The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[nervouslaughter]

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2014/08/city-committee-to-review-historic-ordinance/

 

he  ordinance that oversees Houston’s historic districts could soon see some changes.

The city of Houston Planning and Development Department and the Archaeological and Historical Commission announced Thursday that it seeks to refine the ordinance, which was updated in 2010 to create permanent protections for historic structures in designated districts and establish a new process for creating a district. The goal would be to clarify certain aspects of the ordinance and provide more consistency for the applicants. The amendments would provide “applicants with additional options for a streamlined approval, provide the Commission with improved guidance on which to base their decision and create a more efficient process,” the planning department says.

A committee will meet over the next few months to  establish amendments that may include the following improvements:

• Broaden the scope of projects that may obtain the Director’s Administrative Approval
• Provide clarity on what constitutes a Shall Approve
• Strengthen enforcement for violations
• Reduce and/or eliminate redundancies, inconsistencies and confusion in code language

“My direction is for the committee to look for tweaks that will make the ordinance easier to understand and more user-friendly,” said Mayor Annise Parker said in a statement. “We are taking a scalpel, not a hatchet, to the ordinance. There is no intention of a wholesale reconsideration of the changes adopted in 2010.”

[Marksmu]

Any broadening of the scope of the ordinance should be put to a vote of affected home owners.  I am tired of the regulatory over-reach that is occuring in this country. 

[august948]

I've heard that the vote is scheduled for 4:53am on Thursday, Jan 1.  A 30 second window will be allowed for votes to be cast.  Voting to be done in person at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

[SilverJK]

Broaden the scope to what???

[mollusk]

A committee will meet over the next few months to  establish amendments that may include the following improvements:

• Broaden the scope of projects that may obtain the Director’s Administrative Approval
• Provide clarity on what constitutes a Shall Approve
• Strengthen enforcement for violations
• Reduce and/or eliminate redundancies, inconsistencies and confusion in code language

“My direction is for the committee to look for tweaks that will make the ordinance easier to understand and more user-friendly,” said Mayor Annise Parker said in a statement. “We are taking a scalpel, not a hatchet, to the ordinance. There is no intention of a wholesale reconsideration of the changes adopted in 2010.”

 

 

Any broadening of the scope of the ordinance should be put to a vote of affected home owners.  I am tired of the regulatory over-reach that is occuring in this country. 

 

The scope that would be broadened, according to the release, would be the scope of projects that could get administrative approval, presumably as opposed to going before the commission. Likewise, "provide clarity on what constitutes a Shall Approve" sounds like a positive change, from anyone's perspective.  

 

In other words, this sounds like it's aimed at addressing and fixing the beefs that have been so loudly expressed in this forum.

[Marksmu]

Well if by broadening it, they mean allowing some things to be streamlined, that would be good - but any addittional restrictions, or addittions to the ordinance really need to be voted on.

You will have to forgive me for not trusting the Historic folks - they lied, cheated, and stole to get their way...It was very ugly.

[BBLLC]

I've heard that the vote is scheduled for 4:53am on Thursday, Jan 1.  A 30 second window will be allowed for votes to be cast.  Voting to be done in person at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

Not being present constitutes a vote for the changes.

[SamHouston]

I've heard that the vote is scheduled for 4:53am on Thursday, Jan 1.  A 30 second window will be allowed for votes to be cast.  Voting to be done in person at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

 

At least that's summer down there then.

[ISMDAVID]

Not being present constitutes a vote for the changes.

Less you forget that they will only be allowing one vote per owner, even if you own multiple properties and have a larger vested interest in the neighborhood.

[trymahjong]

From citizens net

First Meeting Set to Review Historic Preservation Ordinance

The City of Houston Planning and Development Department and the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission are seeking to refine the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance was updated in 2010 to create permanent protections for historic structures in designated districts and to establish a new process for creating a historic district.

The first committee meeting will be on Monday, September 29, 2014, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Council Annex Chambers, 900 Bagby Street, Houston, Texas 77002. At that meeting, the committee will determine the time, date and location of additional meetings. All meetings will be open to the public.

The goal of this process is to correct and clarify targeted items and create greater consistency for the applicants and for the commission. The amendments will provide applicants with additional options for a streamlined approval, provide the commission with improved guidance on which to base their decision and create a more efficient process.

"My direction is for the committee to look for tweaks that will make the ordinance easier to understand and more user-friendly," said Mayor Annise Parker. "We are taking a scalpel, not a hatchet, to the ordinance. There is no intention of a wholesale reconsideration of the changes adopted in 2010."

The results of Committee meetings will be posted on the Department's website, www.houstonplanning.com. Citizens can email historic.ordinance@houstontx.gov to sign up to receive updates about the process, meetings and proposed amendments.

Thank you for your interest in CitizensNet.

Mailing Address: City of Houston | P.O. Box 1562 | Houston, Texas 77251

City Hall Address: City of Houston | 901 Bagby | Houston, Texas 77002

Edited September 24, 2014 by trymahjong

[BBLLC]

"The amendments will..."

 

Do Amendments need to be voted on for a city ordinance?

[SilverJK]

Nope... even if they completely change the ordinance (what happened in 2010)

[mollusk]

I strongly suspect that City Council has to vote on amending this ordinance, just like any other.  

 

If you are interested, there is a way to participate in the process - attending meetings, engaging with members of the study committee with particular concerns, and engaging with council members.

[BBLLC]

I strongly suspect that City Council has to vote on amending this ordinance, just like any other.  

 

If you are interested, there is a way to participate in the process - attending meetings, engaging with members of the study committee with particular concerns, and engaging with council members.

 

If by participate in the process by attending meetings to hear it live, then I agree.  There is exactly ZERO possibility of the unwashed public masses "engaging" members of the study committee.  You are considered an ignorant moron by these people.  You can engage council members as there is a means of doing so.  You are NOT allowed to talk to the HAHC members.

[mollusk]

If by participate in the process by attending meetings to hear it live, then I agree.  There is exactly ZERO possibility of the unwashed public masses "engaging" members of the study committee.  You are considered an ignorant moron by these people.  You can engage council members as there is a means of doing so.  You are NOT allowed to talk to the HAHC members.

 

I'm gonna call BS on that last bit.  The HAHC members are not kept sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's back porch except when being trotted out for a public viewing.  Is an informational presentation meant to open up a free for all Q and A session?  Probably not.  Do commission members have their own preconceptions and perhaps agendas?  Probably so.  Will a polite, well reasoned letter describing a particular problem and proposed workable solution would be discarded out of hand?  I doubt it, unless it's just without merit.  Does it mean that the commission would completely disregard an organized group lobbying for something or another?  No - even TxDOT will occasionally change course, for Pete's sake.

[s3mh]

If by participate in the process by attending meetings to hear it live, then I agree.  There is exactly ZERO possibility of the unwashed public masses "engaging" members of the study committee.  You are considered an ignorant moron by these people.  You can engage council members as there is a means of doing so.  You are NOT allowed to talk to the HAHC members.

 

There is no prohibition on communicating with committee members.  They are acting in a legislative capacity for the Mayor.  There is a prohibition on communicating with HAHC members as they sit in an adjudicative body.  Such communications are considered to be ex parte just in the same way you would not be able to ask for a meeting with a district court judge to try to influence her opinion on important legal issues.

 

Committee members may not be very accessible because there are people in the community who think they are ignorant morons and just want to berate them rather than offering any thoughtful critique of the current process and suggestions for reform.  But I will say after seeing how the sausage is made that email comments from the community are taken seriously and are probably a better way to influence the process than trying to make a brilliant two minute speech or get an appointment with a committee member.

[BBLLC]

..... Will a polite, well reasoned letter describing a particular problem and proposed workable solution would be discarded out of hand?  I doubt it, unless it's just without merit.  Does it mean that the commission would completely disregard an organized group lobbying for something or another?  No - even TxDOT will occasionally change course, for Pete's sake.

I had one submission to the tribunal that had over 50 letters of support from the immediate and surrounding neighbors.  Not all were well reasoned, but on the first go they were polite.  The letters were ignored and we were denied.  The ONLY organized group that the tribunal will listen to is the City Council.

[BBLLC]

There is no prohibition on communicating with committee members.  They are acting in a legislative capacity for the Mayor.  There is a prohibition on communicating with HAHC members as they sit in an adjudicative body.  Such communications are considered to be ex parte just in the same way you would not be able to ask for a meeting with a district court judge to try to influence her opinion on important legal issues.

 

Committee members may not be very accessible because there are people in the community who think they are ignorant morons and just want to berate them rather than offering any thoughtful critique of the current process and suggestions for reform.  But I will say after seeing how the sausage is made that email comments from the community are taken seriously and are probably a better way to influence the process than trying to make a brilliant two minute speech or get an appointment with a committee member.

 

Have you ever submitted something to the tribunal?  While I understand the ex parte reasoning when a specific submittal is before them, they have refused attempts to communicate with them for general guidance.  I even tried to get input from them at a formal tribunal meeting by showing two concepts and begging for their input.  I got nothing but blank stares.  As far as community comments are concerned, see my response to mollusk above.  

[s3mh]

Have you ever submitted something to the tribunal?  While I understand the ex parte reasoning when a specific submittal is before them, they have refused attempts to communicate with them for general guidance.  I even tried to get input from them at a formal tribunal meeting by showing two concepts and begging for their input.  I got nothing but blank stares.  As far as community comments are concerned, see my response to mollusk above.  

 

No you do not understand the ex parte rule.  HAHC is an adjudicative committee.  Their job is to make a ruling on whether something meets the standards of the historic ordinance in order to receive a certificate of appropriateness.  They do not have the authority to make an advisory opinion.  That is why they gave you "blank stares" (I was not there, but would assume that it was more accurately "silence while biting their tongues out of respect for the limits of their authority" rather than "blank stares").  The preservation staff is there to provide guidance.  If you still do not understand, try walking into Judge Hittner's courtroom and ask him if he will give you general guidance on important constitutional issues.

 

And, community comments are actually received by the preservation staff and included in their review.  However, HAHC is an adjudicative body and cannot be lobbied.  The committee that is preparing amendments to the historic ordinance is acting in a legislative capacity and can be lobbied.  Despite claims to the contrary, the last time the ordinance was amended, the committee working on the amendments made lots of changes based on input from the community. 

 

[BBLLC]

No you do not understand the ex parte rule.  HAHC is an adjudicative committee.  Their job is to make a ruling on whether something meets the standards of the historic ordinance in order to receive a certificate of appropriateness.  They do not have the authority to make an advisory opinion.  That is why they gave you "blank stares" (I was not there, but would assume that it was more accurately "silence while biting their tongues out of respect for the limits of their authority" rather than "blank stares").  The preservation staff is there to provide guidance.  If you still do not understand, try walking into Judge Hittner's courtroom and ask him if he will give you general guidance on important constitutional issues.

 

And, community comments are actually received by the preservation staff and included in their review.  However, HAHC is an adjudicative body and cannot be lobbied.  The committee that is preparing amendments to the historic ordinance is acting in a legislative capacity and can be lobbied.  Despite claims to the contrary, the last time the ordinance was amended, the committee working on the amendments made lots of changes based on input from the community. 

 

I am an engineer and a builder, not an attorney.  So I will have to defer to your knowledge on the nature of the HAHC.  However, the preservation staff SUGGESTED I present both development scenarios to the HAHC and ask for their input.  So I may have mistakenly thought they would offer an advisory opinion.

 

You are correct that community comments are received by the staff and tallied.  In the 20+ HAHC meetings I have personally attended, the staff has never indicated that public comments were influential in their deliberations.

[Barkley]

S3MH -

I respect your opinion, but cannot sit idly by any longer. It appears you've had little to no dealing with this adjudicative committee. How much time have you spent watching them conduct business? That's a serious question and am hoping for an honest answer. I am not trying to speak for anyone other than myself here - but I have a major problem with this body. After having experienced their unprofessional behavior, I have grown to resent our city government. All due to a lack of credibility. This group is vindictive, period. I strongly suspect that you will be quick to pawn me off as a frustrated homeowner or builder. Again, I refer to my original question. We've got bush league power hungry nobodies, affecting the lives of citizens who actually do try to play by the rules. I'm not hiding behind a handle sir. I'd welcome an open debate in a public forum?

[Ross]

No you do not understand the ex parte rule.  HAHC is an adjudicative committee.  Their job is to make a ruling on whether something meets the standards of the historic ordinance in order to receive a certificate of appropriateness.  They do not have the authority to make an advisory opinion.  That is why they gave you "blank stares" (I was not there, but would assume that it was more accurately "silence while biting their tongues out of respect for the limits of their authority" rather than "blank stares").  The preservation staff is there to provide guidance.  If you still do not understand, try walking into Judge Hittner's courtroom and ask him if he will give you general guidance on important constitutional issues.

 

And, community comments are actually received by the preservation staff and included in their review.  However, HAHC is an adjudicative body and cannot be lobbied.  The committee that is preparing amendments to the historic ordinance is acting in a legislative capacity and can be lobbied.  Despite claims to the contrary, the last time the ordinance was amended, the committee working on the amendments made lots of changes based on input from the community. 

 

If the HAHC is indeed an "adjudicative body", then that needs to change. As a taxpayer, I do not want a body like this whose sole purpose is to give a thumbs up or down to a citizen seeking approval on a property. The HAHC's real role ought to be to approve if everything is fine, but to also help the property owners make choices that can be approved. If a property owner appears with two options, there's nothing wrong with the HAHC giving an opinion on which one is more suitable, or what changes might be in order. That would be a nice change from the condescending crap meted out by the self righteous pricks that make up some of the current committee. Even better would be to abolish the HAHC all together, along with the staff members that support the process, and go back to allowing property owners to make their own decisions on what is appropriate.

 

[BBLLC]

I attended the Committee meeting to review the Historic Preservation Ordinance last night.  My take away is that they are mostly trying to tweak administrative problems rather than deal with the bigger problems that I have seen at HAHC meetings.  However, I left with a glimmer of hope not the usually sick feeling I have after an HAHC caning.

[s3mh]

S3MH -

I respect your opinion, but cannot sit idly by any longer. It appears you've had little to no dealing with this adjudicative committee. How much time have you spent watching them conduct business? That's a serious question and am hoping for an honest answer. I am not trying to speak for anyone other than myself here - but I have a major problem with this body. After having experienced their unprofessional behavior, I have grown to resent our city government. All due to a lack of credibility. This group is vindictive, period. I strongly suspect that you will be quick to pawn me off as a frustrated homeowner or builder. Again, I refer to my original question. We've got bush league power hungry nobodies, affecting the lives of citizens who actually do try to play by the rules. I'm not hiding behind a handle sir. I'd welcome an open debate in a public forum?

 

I have not submitted anything to HAHC.  I do live in the WD.  I have watched a lot of video of HAHC and read transcripts.  I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit.  HAHC is pretty average in terms of how they conduct themselves.  I have seen much, much worse from courts and other government agencies.  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks.  And that is usually because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history. 

 

[s3mh]

If the HAHC is indeed an "adjudicative body", then that needs to change. As a taxpayer, I do not want a body like this whose sole purpose is to give a thumbs up or down to a citizen seeking approval on a property. The HAHC's real role ought to be to approve if everything is fine, but to also help the property owners make choices that can be approved. If a property owner appears with two options, there's nothing wrong with the HAHC giving an opinion on which one is more suitable, or what changes might be in order. That would be a nice change from the condescending crap meted out by the self righteous pricks that make up some of the current committee. Even better would be to abolish the HAHC all together, along with the staff members that support the process, and go back to allowing property owners to make their own decisions on what is appropriate.

 

 

I only pointed out that HAHC was an adjudicative body to explain why they would not give out advisory opinions.  The problem with conducting business that way is that people will go before the commission and get an ok to do A, B & C and then come back with a final submission for A, B, C & W and get all bent out of shape when they get an adverse ruling.  The other problem is that the commission is unpaid and only meets once a month.  If everyone gets to have a design planning session with them, they would need to be compensated due to the increased amount of time needed.  That compensation would result in a need for higher permit fees. 

 

[Marksmu]

I have not submitted anything to HAHC.  I do live in the WD.  I have watched a lot of video of HAHC and read transcripts.  I also have a lot of experience before other government tribunals, including zoning boards, our own planning commission, State Office of Administrative Hearings, TCEQ, OCCC and a bunch of other state agencies and municipal bodies, as well as state and federal court from JP to Fed 5th Circuit.  HAHC is pretty average in terms of how they conduct themselves.  I have seen much, much worse from courts and other government agencies.  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks.  And that is usually because everyone knows that the alternative to HAHC is the demolition of the majority of the historic housing stock in the Heights in exchange for a mish mash of patio homes, town homes, mcvics, moderns and new build suburban homes straight out of Pearland.  So, people do not take on the real issue and instead throw stones at the people on the commission because it sounds much better to say that there are bad people on the commission than to say that you are ok with the Heights being turned into some architectural Frankenstein and losing all of its history. 

 

 

Im Ok repealing it in its entirety.  The dirt is now too expensive for it to turn into anything that is genuinely sub-par.  Enact minimum lot line restrictions that will prevent town homes on the interior streets of teh neighborhoods and then let the people decide for themselves what they want to build.  The days of the townhomes being built all over the heights is pretty much coming to an end....its now restricted to the corners of busy streets because those are the only places the dirt is cheap enough...and that is actually a good thing....wall to wall townhomes insulate road noise quite effectively for the smaller bungalows behind them.

 

Most people, including builders, are buying and building beautiful homes...that fit the lifestyle of today's family....I dont care about the history of small old houses in Houston at all and I am flat out honest about it...I could not care less about them,  I think they are cute, but would never in a million years want to live in one, and I do not think current and future owners should have to be at the whim of some group who does care. 

 

[mollusk]

OK, we get it.  You don't want to live in a small, old home, and apparently neither does anybody you hang out with.  Nobody is forcing you to.  However, I hate to break it to you, but you do not hang out with everybody in town, or even a representative cross section.

 

Your whims do not give you the right to diminish the value of my property, and that of my neighbors, to the cost of the soil less removing what is already there just because our collective ego does not require us to pay to heat and air condition and furnish and maintain something far larger than what we need (let's not even address concerns about sustainability), nor does it mean that I and my remaining neighbors must be forced to have something twice or three times as tall encircling and peering into our back yards, on my property, and that of my neighbors.  

 

In other words, a majority (or super majority) of the property owners in some areas (a tiny fraction of Houston's land area, by the way) have said "no.  You may not build whatever you want, wherever you want.  We were here first and like it as it is, or if it must change, at least in harmony with what's already here."

 

You are welcome to have your gated open concept McCraftVic community with Italian cabinets and soft Corinthian leather.  

 

Elsewhere.

[Marksmu]

OK, we get it.  You don't want to live in a small, old home, and apparently neither does anybody you hang out with.  Nobody is forcing you to.  However, I hate to break it to you, but you do not hang out with everybody in town, or even a representative cross section.

 

Your whims do not give you the right to diminish the value of my property, and that of my neighbors, to the cost of the soil less removing what is already there just because our collective ego does not require us to pay to heat and air condition and furnish and maintain something far larger than what we need (let's not even address concerns about sustainability), nor does it mean that I and my remaining neighbors must be forced to have something twice or three times as tall encircling and peering into our back yards, on my property, and that of my neighbors.  

 

In other words, a majority (or super majority) of the property owners in some areas (a tiny fraction of Houston's land area, by the way) have said "no.  You may not build whatever you want, wherever you want.  We were here first and like it as it is, or if it must change, at least in harmony with what's already here."

 

You are welcome to have your gated open concept McCraftVic community with Italian cabinets and soft Corinthian leather.  

 

Elsewhere.

 

Your property rights END at your property line PERIOD.  You have no right to any aspect of that which you do not own.  Your value goes up every time a structure 10x-20x nicer than yours is constructed...Whatever proportionate decline in your structure value you lose, is increased by the value in your dirt.  Your value will never be fully diminished so long as there are people like you who want to live in a small house...

 

I do not agree with anything you have said, and I do not believe that the Heights is historic in any way.  Its nothing more than Katy in another 40 years....I guess we should enact protections NOW to ensure that Katy tract homes are preserved in their current state.  Its absurd.  There is nothing historic about a hold house where NOTHING important happened not that long ago. 

 

And there was NEVER a majority of property owners who think like you do...people like you keep saying that but its an outright complete lie.  There was never anything close to a majority....There was collusion with the city by well connected liberals who want to inflict their idea of what a neighborhood should like on everyone else.

 

There needs to be a REAL vote.  Where EACH property owner gets 1 vote for each property they own, regardless of how many homes they own, where the City gets zero votes, and where not voting means absolutely nothing...I will gladly sell my properties and walk away if we can have that done and the neighborhood still wants the ordinance.  It won't ever happen though b/c the ordinance would never pass if it were properly voted on. 

 

If you can not acknowledge that the vote was stolen, then there is no point in talking to you because you are either completely ignorant, or a liar.  It was passed by 1) not returning a ballot means you were in favor of the ordinance 2) 1 vote per person, not per property 3) City property was allowed to vote  4) city was allowed to vote more than once 5) ballot or survey was sent over Christmas holiday in a non-descript envelope with a short time period to return 6) Mayor Parker sent a letter on official city letterhead encouraging people not to return to the ballot 7) the mis-information by the pro ordinance people was overwhelming.

 

I will concede defeat the day that an honest vote is taken, until then I firmly believe that each supporter of this ordinance is a dishonest thief who used the city to steal the rights from private property owners to achieve that which they could not achieve honestly.

 

[SilverJK]

  But your complaint about the personalities of the HAHC is the same thing I hear from just about anyone who goes before a decision maker and does not get what they want.  And instead of having a constructive discussion about the process and substance of the decision, people just launch into name calling ("bush league power hungry nobodies") and ad hominem attacks. 

 

Says the person who threatened to get revenge on people who opposed the ordinance when if first went in to effect...

[s3mh]

Says the person who threatened to get revenge on people who opposed the ordinance when if first went in to effect...

 

Completely wrong and bordering on libel.  I said that those who worked for the ordinance would remember those who tried to oppose it by a dishonest fear campaign claiming that the Heights would turn into a slum full of properties no one would want to renovate (yeah, that was spot on) and that the ordinance would regulate paint color and AC placement.  It is a fundamental right in a free market to be able to refuse to patronize businesses that are owned/run by people who have taken positions and actions that you believe are wrong.  It is not revenge to hold people accountable for the positions they take on important issues in the community.