Norhill Information & Developments

[RedScare]

Yeah, I'll grant you the clarification on garages. Like you, I am not a Norhill resident. Frankly, after reading this stuff, I would never wish to be, either. The other new revisions are still a deal killer IMO.

Silver JK has a great point on the HD language.

[s3mh]

So in this instance you support and rally behind the clearing up of the ambiguity of the previous rule... why can't you understand that is what people wanted from the Historic Ordinance. I don't agree with what Nohill is doing, nor would I want to live there, but I do appreciate clearly knowing what is and isn't allowed. The ambiguity and what I feel intentional vagueness of the Ordinance is what so many people are against and why it will eventually be revoked. Norhill is a clear example of why the ordinance is NOT needed.

Who said I was against making the restrictions in the historic ordinance better defined? I am all for clarity and predictability. I think there should be a set of pre-approved addition design guidelines that allow people to fast-track a project without having to wait for a HAHC meeting. But, with a historic preservation law, there will always have to be a subjective element left up to the discretion of the committee charged with enforcement of the ordinance. And given the diversity of historic architecture in the Heights, hard and fast standards can create more problems than they solve (one-size does not fit all).

And lets get real. The anti-ordinance people never cared about correcting ambiguity and vagueness in the historic ordinance. A number of clarifications and revisions requested by the anti-ordinance folks were adopted in the revised ordinance. But the response from the opponents wasn't "hey, wait. You forgot to fix ____." The response was "we have to repeal the ordinance because the Heights will turn into a slum if we don't." And time has shown that the fear of the land use restrictions was unfounded and overblown. Just in the same way many on this board are reacting to Norhill's very reasonable attempt to revise their deed restrictions.

[Ross]

If there was some worry about renting out garage apartments, then the only language needed was "No garage apartment shall be rented". That allows property owners to build a garage apartment for guests, for parents who have to move in, or for any other reason. I would love to turn part of my garage into a guest bedroom, since our house doesn't lend itself to expansion. Under the Timbergrove restrictions, I can do just that.

[west20th]

It isn't new. In 1981, the following restriction was recorded: "There shall be constructed no new garage apartments after these deed restrictions are renewed; however, existing garage apartments may be remodeled." The 1981 restrictions are a renewal of the previous restrictions which were set to expire in 1981. Thus, the construction of a new garage apartment in the Norhill Addition has been prohibited for over 30 years. All the "new" restriction does is put a definition on the term "garage apartment" which was previously undefined. The definition is sufficiently restrictive (bed + bath + kitchen) that it could actually give people some piece of mind in putting in a finished room with a bathroom as part of a garage without running afoul of the deed restrictions. Thus, if anything, the "new" restriction is actually less restrictive because it is not subject to the subjective determination of what is and is not a "garage apartment" and gives residents latitude to put in finished living space without fear of a legal fight over the term "garage apartment".

So back to my point. Why do we need a definition? You can't rent space above your garage. Period. Why are rules needed to define space that is not going to be rented?

Edited November 20, 2012 by west20th

[Angostura]

The restriction on the rental of garage apartments is not enough? Why the need to define them? What if your mother-in-law wants a "(bath + kitchen + bedroom=garage apartment)". She is just SOL? My experience with HOA people is that they tend to be nit-picking micro managers.

Apparently you can't keep the brown people out without also keeping the mothers-in-law out.

[TGM]

Apparently you can't keep the brown people out without also keeping the mothers-in-law out.

It's not just those groups, they're also targeting the Man Cave. I'm sure there's a "pee sitting down" restriction in there somewhere.

[rental me this]

I know that the ban on new garage apartments isn't new. However, my understanding is that if the proposed restrictions are approved, homeowners don't get another opportunity to revise them until the year 2025. So it sure seems like now would be the time to reassess whether the continuation of the garage apartment ban makes any sense. To me, it doesn't.

As I mentioned earlier, the ban eliminates the possibility of expanding a small home's living space without changing the character of the main house. I would think that people who are interested in preserving the older homes in the neighborhood would jump all over this opportunity and work to toss out a restriction that IMHO, actually threatens the stock of old homes (by making camelbacks and questionable additions the only option for adding square footage). Actually, I would think that most people, regardless of their stance on the preservation issue, could agree that it's an unnecessary restriction. Is there an anti-garage apartment lobby that I'm not aware of?

[s3mh]

I know that the ban on new garage apartments isn't new. However, my understanding is that if the proposed restrictions are approved, homeowners don't get another opportunity to revise them until the year 2025. So it sure seems like now would be the time to reassess whether the continuation of the garage apartment ban makes any sense. To me, it doesn't.

As I mentioned earlier, the ban eliminates the possibility of expanding a small home's living space without changing the character of the main house. I would think that people who are interested in preserving the older homes in the neighborhood would jump all over this opportunity and work to toss out a restriction that IMHO, actually threatens the stock of old homes (by making camelbacks and questionable additions the only option for adding square footage). Actually, I would think that most people, regardless of their stance on the preservation issue, could agree that it's an unnecessary restriction. Is there an anti-garage apartment lobby that I'm not aware of?

Take a look at 3.5. The restrictions can be amended or modified at any time. They even lower the 75% of the lots approval requirement to 66% for future modification or amendment.

I do not think you can do a camel back under the existing deed restriction on "harmony" with ground elevation and topography. If you do not mind losing your tiny back yard, you can easily get 1500+ sq feet with a seemless addition to any bungalow in Norhill, as many have done in Norhill.

I can understand the restriction. I have seen some newly constructed "garage apartments" in the Heights that tower over the rest of the block. Most everyone in Norhill has a single story garage. Norhill has always been the most restrictive part of the Heights. People buying into that neighborhood know that and like it. And if everyone on the block has a garage apartment that they rent out, you will have on-street parking issues and driveways packed with cars.

[Ross]

And if everyone on the block has a garage apartment that they rent out, you will have on-street parking issues and driveways packed with cars.

I was under the impression that none of us thought it unreasonable to prohibit renting out garage apartments. It's unreasonable to stop people from building them for their own use. All the restrictions say to me is "If you don't think like we do, leave". Same sort of vibe I got from the HD proponents in the Heights.

[s3mh]

I was under the impression that none of us thought it unreasonable to prohibit renting out garage apartments. It's unreasonable to stop people from building them for their own use. All the restrictions say to me is "If you don't think like we do, leave". Same sort of vibe I got from the HD proponents in the Heights.

Except that the restriction in Norhill has been in place since 1981. It is not a case of "if you don't think like we do, leave." It is a case of "if you don't think like we do, why did you move here in the first place?" The restriction does not stop anyone from renting out existing garage apartments. It just puts a definition on "garage apartment" instead of having the term be undefined as had been the case for over thirty years.

[RedScare]

Except that the restriction in Norhill has been in place since 1981. It is not a case of "if you don't think like we do, leave." It is a case of "if you don't think like we do, why did you move here in the first place?" The restriction does not stop anyone from renting out existing garage apartments. It just puts a definition on "garage apartment" instead of having the term be undefined as had been the case for over thirty years.

Interesting that the "it's been this way for 30 years" argument seems entirely appropriate to you in Norhill, yet you also have no problem changing the rules on us in the Heights with historic districts that we did not want. Whatever argument you need to get your way, I guess.

At least the Norhill restrictions have the opportunity to be imposed by the residents themselves...aside from the secretive way they are attempting to do so. I would gladly take that option over the strong arm tactics used on my neighborhood.

[fwki]

Very good discussion everyone. But why are we having it if we are to believe the "only substantive difference between the current deed restrictions and the new restrictions is a side-property line setback for new construction"? Because we were lied to by the WHCA, and the sponsor faction is deliberately obfuscating the truth in the relevant discussion groups. These issues above are important but minor compared to the effective dissolution of Norhill as independent entity as defined in the original and current DR's and the fact that this WHCA faction cannot be trusted in word or deed. Vote No support rapidly gains ground when neighbors are truthfully informed, and we intend to squash this hostile takeover attempt soon. Like the HD effort, lies, secrecy and slick marketing are the only tools this faction can use to gain approval for such a self-destructive radical change to our existing neighborhood.

[SilverJK]

What does WHCA have to do with Norhill anyway?

[fwki]

What does WHCA have to do with Norhill anyway?

That is the $64,000 question. The current DR's give enforcement power to the "existing local civic association" without defining it as the WHCA. When the DR's were enacted and extended, WHCA was the local CA. However, by not defining the WHCA the DR's do not preclude Norhill from forming their own CA. This is a necessary protection from any WHCA run amok by radicals. The new DR's take away this protection. TX Property Code Chapter 204 is the intended path for Norhill to update or change the DR's by first creating a Norhill Civic Association, then following the simple voting process which DOES NOT ALLOW OPT-OUT. However, this has the potential for castrating the WHCA wrt Norhill. So instead the WHCA attorneys advised the faction to use Chapter 201 to "create" DR's which can be kicked off by any three idiots with a computer and an agenda.

By stepping aside and abdicating any responsibility for Norhill for now, WHCA provides a path to achieve permanent control using the new DR's. The caveat is 201 requires the Opt-Out provision and requires notarized signatures. So we either Opt-Out, which sets us up for the widely-despised Historic District, or we just hope they don't get 51% signatures.....but you have to sign to Opt Out. And even though the Petition has a "Disapprove" check box, it has no meaning, it is just a trick to get your signature which then goes to the 51% signature goal. This is specifically pointed out in the flow chart provided by CoH: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Neighborhood/docs_pdfs/restrictions_info.pdf

[Heights20plusyears]

The response was "we have to repeal the ordinance because the Heights will turn into a slum if we don't."

Hello...the Heights was a slum when all of that nonsense was passed in 1981. I find it truly amazing one can live in a neighborhood for 2 whole years and seem to know what's best for every home owner.

Maybe the Norhill residents will get a "survey" in the mail, right at Christmas time, and a Yes vote will be counted for every non-returned "survey".

[TGM]

And the Historic District Panzers keep rolling on....

[fwki]

Hysterical preservationists have named their next victim with a petition on Change.oorg to encumber Norhill Addition property owners with the perpetually morphing Historic Ordinance.  The petition pleads: "We must act to ensure that the last 1/3 of the Norhill neighborhood's history is preserved."

 

The petition leaves out the crippling impact on property rights, the irresponsible antics of the HAHC zoning board and the continual reinterpretation of the Historic Ordinance by City Planning to increase the level of government takings imposed by this law. I am asking fellow Norhill Addition property owners educate themselves on this regulatory movement's dirty tricks, watch the videos of the HAHC in action against owners and see the reinterpretation efforts at the Planning Commission appeals videos.  Also not mentioned is the fact that there is no upside to HD designation since we have ample protection with existing Deed Restrictions, now up for renewal.

 

Red's cryptic prediction about Norhill which scared me into action years ago has come true as this monster turns its head.  Take action now and we can stop it: Affirm our existing Deed Restrictions with a Yes vote this fall on the upcoming Deed Restriction petition for Norhill Addition to allow City legal department enforcement, educate yourself on the facts and track record of the HAHC, talk to your neighbors and write CM Gonzalez.  My opinion is well-documented here, form your own and act on it.

[Texasota]

Where's the Norhill Addition? Norhill itself is already a district. I couldn't find the petition on Change.

 

edit: Found it: https://www.change.org/petitions/residents-of-south-norhill-section-of-the-woodland-heights-establish-the-south-norhill-historic-district

 

I'd still be curious to see a map of what all this would include.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Texasota

[fwki]

There are three Norhill developments: Norhill (the oldest, platted as the "Norhill Addition", meaning addition to the CoH), North Norhill and East Norhill.  North Norhill and East Norhill voted themselves as historic district.  The Norhill Addition is bounded by 11th St on the north, Michaux on the east, Usener on the south and Studewood on the west. Deed Restrictions are up for renewal and will be voted on this fall.  By choice Norhill threw in with WHCA as their civic association years ago but retained the right to form a Norhill-only association.  The confusion comes from the geniuses down at City Planning who allowed North Norhill take the name "Norhill" for their Historic District, so now we have two called simply "Norhill".

[laiall]

Hysterical preservationists have named their next victim with a petition on Change.oorg to encumber Norhill Addition property owners with the perpetually morphing Historic Ordinance.  The petition pleads: "We must act to ensure that the last 1/3 of the Norhill neighborhood's history is preserved."

 

The petition leaves out the crippling impact on property rights, the irresponsible antics of the HAHC zoning board and the continual reinterpretation of the Historic Ordinance by City Planning to increase the level of government takings imposed by this law. I am asking fellow Norhill Addition property owners educate themselves on this regulatory movement's dirty tricks, watch the videos of the HAHC in action against owners and see the reinterpretation efforts at the Planning Commission appeals videos.  Also not mentioned is the fact that there is no upside to HD designation since we have ample protection with existing Deed Restrictions, now up for renewal.

 

Red's cryptic prediction about Norhill which scared me into action years ago has come true as this monster turns its head.  Take action now and we can stop it: Affirm our existing Deed Restrictions with a Yes vote this fall on the upcoming Deed Restriction petition for Norhill Addition to allow City legal department enforcement, educate yourself on the facts and track record of the HAHC, talk to your neighbors and write CM Gonzalez.  My opinion is well-documented here, form your own and act on it.

 

fwki,

 

Shame on you (I'm guessing this is you juding by the acronym of the screenname), I think it is very disingenuous of you to post on nextdoor.com with me about civil and mature conversation about the pro's and con's of a historic district and then to post on this forum and call me an "elitist" and a "hysterical preservationist". 

 

To be clear, I am a current resident of the Norhill Addition and also happen to be the person who created the aforementioned petition on change.org. I have no prior "preservationist" history and the picture he painted above is exaggerated propaganda to say the least. 

 

I have no hidden agenda whatsoever; I want a historic district because in my opinion what sets the Heights apart from other neighborhoods inside the loop is the intactness of the original Craftsman Bungalow homes. With the rising property values, I've seen increased demolitions to build giant homes to maximize price/sq ft profits. I don't want to see my neighborhood turn into one with faux-craftsman mansions that are 4 feet apart from each other lining the streets. Deed restrictions just aren't strict enough to prevent demolitions from happening.

 

We are all entitled to our own opinion and for all I know there are more people in our subdivision who would rather see the giant mansions lining the street. THAT was the whole reason I posted the petition. I am just trying to get a feel for who is in and who isn't to determine if a historic district is in the interest of the majority (67% to be exact according to the city).

 

What we really don't need, is someone running around spewing propaganda without listening to how the other side feels.

 

One thing is for sure, this is no way to treat one of your own neighbors.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Subdude

[jamesw]

Welcome to the board Laill.

 

Please sit down and watch the recordings of the commission meetings and the appeal meetings at planning.  I think you'll see why some people are not too happy with the ordinance.

Cheers
James

[laiall]

Welcome to the board Laill.

 

Please sit down and watch the recordings of the commission meetings and the appeal meetings at planning.  I think you'll see why some people are not too happy with the ordinance.

Cheers

James

 

Thanks for the welcome James.

 

Fwki already linked me to one HAHC video involving Brie and her home on Harvard. Although it was a lot of heartache she was able to get approved: http://www.change.org/petitions/houston-archaeological-and-historical-commission-hahc-approve-application-to-restore-my-1920-home-that-has-been-neglected-for-yrs

 

I understand that the Historic Ordinance is not perfect, but what are the provisions to amend it to find a happy medium between preserving the architecture while not stepping on property owners' rights.

 

Also, is there a link you can provide for all the HAHC meetings? I tried youtube but was only able to dig up two videos (one of which is the aforementioned one).

[Marksmu]

There is no middle ground.  The moment that you take the ability for someone to remodel, demo, or repair their own property in a way that they see fit, WITHOUT paying them for the loss of that right, you have stolen from them.  You have deprived them of their legal right to do with their own property what they please for the sole reason of aesthetics.  Deed restrictions offer legitimate protections to which every owner was fully aware of at the time of purchase.  By instituting a historic district, the neighbors who agree are  by necessity stealing from those who do not.  The people who disagree if they are outnumbered lose their private property.

 

It is EXACTLY the same as is if a bank by vote if its depositors sent out a survey and asked if they wanted to institute average account balances by reallocating deposits evenly amongst everyone instead of allowing each person to keep their own money.  Those with low balances, most likely the majority, would agree, and those with high balances, would cry foul.  If the low balances get 67%  WALA, everyone has the same balance...but its fair right?  I mean we voted on it, so it must be fair.

[fwki]

Laiall,

Before you start thowing around accusations, take a look at my posts on this subject and you will see that you are late to the party by about two years and during those two years my posts on this subject have been very consistent.  Don't think I am talking about you when you just showed up here.  The whole process to HD designation starts with a petition, you started a petition not to see "who is in and who isn't"....read your own words: "Residents of South Norhill section of the Woodland Heights: Establish the South Norhill Historic District".  That to me is step one in the process and I will fight from step one forward.

 

On the otherhand, your posts on NextDoor are for up for discussion and I accepted that challenge and will continue there in an appropriate manner as long as people are interested.

 

In this forum I have used (within forum rules and Subdude's pleadings) and will use tools of debate, biting political satire, AND propaganda to battle propaganda such as your characterization of the petition as just trying to see what people think.   These are two different worlds and your posts will not be treated with deference first here as they would on Next Door.  Sorry to be blunt, but there are some smart people on this board both pro and con HD, you will learn a lot here assuming you have the sufficient skin thinckness.

 

That said, I didn't know you from Adam but your petition speaks for itself and it is not at all inquisitory, ergo my first post stands unedited.  This preservation ordinance is really, really bad.  Don't take Step One in bringing me under that monster without doing your homeowork and then claim innocence or worse, ignorance.  Welcome to HAIF.

[jamesw]

I think the aim of slowing down or limiting tear-downs is good - but the way it was (and is) implemented is really bad.
 

Example: It's starting to get nice out.  You want to open your windows to enjoy the weather and stop using your A/C (good for the environment and all) but they are painted shut! 

 

If you want to hire someone to work on your windows - well you're going to need a permit for that.  But you can't get that permit anymore without having a COA.  And the meetings are only held once a month.  And you can't go because you have to work - or you can just pay an architect to go for $100 per hr...

Oh, and you want to get the work done right away, but the HAHC meeting was just two days ago.  So now you get to wait another 29 days...

 

Are you beginning to get the pictures?  Most people don't want to become "experts" in how the process works, and know how all the timing works, etc.  They just want to repair their house to enjoy the nice weather.

HTH
James

[fwki]

I think the aim of slowing down or limiting tear-downs is good - but the way it was (and is) implemented is really bad.

 

Example: It's starting to get nice out.  You want to open your windows to enjoy the weather and stop using your A/C (good for the environment and all) but they are painted shut! 

 

If you want to hire someone to work on your windows - well you're going to need a permit for that.  But you can't get that permit anymore without having a COA.  And the meetings are only held once a month.  And you can't go because you have to work - or you can just pay an architect to go for $100 per hr...

Oh, and you want to get the work done right away, but the HAHC meeting was just two days ago.  So now you get to wait another 29 days...

 

Are you beginning to get the pictures?  Most people don't want to become "experts" in how the process works, and know how all the timing works, etc.  They just want to repair their house to enjoy the nice weather.

HTH

James

Or the poor sucker that tried to boot strap a repair of his sagging roof line on his porch by adding a third column on the middle existing pedestal.....red tagged him, forced him in front of the board and told him they didn't "think" there was a third column originally so he must straighten the roof line with alternate methods, methods that first must be approved....cha-ching.  Or the lady that wanted energy efficient glass pane in her windows.....no, no, no...must keep old wavy glass...she had to appeal to the Planning Commission to overturn that idiotic ruling, but the HAHC continues to make the same ruling....cha-ching.

[SilverJK]

The Historic Districts are like using a full body cast when you only need a bandaid.

 

Yeah, I had a paper cut and needed something to stop the bleeding but now I can't move...

 

 

I do beleive if you modified your petition to get everyone in the "norhill addition" to support Minimum Lot size/Minimum set back you would get more support.  (does Norhill Addition already have these?).  Norhill was the perfect example of how things should have worked... the Historic Districts didn't really change anything for Norhill residents (they had good deed restrictions already), other than add extra steps to the process.

 

BTW, there are a few new to the neighborhood people already pushing to expand the Woodland Heights lines outward as well.

 

 

[laiall]

Laiall,

Before you start thowing around accusations, take a look at my posts on this subject and you will see that you are late to the party by about two years and during those two years my posts on this subject have been very consistent.  Don't think I am talking about you when you just showed up here.  The whole process to HD designation starts with a petition, you started a petition not to see "who is in and who isn't"....read your own words: "Residents of South Norhill section of the Woodland Heights: Establish the South Norhill Historic District".  That to me is step one in the process and I will fight from step one forward.

 

On the otherhand, your posts on NextDoor are for up for discussion and I accepted that challenge and will continue there in an appropriate manner as long as people are interested.

 

In this forum I have used (within forum rules and Subdude's pleadings) and will use tools of debate, biting political satire, AND propaganda to battle propaganda such as your characterization of the petition as just trying to see what people think.   These are two different worlds and your posts will not be treated with deference first here as they would on Next Door.  Sorry to be blunt, but there are some smart people on this board both pro and con HD, you will learn a lot here assuming you have the sufficient skin thinckness.

 

That said, I didn't know you from Adam but your petition speaks for itself and it is not at all inquisitory, ergo my first post stands unedited.  This preservation ordinance is really, really bad.  Don't take Step One in bringing me under that monster without doing your homeowork and then claim innocence or worse, ignorance.  Welcome to HAIF.

 

Regardless of what I do or do not know about historic districts at this point. Your original post characterized my petition as if there was some machine behind an iron curtain that has a hidden agenda that created it when I know for a fact based on our conversation on Nextdoor that you were fully aware that the petition was created by me, your neighbor who has no hidden agenda. 

 

Judging by what I saw on your Nextdoor profile you are an engineer as am I. We pride ourselves on being detail oriented and using reason and logic to solve problems. Your admitted use of propaganda does nothing but to manipulate those who don't know me into thinking I am some sort of demon preservationist with bad intentions. Propaganda does noone favors and causes people to make decisions based on emotions rather than reason. I'm not trying to troll anyone here and I'd hope, unlike the other thread, things can be kept civil. 

 

I have lightly read the other thread in this forum and have also been on the forum for years albeit a lurker. I will take the time to go back and read every single page of that other thread.

 

In the meantime, i'd appreciate a link to all the HAHC vids. The one you linked me to on Nextdoor about Brie was definitely frustrating, but she did ultimately get to do what she wanted to. 

[laiall]

The Historic Districts are like using a full body cast when you only need a bandaid.

 

Yeah, I had a paper cut and needed something to stop the bleeding but now I can't move...

 

 

I do beleive if you modified your petition to get everyone in the "norhill addition" to support Minimum Lot size/Minimum set back you would get more support.  (does Norhill Addition already have these?).  Norhill was the perfect example of how things should have worked... the Historic Districts didn't really change anything for Norhill residents (they had good deed restrictions already), other than add extra steps to the process.

 

BTW, there are a few new to the neighborhood people already pushing to expand the Woodland Heights lines outward as well.

 

Would a minimum lot size/minimum set back prevent demolitions though? I don't think so, it would just ensure that the new homes being built would be set back, right?

 

Also, Norhill's historic district came into existence June of 2000 as evidenced here: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/maps_of_districts/Norhill.pdf

 

Now i've only been in the neighborhood for about 2 years, but from what I have been able to gather much of the Heights was an undesirable place to live as late as the 90s. The increasing frequency of demolitions has been mostly a post 2000 phenomenon and seems to have really accelerated in this hot housing market in the last 1-2 years. How can you make the distinction between if it was the deed restrictions or the historic district designation that helped Norhill to stay intact? It seems like it is a combination of both, no?

[august948]

In the meantime, i'd appreciate a link to all the HAHC vids. The one you linked me to on Nextdoor about Brie was definitely frustrating, but she did ultimately get to do what she wanted to.

The fact that she did eventually get to do what she wanted but had to undergo such trauma in the meantime is a pretty good indication of why so many are against the districts.