wishing to torment their neighbors in the "neighborly" Heights. Remember that if they get a certain percentage (I belieive 75%), it applies to everyone, regardless of opt out. If you need any help getting the word out, let me know.

[s3mh]

Is the only new restriction a three foot sideline restriction?

[fwki]

Is the only new restriction a three foot sideline restriction?

My first read shows several changes the biggest of which is the new enforcement provision, completely unacceptable lawyer nirvana. Next up would be the new specifics on Home Occupations basically allowing "low profile commercial activities" inside the house....ebay profiteers rejoice! Basically I read this new provision as an attempt to redline blue-collar and artistic commercial activities. Before we had "residential only" but every lawyer was breaking that rule, so they could not go after my old neighbor who ran a successful tile business. Now he is singled out.

They added inoperable autos to the vehicle/vessel prohibition list, so no more shade tree mechanics working on a hobby car in their backyard. Fence height limits are new; I am already out of compliance on that one. No more construction vehicles, so I guess if you drive your electrician truck home with your Master's license number on the side you cannot park it in your drive way or in front. They also increased the set back on side streets from 15 to 20 feet.

That's all for now. The Enforcement provision is absolutely draconian and flies in the face of common sense and neighborly culture. I have no idea why they would introduce such a senseless, McCarthy-like provision. Maybe they hate the culture of our neighborhood and want to turn it into a suburban-like, competitive neighbor-against-neighbor environment.

[fwki]

....If you need any help getting the word out, let me know.

I'm going to go visit this Vick fellow and get all the important details they "forgot" to include, like how to vote and time tables. This has all been very low-profile; I watch the WHCA site, so I am highly suspicious of a hidden agenda. I will PM you after that encounter.

[s3mh]

My first read shows several changes the biggest of which is the new enforcement provision, completely unacceptable lawyer nirvana. Next up would be the new specifics on Home Occupations basically allowing "low profile commercial activities" inside the house....ebay profiteers rejoice! Basically I read this new provision as an attempt to redline blue-collar and artistic commercial activities. Before we had "residential only" but every lawyer was breaking that rule, so they could not go after my old neighbor who ran a successful tile business. Now he is singled out.

They added inoperable autos to the vehicle/vessel prohibition list, so no more shade tree mechanics working on a hobby car in their backyard. Fence height limits are new; I am already out of compliance on that one. No more construction vehicles, so I guess if you drive your electrician truck home with your Master's license number on the side you cannot park it in your drive way or in front. They also increased the set back on side streets from 15 to 20 feet.

That's all for now. The Enforcement provision is absolutely draconian and flies in the face of common sense and neighborly culture. I have no idea why they would introduce such a senseless, McCarthy-like provision. Maybe they hate the culture of our neighborhood and want to turn it into a suburban-like, competitive neighbor-against-neighbor environment.

Interesting. I knew there was a big push on for setbacks, but did not know about the other issues. Any chance you could scan and post a copy?

[fwki]

The cover letter is misleading (the proposed restrictions ARE NOT "largely uniform with other restrictions applicable to the Woodland Heights". This is a new bar being set, much higher given the Enforcement Provision. The dates in the cover letter all passed by the time I recieved this copy in the mail.

WHCA_Norhill_DR_Rev.pdf

[SilverJK]

wow, sure am glad I don't live in Norhill Addition... that sounds as strict as most Woodlands neighborhoods...

[s3mh]

The cover letter is misleading (the proposed restrictions ARE NOT "largely uniform with other restrictions applicable to the Woodland Heights". This is a new bar being set, much higher given the Enforcement Provision. The dates in the cover letter all passed by the time I recieved this copy in the mail.

Looks like your fence is grandfathered. I am all for lot line restrictions. I am tired of the reatlor meme that the only way to value a home is by square footage. The race to cram as many square feet into a lot is largely driven by realtors and builders. No one looks at a house for sale and thinks "gee, if it only was three more feet wider on each side, it would be perfect."

But, a lot of the restrictions look to be targeted at accelerating gentrification rather than preserving the existing neighborhood. The folks with the work trucks and cars on blocks will not be in the neighborhood forever. A combination of the cruel work of the tax man and offers from investors that are too good to pass up will gentrify the neighborhood in due course. No reason to hall people into court to get that done. The folks putting cars on blocks were here when most everyone moved in.

Giving residents the standing to enforce the restrictions is generally a fairly dull sword, but necessary given that WHCA does not collect big enough fees to hire legal counsel to fight restriction fights.

Not my part of the Heights, but I am interested to see how this goes. The anti-zoning/anti-preservation folks have always claimed that deed restrictions were superior. Well, here you go.

[RedScare]

They are superior if the people want them. If they are snuck in without adequately informing people of their contents, they are as bad as city imposed restrictions against people's will. In this case, at least one person dug past the fluff cover letter and found the problem. How many will not?

[aggie92]

What I'm not sure about on this is how these replace the current restrictions which require a 75% vote to "amend". They are posting on WH bulletin board that since this is neighborhood resident driven (vs being WHCA driven) that it only requires a 51% majority to "replace" the current restrictions with completely new restrictions per state law. If this is true then what is the purpose of the 75% written into the previous restrictions.

If you push hard enough, they will send a list of changes that they put together because enough were asking. There are quite a few changes but most serve to modernize or clarify. I personally do not agree with the fence, the vehicles/boats limitations, or the architectural submittal requirements because of vagueness for when they would be enforced and when they wouldn't. Like you said earlier, it becomes a neighbor vs neighbor of someone else deciding what they like or not.

I also didn't like that they rushed this out and then wanted to go door to door with a notary to collect signatures over the weekend. They did this before some of us had even seen the full document and certainly before they came clean on that this was more than the 3ft building line (which I approve of). Still seems that they hoped to push this thru without most realizing.

I'm not planning on supporting this initiative.

[fwki]

What I'm not sure about on this is how these replace the current restrictions which require a 75% vote to "amend". They are posting on WH bulletin board that since this is neighborhood resident driven (vs being WHCA driven) that it only requires a 51% majority to "replace" the current restrictions with completely new restrictions per state law. If this is true then what is the purpose of the 75% written into the previous restrictions.

If you push hard enough, they will send a list of changes that they put together because enough were asking. There are quite a few changes but most serve to modernize or clarify. I personally do not agree with the fence, the vehicles/boats limitations, or the architectural submittal requirements because of vagueness for when they would be enforced and when they wouldn't. Like you said earlier, it becomes a neighbor vs neighbor of someone else deciding what they like or not.

I also didn't like that they rushed this out and then wanted to go door to door with a notary to collect signatures over the weekend. They did this before some of us had even seen the full document and certainly before they came clean on that this was more than the 3ft building line (which I approve of). Still seems that they hoped to push this thru without most realizing.

I'm not planning on supporting this initiative.

That's how I feel. But add on top that ANY OCCUPANT can beat you over the head with these things, and I am full force against it. It's one thing for someone with equal standing and similar risk (another owner) to take action, but a renter? He's got little skin in the game and can play it risk-free and skate off whenever. And the fact that certain owners could set up renters as rats.....

[fwki]

....The anti-zoning/anti-preservation folks have always claimed that deed restrictions were superior. Well, here you go.

I agree they are superior, just as they are now. And as they stand, they are superior to the revision until WHCA comes clean and then cleans it up. I have to wonder why WHCA allows use of their letter head and officer to spearhead this thing but will not use the web site to publicize and encourage discussion....what's the agenda here?

[s3mh]

They are superior if the people want them. If they are snuck in without adequately informing people of their contents, they are as bad as city imposed restrictions against people's will. In this case, at least one person dug past the fluff cover letter and found the problem. How many will not?

The cover letter says "we encourage you to to review the new restrictions [plural]" and encloses a complete copy of the new restrictions. How in the world would someone have to "dig" to find out anything when all they have to do is read the attached restrictions. Anyone who owns property and does not read proposed deed restrictions before signing the consent form deserves what they get.

[RedScare]

That's exactly what happened on the historic district petition. They got people to support it by pumping sunshine up people's asse, without telling them what it would really do. Even though I read it and opposed it, I am now subjected to its restrictions.

Don't try to feed that line to us. People like you are EXACTLY why this proposal should be fiercely defeated.