The Heights Historic Districts

[samagon]

As for the last point, we live in a representative democracy. When you buy land, you do not become a super citizen who is entitled to direct democracy whenever a government seeks to regulate historic preservation.

You don't know what rights a person does or doesn't have, additionally, you've displayed that you really don't care about the rights of others.

When you buy land, you are protected by the Texas Constitution.

[s3mh]

You mean... Less valuable gold?

And your last statement is just classic S3mh. Basically you are saying that it is okay for the government to tell you how to use your property...but from everything you have said in the past on here... it is clear that you only feel this way when it supports your cause. The government (the one you support so strongly on this) is the same one that "gave" walmart all that money that you are so angry about. Its okay for them to tell me how to modify/restore/preserve my house that I OWN... but

it isn't okay for them to allow a walmart to be built on land that you DON'T own? Classic S3mh.

That makes no sense at all. It is entirely consistent to want some sort of land use restrictions to keep Walmart and Ainbinder from building suburban strip malls in an urban neighborhood and to also want the City to have a strong historic preservation ordinance. The city of houston is a huge and complex governmental entity. There is a long list of things they do that I like and a long list that I don't like. I am not precluded from having one list because I have another.

[s3mh]

Another s3mh fabrication or have you found another Heights forum on this scale? More likely you wandered into one of those community hen boards with 3 posts per month or one primarliy used by real estate agents with agendas.

EDIT:

Here ya go, this one is perfect for you......http://www.ultimateheights.com/forums

There are maybe a dozen active posters on this message board and about a half dozen that keep posting about historic preservation over and over. And the post I saw was from a comment from someone on swamplot, which has . It was very funny to see how others view this message board. And there are way more than 3 posts per month on boards like Heights Kids Groups and some of the new "my block", or whatever it is called, neighborhood message boards. All of which have way more participation than the half dozen who have claimed HAIF's Heights message board as their private anti-historic ordinance chat room.

[s3mh]

You don't know what rights a person does or doesn't have, additionally, you've displayed that you really don't care about the rights of others.

When you buy land, you are protected by the Texas Constitution.

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

Edited January 8, 2013 by s3mh

[Heights20plusyears]

Geez...now I feel horrible about having all the knob and tube electrical lines removed from my house and that has now taken away part of it's historical importance. Maybe I should have it all reinstalled, as it still is up to code, but I'd have hell finding an insurance company that would be willing to sell me a homeowners policy.

[samagon]

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

I don't pretend to know law, you do, among other things, I really don't care to get into a discussion where I know nothing, and you know nothing about the topic.

So I'll say, only time will really tell whether those are applicable.

Edited January 9, 2013 by samagon

[s3mh]

I don't pretend to know law, you do, among other things, I really don't care to get into a discussion where I know nothing, and you know nothing about the topic.

So I'll say, only time will really tell whether those are applicable.

Ok. You don't pretend to know the law and don't want to get into a discussion about the law, but post about the Texas constitution and are a sufficient authority to tell me that I know nothing about the law. That sounds fair.

[TGM]

Good News!

Meth Labs are now considered HD compliant. This one even has a plaque

.

http://www.chron.com/news/articleComments/Traffic-stop-leads-to-meth-lab-in-historic-home-4178992.php

[SilverJK]

That makes no sense at all. It is entirely consistent to want some sort of land use restrictions to keep Walmart and Ainbinder from building suburban strip malls in an urban neighborhood and to also want the City to have a strong historic preservation ordinance. The city of houston is a huge and complex governmental entity. There is a long list of things they do that I like and a long list that I don't like. I am not precluded from having one list because I have another.

You still don't get it. You are saying "government has the right" when something meets your needs, but for the ainbinder deal, where the government was doing what they thought best you said it was an aweful/evil/destructive/devaluing/uneven tire wear causing thing... so which is it, does the government have the right to tell people how to use land or not? You and your cronies faught tooth and nail to stop walmart... that the government supported, but you don't like people fighting to stop a historic ordinance (that was never fairly voted for).

[samagon]

Ok. You don't pretend to know the law and don't want to get into a discussion about the law, but post about the Texas constitution and are a sufficient authority to tell me that I know nothing about the law. That sounds fair.

Unlike you, I know my limits. I posted my simple thoughts on the subject, you pretend to be able to dig deeper into it.

I don't believe you know squat about law, you have demonstrated in many subjects which you opine that you don't know as much as you think you know. I refuse to enter a discussion where I know I am unarmed, and I feel strongly that you are equally, if not less armed.

You can think of it what you will (just as I have done), it's no skin off my back.

Or perhaps, we can go a different direction, and you can explain why those references have any direct impact.

Edited January 9, 2013 by samagon

[s3mh]

You still don't get it. You are saying "government has the right" when something meets your needs, but for the ainbinder deal, where the government was doing what they thought best you said it was an aweful/evil/destructive/devaluing/uneven tire wear causing thing... so which is it, does the government have the right to tell people how to use land or not? You and your cronies faught tooth and nail to stop walmart... that the government supported, but you don't like people fighting to stop a historic ordinance (that was never fairly voted for).

So, the principle is that you can either always think that government knows best when it comes to land use decisions or that government never knows what is best when it comes to land use decisions? Or is it that you always have to side with people who are fighting against the government? Or is it that you have no good argument, but are valiantly trying to find one?

I am all for government being involved in land use decisions. I am for government being involved in Historic Preservation. I am for zoning and for strong application of the existing land use restrictions under chap 42 and the design manual. I support the historic ordinance, but think that the city did not enforce chap 42 and the design manual on Walmart and should have better land use restrictions on the books to keep developers from turning choice real estate into cheap strip malls with insufficient infrastructure. And I am against 380 agreements that reward a developer for taking down apartments and replacing them with single story retail when the rental rates in the city of houston have gone up 18-19% in the past year. None of that is inconsistent. It is entirely consistent.

[s3mh]

Unlike you, I know my limits. I posted my simple thoughts on the subject, you pretend to be able to dig deeper into it.

I don't believe you know squat about law, you have demonstrated in many subjects which you opine that you don't know as much as you think you know. I refuse to enter a discussion where I know I am unarmed, and I feel strongly that you are equally, if not less armed.

You can think of it what you will (just as I have done), it's no skin off my back.

Or perhaps, we can go a different direction, and you can explain why those references have any direct impact.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me that I do not know what I am talking about but refuse to back it up. All you are doing at that point is making a personal attack, which is weak.

The case law I posted shows that it is well settled law that historic preservation laws enforced by municipalities satisfies constitutional substantive due process. In the simplest of terms, it means that a municipality does have the right to enact and enforce historic preservation laws. It is possible for historic preservation laws to be a regulatory taking, requiring the municipality to provide compensation to an affected land owner. But, that has not been alleged by anyone against the historic ordinance. the lawsuit has some argument about procedural due process that is more directed at the formation of the districts. That is really an argument that ends up asking a judge to second guess how a municipality enacts its laws and runs afoul of separation of powers. So, you can't just hold up a copy of the constitution and get rid of historic preservation laws.

[Ross]

Sure, just because I say some one has or doesn't have rights doesn't make it so. The courts determine what people's rights are:

"A municipality has the constitutional power to regulate the use of private property in the interest of historic preservation." Mayes v. City of Dallas, 747 F.2d 323, 324 (5th Cir. 1984); Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 132–34, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2662–64, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978);

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

[fwki]

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

Spot on. And if the political class desires to get up your butt retroactively wrt your domicile aesthetics, nothing is sacred.

Edited January 10, 2013 by fwki

[s3mh]

You set your own precedent of speaking on subjects with which you have no knowledge, why should I assume this any different?

So, you ask for an explanation, and I give you one. You just go back to your childish insults instead of actually taking on the topic. If you are not comfortable discussing the subject matter, just step aside. But, you do not get to void everything I say just because you disagree with other things I have said. That is weak and is just harrassment and internet bullying to try to get someone who holds a fundamentally different viewpoint from you and the others who have claimed this forum as their anti-historic ordinance echo chamber from posting. If you disagree with me, step up to the plate and take a swing. I can take it. But this "you are always wrong, so we don't have to respond to you" stuff is just pathetic.

[s3mh]

That just means a city CAN regulate land use. It doesn't mean a city should, or that a city will fo a good job of land regulation. In fact, it's my view that city regulation should be avoided entirely for esthetic items, and should be restricted to life safety and infrastructure issues. Want to preserve an old building? Great! But don't try to force your neighbor to fit your idea of what a building ought to look like, especially if you do it after the fact.

Exactly my point. Historic preservation ordinances are a political issue. The debates over them are policy debates that are tied to one's political views of the role of government. But, there is no constitutional prohibition. The so-called "coercion" of historic preservation is not a violation of constitutional property rights (absent a takings, but then the issue is only that the municipality has to provide compensation), but the same kind of "coercion" that exists in every other land use regulation from set backs to building codes to noise restrictions and so on. These are all within a municipality's police powers. The real issue is the political one of how much power should the municipality have, not a constitutional one. That ship has long sailed.

[samagon]

it means that a municipality does have the right to enact and enforce historic preservation laws. It is possible for historic preservation laws to be a regulatory taking, requiring the municipality to provide compensation to an affected land owner. But, that has not been alleged by anyone against the historic ordinance. the lawsuit has some argument about procedural due process that is more directed at the formation of the districts. That is really an argument that ends up asking a judge to second guess how a municipality enacts its laws and runs afoul of separation of powers. So, you can't just hold up a copy of the constitution and get rid of historic preservation laws.

This is why I don't think the rulings you provided are good references of precedence, the rulings you provided seemed to be with not the process of creating the districts, but with the process of making changes to a property once the district is established.

As you state (bolded) the current lawsuit is with the formation of a HD, it's pretty clear in the Texas Constitution what's required for a historic district to be created (it's part of the restrictive covenant), or for changes to be made to a current HD. Municipal laws cannot do things that the state law doesn't allow, just as the state law cannot do things that the national law allows. So really, since the state law has specific statutes that go over how to create a restrictive covenant, a city must follow that.

Now, can you provide a reference from the US law that allows the creation of a HD different from how the state allows it? and specifically, that shows that the way Houston did it to be within that US law? or perhaps a ruling that sets precedence with creation of a HD the way that Houston did it?

[s3mh]

This is why I don't think the rulings you provided are good references of precedence, the rulings you provided seemed to be with not the process of creating the districts, but with the process of making changes to a property once the district is established.

As you state (bolded) the current lawsuit is with the formation of a HD, it's pretty clear in the Texas Constitution what's required for a historic district to be created (it's part of the restrictive covenant), or for changes to be made to a current HD. Municipal laws cannot do things that the state law doesn't allow, just as the state law cannot do things that the national law allows. So really, since the state law has specific statutes that go over how to create a restrictive covenant, a city must follow that.

Now, can you provide a reference from the US law that allows the creation of a HD different from how the state allows it? and specifically, that shows that the way Houston did it to be within that US law? or perhaps a ruling that sets precedence with creation of a HD the way that Houston did it?

The HDs are not restrictive covenants. They are just the function of the historic preservation ordinances. Restrictive covenants are promises between land owners that can be enforced by one land owner against another (or by an association or municipality, depending on how drafted). Restrictive covenants are recorded in the chain of title and "run with the land". They are private agreements created by landowners. The historic ordinance is an ordinance created by the legislative body of the municipality. All that is required to create a historic ordinance is a vote of city council. The ordinance then set forth how to create and destroy a historic districts.

I think you probably saw HD opponents argue that the vote for the HDs should require a 75% majority of each block because that is what is required in order to get an entire block to be subject to a restriction. But that was a political argument, not a legal one. The 75% rule does not apply to historic districts and no one has argued that it does.

Looking at the lawsuit again, I am really not sure exactly what the constitutional argument is. It is actually set up in terms of an equal protection argument ("The City's enforcement of the aforementioned municipal ordinances resulted in Plaintiffs being treated differently from other similarly situtated landowners without any reasonable basis"). The rest of it is about the election code, which is probably inapplicable and filed untimely. If there claim is that they were denied equal protection under the law, the municipality only has to show that it had a reasonable basis for treating the plaintiffs differently from other homeowners. Penn Central establishes historic preservation as something that is within the police powers of a municipality, which would establish a reasonable basis as a matter of law. So, Penn Central should be on point, to the extent the plaintiffs are arguing what I think they are.

[Subdude]

Off-topic and name-calling posts deleted.

[fwki]

Ok, now where were we? O yeah, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is an affront to the history, culture and Charter of Houston, Texas.

History: see the photo of the sawed-off house herein.

Culture: “Zoning goes down for third time” read the morning headline of The Houston Post last November 3, 1993. As they had in 1948 and 1962, Houstonians voted once more to remain America’s largest city without a zoning ordinance….Yet, the vast majority of Houstonians were not crying out for zoning. Hispanics and low-income blacks voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent and 71 percent, against a measure touted as the way to “save” their neighborhoods.

Charter: “There are other laws that affect land use, such as the new historical preservation ordinance, which allows citizens to petition the council for designation as a historic area, which comes with additional restrictions. These are all government measures that, in my opinion, operate as “de facto zoning”— they prescribe different land use rules based partly on geographic location.” Professor Matthew Festa - South Texas College of Law

[s3mh]

Ok, now where were we? O yeah, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is an affront to the history, culture and Charter of Houston, Texas.

History: see the photo of the sawed-off house herein.

Culture: “Zoning goes down for third time” read the morning headline of The Houston Post last November 3, 1993. As they had in 1948 and 1962, Houstonians voted once more to remain America’s largest city without a zoning ordinance….Yet, the vast majority of Houstonians were not crying out for zoning. Hispanics and low-income blacks voted overwhelmingly, 58 percent and 71 percent, against a measure touted as the way to “save” their neighborhoods.

Charter: “There are other laws that affect land use, such as the new historical preservation ordinance, which allows citizens to petition the council for designation as a historic area, which comes with additional restrictions. These are all government measures that, in my opinion, operate as “de facto zoning”— they prescribe different land use rules based partly on geographic location.” Professor Matthew Festa - South Texas College of Law

The vote in 1993 was 52% to 48%, which was remarkably close considering the gross disparity in funding between the pro-zoning camp and anti-zoning camp, which had tons of money from the real estate/construction community. Minorities and low income residents were targeted by anti-zoning groups with ad campaigns claiming that zoning would mean a rise in rents. Minorities were also wary of the days when Jim Crow zoning would define a "family" for single family residential neighborhoods as excluding minorities, gays, and so on. Middle class voters were overwhelmingly for the measure as they saw it as a way to preserve their neighborhoods.

Houston has tons of de facto zoning laws. Setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size, drainage, and the new height limitation are all arguably de facto zoning laws set up as "performance standards". Some developers consider Houston's "performance standards" to be more onerous than actual zoning (probably because they can usually grease the wheels and get a variance on zoning laws). But, if you really compare the historic ordinance with the many different flavors of zoning laws in effect across the US, calling the historic ordinance de facto zoning goes too far.

[samagon]

Houston has tons of de facto zoning laws. Setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size, drainage, and the new height limitation are all arguably de facto zoning laws set up as "performance standards". Some developers consider Houston's "performance standards" to be more onerous than actual zoning (probably because they can usually grease the wheels and get a variance on zoning laws). But, if you really compare the historic ordinance with the many different flavors of zoning laws in effect across the US, calling the historic ordinance de facto zoning goes too far.

apples and tennis rackets comparison.

The 'de facto zoning laws' you mention are a very clear set of instructions that every building that might fit specific criteria has to fit within, unless they get a specific variance, and outside of the minimum lot size (a few years back they removed the minimum lot size from inside the loop developments, which ironically is one of the main factors that led to the heights becoming so popular for knockdowns), there are no restrictions based on a specific location.

The other is a very subjective set of outlines that govern land use in very specific areas.

based on the what zoning is (and even discounting the clear set of instructions vs subjective outlines), your 'de facto zoning laws' do not fit, which unless you misunderstand the definition of de facto, is why they are apples and tennis rackets comparison to historic districts.

[fwki]

apples and tennis rackets comparison.

The 'de facto zoning laws' you mention are a very clear set of instructions that every building that might fit specific criteria has to fit within, unless they get a specific variance, and outside of the minimum lot size (a few years back they removed the minimum lot size from inside the loop developments, which ironically is one of the main factors that led to the heights becoming so popular for knockdowns), there are no restrictions based on a specific location.

The other is a very subjective set of outlines that govern land use in very specific areas.

based on the what zoning is (and even discounting the clear set of instructions vs subjective outlines), your 'de facto zoning laws' do not fit, which unless you misunderstand the definition of de facto, is why they are apples and tennis rackets comparison to historic districts.

Wereas Historic Ordinance does fit the definition of de facto zoning in that they prescribe different land use rules based partly on geographic location.

[SilverJK]

Minorities and low income residents were targeted by anti-zoning groups with ad campaigns claiming that zoning would mean a rise in rents. Minorities were also wary of the days when Jim Crow zoning would define a "family" for single family residential neighborhoods as excluding minorities, gays, and so on. Middle class voters were overwhelmingly for the measure as they saw it as a way to preserve their neighborhoods.

I had no clue you were so knowledable about minorities in the early 90s in the neighborhood... The minority gay couple that owned my home (during that time frame up until 06') were not supporters of zoning... nor the gay couple that lives two houses down (also there during that time frame), although they definitely support minimum lot size and setback.

(small sample size for sure, but I actually talk to these people)

Nice fabrication though.

You are still allowed to have Horses in areas of Acres Homes (not just acreage), I doubt the residents there are/were supporters of zoning.

Edited January 15, 2013 by SilverJK

[fwki]

I believe that minorities in Houston are not simple, ignorant victims of targeted ad campaigns but can think for themselves, and they voted down the Zoning referendum for the third time because they are smart enough to know what makes Houston great.

[s3mh]

apples and tennis rackets comparison.

The 'de facto zoning laws' you mention are a very clear set of instructions that every building that might fit specific criteria has to fit within, unless they get a specific variance, and outside of the minimum lot size (a few years back they removed the minimum lot size from inside the loop developments, which ironically is one of the main factors that led to the heights becoming so popular for knockdowns), there are no restrictions based on a specific location.

The other is a very subjective set of outlines that govern land use in very specific areas.

based on the what zoning is (and even discounting the clear set of instructions vs subjective outlines), your 'de facto zoning laws' do not fit, which unless you misunderstand the definition of de facto, is why they are apples and tennis rackets comparison to historic districts.

The new height restriction does not apply in certain high density zones in the City. So, in a way, those restrictions are based on specific locations, i.e. outside of the high density zones.

Nothing in the historic ordinance governs land use as that phrase is known in zoning law. There are no height limits, no size limits, no limits on business v. residential v. multifamily and no limits on density. And whether the historic ordinance is or is not de facto zoning is purely an academic exercise for law professors and internet message boards. Historic preservation ordinances have never been held to be de jure zoning in Texas.

[s3mh]

I had no clue you were so knowledable about minorities in the early 90s in the neighborhood... The minority gay couple that owned my home (during that time frame up until 06') were not supporters of zoning... nor the gay couple that lives two houses down (also there during that time frame), although they definitely support minimum lot size and setback.

(small sample size for sure, but I actually talk to these people)

Nice fabrication though.

You are still allowed to have Horses in areas of Acres Homes (not just acreage), I doubt the residents there are/were supporters of zoning.

You are right. I completely made all of this up and did not get my information from the following well sourced scholarly article:

In addition to market-based arguments, the anti-zoning

campaign employed racial scare tactics to persuade potential

swing voters. Led by business and residential leaders

who felt secure in a system of deed restrictions and preferred

the status quo, zoning opponents hired the consulting firm

Calabrese & Associates to help refine their campaign strategy.

An executive summary prepared by the firm sheds light

on the goals of the anti-zoning campaign. It stated: “Our arguments

are most effective with minorities (especially

blacks), low incomes, females and Democrats.”216 Because

zoning opponents had capitalized on fears of segregation in

the 1962 referendum, zoning advocates anticipated that the

anti-zoning campaign would target minority- and low-income

voters with similar messages again in 1993.217 Despite

their anticipation, zoning advocates felt secure that support

among minority- and low-income voters was strong enough

to withstand these tactics. Commentators recognized that in

1962 African-American voters feared zoning would serve

as government-sanctioned segregation, but they expected

their support in 1993 because minority leaders were among

zoning’s strongest supporters.218 In February, well before

the campaign came into full swing, minority city council

members Al Calloway and Ben Reyes both publicly supported

the proposed zoning ordinance and believed it would

help their constituents.219

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CGAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pszjlaw.com%2Fmedia%2Fpublication%2F427_Kapur%2520-%2520ELR%2520land%2520use%2520regulation.pdf&ei=28n1UJS9HLO02AXCm4HABQ&usg=AFQjCNF8qHH2NaqKbI195p4ly_uUwHePYQ&sig2=8lRARvN8R6aDUv0cPV0_Jg

But your reference to your gay friends is obviously superior to what actually happened and has been recorded in numerous articles from when this all actually happened. You actually talked to two people. I will contact the author of the article and tell him he needs to publish a retraction immediately.

[samagon]

the methods used by either side in gaining support for or against zoning are irrelevant, as are the tally of votes for or against, the majority of the city in 3 separate instances voted against zoning, and our charter doesn't allow for it.

what is relevant is that the historic district is (by the true definition of de facto) de facto zoning.

The new height restriction does not apply in certain high density zones in the City. So, in a way, those restrictions are based on specific locations, i.e. outside of the high density zones.

Nothing in the historic ordinance governs land use as that phrase is known in zoning law. There are no height limits, no size limits, no limits on business v. residential v. multifamily and no limits on density. And whether the historic ordinance is or is not de facto zoning is purely an academic exercise for law professors and internet message boards. Historic preservation ordinances have never been held to be de jure zoning in Texas.

you're talking in circles, and yes indeed there are height limits, size limits and limits on density.

from the ordinance 33-241 (a)(10):

The setback of any proposed addition or alteration must be compatible

with existing setbacks along the blockface and facing blockface(s)

from the ordinance 33-241 ((1):

An addition taller than any point of the roof of the structure conforms to the

following standards:

a. The addition does not encroach into the front half of the existing

structure, measured from the front façade of the existing structure

to the farthest point of the rear of the existing structure from the

front façade;

b. The plate height of the addition does not exceed 1.25 times the

plate height of the existing structure; and

c. The roof of the new addition does not deviate from the roof pitch of

the existing structure.

from the ordinance 33-241 ((2):

For new additions that are not taller than any part of the roof of the

structure and are adjacent to the sides of the front façade of the existing

structure, the new addition conforms to the following standards:

a. The addition does not encroach into the front thirty percent of the

total depth of the existing structure, measured from the front façade

of the existing structure to the farthest point of the rear of the

existing structure from the front façade;

b. The addition is not wider, as measured from the side adjacent to

the front façade, than half of the distance that the addition is

actually set back from the front facade. For example, if an addition

is set back forty percent of the total depth of the existing structure

from the front façade, the addition may not be wider than twenty

percent of the total length of the existing structure; and

c. The roof of the new addition does not deviate from the roof pitch of

the existing structure except for cross gable roofs.

I'm too bored to find the limit on density, but since you can't tear down a structure and subdivide a lot (it's in there), that pretty well does do exactly what you say it doesn't.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/docs_pdfs/Chpt33_councilamded_20101013.pdf

you honestly have no idea what you are fighting for do you?

Edited January 15, 2013 by samagon

[RedScare]

Kind of funny that s3mh is disgusted that marketing toward supposedly uneducated minorities killed the zoning referendum, when it was exactly that same sort of marketing toward supposedly educated whites that garnered the "majority of signatures for the Heights historic district. That majority later became a decided less than majority due to withdrawing of signatures and people moving away, but somehow the City didn't care about that.

Since the inevitable claim will be made that this is untrue, let me go ahead and refute it now by reminding any doubters that I was besieged by these HD people from 2004 to 2008. That would be years prior to some people's arrival in the Heights.

[RedScare]

you honestly have no idea what you are fighting for do you?

I've thought that for awhile.