Norhill Information & Developments

[Ross]

 

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. 

 

It should not require multiple trips to City Commissions to get what you want when your plans comply with the law. The HAHC is an abomination, populated with self serving, self righteous know it alls trying to impose their aesthetic views on others.

 

I have to ask, though, why you think it's OK to impose your views on property owners who bought their property without the restrictions implied by a historic district. In fact, why do you think that it's reasonable for you to be able to prevent your neighbor from tearing down their house and building a structure more suited to their needs? Would you tell a neighbor that the fact they need more space to accommodate their unexpected twins means they ought to move to the suburbs? How does your neighbor building a modern structure harm you?

[Texasota]

Historic districts can only be instituted with a supermajority vote, so they're pretty much the definition of democracy at the local level

[Ross]

Historic districts can only be instituted with a supermajority vote, so they're pretty much the definition of democracy at the local level

 

Much like 15 wolves and 5 sheep voting on dinner. Without an opt out clause for existing property owners, historic districts violate basic property rights.

 

[laiall]

It should not require multiple trips to City Commissions to get what you want when your plans comply with the law. The HAHC is an abomination, populated with self serving, self righteous know it alls trying to impose their aesthetic views on others.

 

I have to ask, though, why you think it's OK to impose your views on property owners who bought their property without the restrictions implied by a historic district. In fact, why do you think that it's reasonable for you to be able to prevent your neighbor from tearing down their house and building a structure more suited to their needs? Would you tell a neighbor that the fact they need more space to accommodate their unexpected twins means they ought to move to the suburbs? How does your neighbor building a modern structure harm you?

 

Is there no course of action to improve the HAHC?

 

Is there no course of action to have a clause in the ordinance to exclude those who bought into the neighborhood prior to the creation of a historic district?

 

I am in agreement with you that it is not fair to the people who bought in prior to an HD creation. But I am also in agreement that if there is a supermajority vote to ratify a historic district then it is justified.

 

Based on what fwki has said in the other forum, is there not a current plan between the planning committee and the HAHC due to the fact that the HAHC has not been consistent with their rulings? This would seem to me like a recognition by the city that there is a problem and they are taking action to try and improve it. 

 

Would you support a historic district if it had provisions for existing owners to be exempt from the HAHC and the neighborhood had a supermajority vote in support of it? 

 

I want to stress yet again because every reply I am getting is hostile, I'm not here to pick a fight. There has got to be a way to compromise here. There is no need to demonize the opposition.

[fwki]

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. 

Sheesh laiall, I've been posting about the Hysterical Preservation Faction elitists moving on Norhill Addition for over a year.  I even posted the link to a study funded by Preservation Houston and posted on the UH Hobby Center for Public Policy stating exactly that fact.  Just because you posted a very clear Petition and solicited neighbors to take Step One doesn't change any of that.  You seem not know much at all about the Ordinance, it's cost, history, how it's being manipulated and enforced or all the trickery used to slap it on the Heights folks in 2010.  You missed the bait-n-switch and all the love it fostered.  How can one even have an opinion on the Ordinance with so little information?  Most engineers I know wouldn't make that Petition move without a little homework first.  Yet you are all for it on Change.org.  Very interesting, indeed. 

 

Here's the City video link, go to Committees and Commissions and do a search for "historic": http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/   I have about two years' worth ripped for YouTube fodder.

[laiall]

Sheesh laiall, I've been posting about the Hysterical Preservation Faction elitists moving on Norhill Addition for over a year. I even posted the link to a study funded by Preservation Houston and posted on the UH Hobby Center for Public Policy stating exactly that fact. Just because you posted a very clear Petition and solicited neighbors to take Step One doesn't change any of that. You seem not know much at all about the Ordinance, it's cost, history, how it's being manipulated and enforced or all the trickery used to slap it on the Heights folks in 2010. You missed the bait-n-switch and all the love it fostered. How can one even have an opinion on the Ordinance with so little information? Most engineers I know wouldn't make that Petition move without a little homework first. Yet you are all for it on Change.org. Very interesting, indeed.

Here's the City video link, go to Committees and Commissions and do a search for "historic": http://houstontx.city.swagit.com/ I have about two years' worth ripped for YouTube fodder.

You can keep on with the insults. I will not combat them with insults back to you because it is not constructive whatsoever. Due to your perceived interpretation of my petition, i have updated in an attempt to listen to what you have to say.

Is there improvement among the ordinance, HAHC, etc at all? Has the city shown an awareness that there is a problem? Surely, there is hypothetically a way for a historic district to be beneficial.

Being an actual resident of Norhill Addition, what are your personal feelings about all the demolitions occurring in our neighborhood? Are you of the opinion that the neighborhood would be better off with no deed restrictions, no HD, etc., and that property owner rights rule supreme?

[fwki]

You can keep on with the insults. I will not combat them with insults back to you because it is not constructive whatsoever. Due to your perceived interpretation of my petition, i have updated in an attempt to listen to what you have to say.

Is there improvement among the ordinance, HAHC, etc at all? Has the city shown an awareness that there is a problem? Surely, there is hypothetically a way for a historic district to be beneficial.

Being an actual resident of Norhill Addition, what are your personal feelings about all the demolitions occurring in our neighborhood? Are you of the opinion that the neighborhood would be better off with no deed restrictions, no HD, etc., and that property owner rights rule supreme?

Please point out the insults in my last post because I missed 'em totally and I promised Subdude no personal attacks.  But my question stands: How can one have a strong enough opinion to post and solicit signatories for a very clear Petition to encumber our properties with seemingly so little information?

[laiall]

Please point out the insults in my last post because I missed 'em totally and I promised Subdude no personal attacks. But my question stands: How can one have a strong enough opinion to post and solicit signatories for a very clear Petition to encumber our properties with seemingly so little information?

I am not aware of a way that deed restrictions can prevent demolitions. I am not convinced that even if there was a provision in a deed restriction for approval by the civic association prior to demolition it would be enforceable. I've seen the sections of our neighborhood within the Greater Heights contained within the Historic Districts and they are noticeably more intact with original Craftsmans (i.e. - woodland heights, norhill HDs, etc)

Can we stop the demolitions with just deed restrictions?

As i mentioned earlier, your points have been duly noted and i updated my petition for clarity: http://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-gauge-interest-in-a-south-norhill-historic-district

[fwki]

I am not aware of a way that deed restrictions can prevent demolitions. I am not convinced that even if there was a provision in a deed restriction for approval by the civic association prior to demolition it would be enforceable.

Can this be achieved?

As i mentioned earlier, your points have been duly noted and i updated my petition for clarity: http://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-gauge-interest-in-a-south-norhill-historic-district

Sure you could have Deed Restrictions that prevent demolitions because DR's are covenants among willing parties.  The original DR's had clauses about "Coloreds" living in the front house and all kinds of stuff that is now illegal.  I just looked at your new Petition soliciting input, we may have to draft you onto the Norhill Deed Restrictions Renewal team since we need all the help we can muster and you have made the same mistake: publically expressing interest.  I'm serious, check out the Norhill Addition subsection of NextDoor.

[laiall]

Sure you could have Deed Restrictions that prevent demolitions because DR's are covenants among willing parties. The original DR's had clauses about "Coloreds" living in the front house and all kinds of stuff that is now illegal. I just looked at your new Petition soliciting input, we may have to draft you onto the Norhill Deed Restrictions Renewal team since we need all the help we can muster and you have made the same mistake: publically expressing interest. I'm serious, check out the Norhill Addition subsection of NextDoor.

Greg just added me to it yesterday. I had NO idea there was another revision for the deed restrictions in process until I was added to the group. Let me know what I can do to help. I am genuinely interested.

[Ross]

Is there no course of action to improve the HAHC?

 

Is there no course of action to have a clause in the ordinance to exclude those who bought into the neighborhood prior to the creation of a historic district?

 

I am in agreement with you that it is not fair to the people who bought in prior to an HD creation. But I am also in agreement that if there is a supermajority vote to ratify a historic district then it is justified.

 

Based on what fwki has said in the other forum, is there not a current plan between the planning committee and the HAHC due to the fact that the HAHC has not been consistent with their rulings? This would seem to me like a recognition by the city that there is a problem and they are taking action to try and improve it. 

 

Would you support a historic district if it had provisions for existing owners to be exempt from the HAHC and the neighborhood had a supermajority vote in support of it? 

 

I want to stress yet again because every reply I am getting is hostile, I'm not here to pick a fight. There has got to be a way to compromise here. There is no need to demonize the opposition.

 

Improve the HAHC? Abolish it.

 

An exclusion for those who want to opt out would make the ordinance slightly less bad

 

I don't think the HAHC really cares what anyone thinks - they keep sending folks to the Planning Commission, and the PC keeps reversing the HAHC.

[Ross]

Can we stop the demolitions with just deed restrictions?

 

Why stop the demolitions? Why would you ever care that your neighbor wants a different house? That's a real question, by the way.  As long as the house meets the deed restrictions that were mutually agreed, it shouldn't matter that your neighbor builds a house identical to what you might find in a suburb, or a "Charlestonian".

[laiall]

Why stop the demolitions? Why would you ever care that your neighbor wants a different house? That's a real question, by the way.  As long as the house meets the deed restrictions that were mutually agreed, it shouldn't matter that your neighbor builds a house identical to what you might find in a suburb, or a "Charlestonian".

 

To be clear about my stance, I'm not opposed to any demolitions ever. I understand that there are some homes that are dilapidated to the point that it doesn't make sense to renovate. 

 

The Arts and Crafts era of architecture is a celebrated period in American architecture. The Norhill Addition also has some Houston specific history being developed by a historical Houston figure in William Hogg who was a champion of the city (donated Camp Logan to the city, etc). The general Houston philosophy of the past is to knock down and rebuild. This makes it all the more impressive how the neighborhood has been able to remain intact despite this (probably due to the fact that up until recently there was not so much pressure from people moving inside the loop). Residents have fought tooth and nail in the past to preserve what we believe is something worth saving.

 

Ross, are you of the opinion that there is nothing redeemable in preserving history ever? 

 

Btw, the deed restrictions do prevent anyone from building a"Charlestonian" in the neighborhood. The problem is two-fold as well; most of the new construction in the neighborhood are homes that are >3000 sq ft being built on 5000 sq ft lots. I've personally witnessed builders coming in, building these behemoths, and effectively permanently blocking any sunlight from ever entering the neighboring houses again. Its either irresponsible development by a builder or a lack of regard by the new homeowner, both of which damage the quality of life of the neighbors. I understand that this specific problem can be solved w/ minimum setback provisions in the deed restrictions.

 

I think this is one of the few examples of a builder doing an excellent job of both honoring that which it replaced while at the same time being appropriately sized (i.e. - not so big as to hinder the neighbors quality of life): http://www.har.com/HomeValue/1136-Peddie-St-Houston-77009-M40838644.htm

[samagon]

Is there no course of action to improve the HAHC?

There is nothing in place, and on the surface, no one is taking any action to do so.

 

Is there no course of action to have a clause in the ordinance to exclude those who bought into the neighborhood prior to the creation of a historic district?

No

 

I am in agreement with you that it is not fair to the people who bought in prior to an HD creation. But I am also in agreement that if there is a supermajority vote to ratify a historic district then it is justified.

There was no supermajority vote to change the historic district from a guideline to an ordinance that fines anyone who doesn't comply with inconsistent rulings, or waste inordinate amounts of time fighting those rulings.

 

Based on what fwki has said in the other forum, is there not a current plan between the planning committee and the HAHC due to the fact that the HAHC has not been consistent with their rulings? This would seem to me like a recognition by the city that there is a problem and they are taking action to try and improve it. 

There is no indication that anyone within the city cares to make it better.

 

Would you support a historic district if it had provisions for existing owners to be exempt from the HAHC and the neighborhood had a supermajority vote in support of it? 

Yes. 

 

I want to stress yet again because every reply I am getting is hostile, I'm not here to pick a fight. There has got to be a way to compromise here. There is no need to demonize the opposition.

 

They've been a part of this unfolding for years now, and while my house is not in a HD, it is well old enough to be, I want no part of what they must endure, and can understand every bit of hostility they ooze. 

[laiall]

We're supposed to have the judicial branch and the constitution to protect us from people voting in laws that take away rights from the minority. It seems that people always forget about that when there's a law they support though.

 

Isn't that speaking at the federal level though?

 

Initiatives are used at the state and local level to bring issues to a popular vote.

 

Contrarily, couldn't a referendum be used likewise to repeal a Historic District if the popular vote was adequate? 

[Marksmu]

Laill all you really have to do to know everything you need to know about the districts is look at how they were "voted" into existence in the first place.

 

They used 1 set of facts to get a bunch of "petitions" signed.  The petitions called for limited restrictions and waiting periods that would allow people to comment and offer help/insight.  They got the needed signatures based on those facts.  Then using those signatures they changed everything.   When it became evident that the majority did not support the changes, they accelerated the process.  They claimed the petitions were votes...when enough people turned out against the ordinance they decided to do a ballot by mail...if you can call it a ballot. 

 

That ballot came over the Christmas holiday, between Dec 21 & Dec 22, and needed to be returned by December 31st (if I recall)...it came in an unmarked city envelope and it stated that you are NOT required to return the ballot.  On the SAME day the ballot was received a half page, glossy color postcard arrived as well.  This postcard was from the official office of Mayor Parker and it asked all homeowners not to return the ballot.....THEN in the absolute most dishonest way possible, not returning a ballot was considered a vote in favor of the districts.  Despite the cards being stacked against the opposition, opposing ballots were returned with (I believe) 47% opposition...which was not sufficient to overcome the original petition.  What that tells me is that when 47% of people in one area vote - then the overwhelming majority are against it...To make matters worse, the city allowed itself to vote.  The esplanades, parks, schools, etc were allowed to be counted in favor of the districts.  In an even more dishonest way, people who owned multiple properties were only allowed to vote once.  I owned 3 properties at the time, 2 in the districts and was only allowed 1 vote.  That is DISHONEST.

 

The way that it was enacted should tell you everything you need to know about the people supporting it. 

 

I am an Engineer, Lawyer, Realtor...I live in the world of facts and this ordinance is terrible.  Only intellectually dishonest people can say that it was enacted with the support of the neighbors, or that the Heights or any other neighborhood actually wanted it.  People were lied to, deceived, cheated, and ultimately stolen from.  The will of a vocal politically well connected minority won in a very dishonest way.  It will take more time, but as more and more households are exposed to the ridiculousness of this ordinance the opposition will grow stronger and stronger.

[samagon]

fwki,

 

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. 

 

laiall, in an effort to steer this discussion back from a tangential discussion with little hope of providing any actual benefit to this thread, I will ask you some questions:

 

have you completely read the ordinance?

 

have you reviewed how the HAHC has ruled?

 

have you considered how this would not just impact you, but your neighbors (positive and negative)?

 

have you found people who have gone through the process and spoken with them?

 

have you found people who are in a HD, but not gone through the process and asked them why they haven't?

 

I personally have not done the latter of the two, but logically, based on what the ordinance states and what the HAHC is doing, they're going to be frustrated. every one of them, not just from the added time spent, but the money wasted because the HAHC is making decisions based on fiat rather than following the ordinance.

[SilverJK]

Not sure how true this is... but I've heard that a lot of the signatures used for the HD implementation (in Woodland Heights specifically) aren't even the current homeowners.

 

 

I could see something like the HAHC (obviously not in its current configuration) being useful around demolitions.  Mandatory waiting periods for demolition unless approved by the HAHC seems like a task that would be appropriate... but after what I've seen from the HAHC, I will never support anything that doesn't have clear cut guidelines (prior to implementation).

 

[laiall]

laiall, in an effort to steer this discussion back from a tangential discussion with little hope of providing any actual benefit to this thread, I will ask you some questions:

 

have you completely read the ordinance?

 

I have read through Chapter 33, Article VII, Divisions 4 & 5. Do I have them  memorized? No. Do I know where to go to reference it for information? Yes.

 

I am curious, Division 5 (Design Guidelines), Section 33-268 states:

"After approval, the HAHC shall use the criteria within the design guidelines for granting or denying applications for certificates of appropriateness for applicable activities within the boundaries of the historic district."

 

BUT, Division 4 (COA), Section 33-241 seems to have all the guidelines laid out? If we were to give our own very specific Design Guidelines would they supercede criteria laid out in Division 4?

 

have you reviewed how the HAHC has ruled?

So far, fwki has showed me the youtube video for Brie's hearing for the Harvard home. Working on watching some more based on links provided earlier in this thread.

 

 

have you considered how this would not just impact you, but your neighbors (positive and negative)?

If >67% of the neighborhood was for a historic district, deed restrictions were unable to be adequately enforced AND we could institute some of the changes that have been mentioned thus far (provision to allow owners prior to the HD creation would be exempt from COA, etc) then I would be all for an HD.

 

I understand the property owners' rights angle, but what about those which already live in a community and bought into it for a certain atmosphere/lifestyle? It goes both ways. I would be happy with an enforcable deed restriction which requires the local community's approval (in this case the WHCA) prior to demolition.  

 

Our current deed restrictions state: "The Community Affairs Committee of the existing local civic association shall monitor exterior remodeling, additions, or improvements, and shall use all legal means, whether public or private, to enforce the deed restrictions herin set out." However, from what I have read on Nextdoor the city refuses to enforce any of our deed restrictions. Hopefully, fwki can chime in here since he is actually on the deed restrictions committee.

 

have you found people who have gone through the process and spoken with them?

Like you, I have not done this nor am I sure how I could go about doing this. I have contemplated on posting to Nextdoor to see if I'd get any feedback, but haven't done so yet.

 

have you found people who are in a HD, but not gone through the process and asked them why they haven't?

Same as above.

 

 

[barracuda]

laiall, in an effort to steer this discussion back from a tangential discussion with little hope of providing any actual benefit to this thread, I will ask you some questions:

 

have you completely read the ordinance?

 

have you reviewed how the HAHC has ruled?

 

have you considered how this would not just impact you, but your neighbors (positive and negative)?

 

have you found people who have gone through the process and spoken with them?

 

have you found people who are in a HD, but not gone through the process and asked them why they haven't?

 

I personally have not done the latter of the two, but logically, based on what the ordinance states and what the HAHC is doing, they're going to be frustrated. every one of them, not just from the added time spent, but the money wasted because the HAHC is making decisions based on fiat rather than following the ordinance.

 

In general, I do like the character of most older homes and am in favor of preserving or renovating the salvageable ones rather than demolishing them. And on paper, the ordinance does not look all that bad, although I'm not a fan of some of the criteria, such as the setback requirements that results in unbecoming camelback additions. 

 

What I do have a problem with is the implementation of the restrictions, namely, the fact that some commission members will adjust the criteria when they don't like a particular project. The ordinance was written in a way that gives the commission members quite a bit of leeway in some areas, but some rules, like the setback requirement, are very clearly stated. This ordinance scope creep is evident, considering several denials have had to be overturned by the city.  

 

The only way for the historic district ordinance to be successful (or more tolerable) is if HAHC interprets the ordinance honestly and follows it as it is written. In my opinion, the homeowner should always be given the benefit of the doubt if there is a difficult project or a split decision. They are the ones whose lives are on hold while waiting for a CoA, and they are improving a house and investing in the neighborhood, while also facing increased property taxes.

 

If there is a real need to change the criteria, that should be put to a vote within the affected areas. Of course, I also don't think the original vote-in process was truly sincere, as per one of the previous posts, so I don't know how much good that would do. 

[laiall]

In general, I do like the character of most older homes and am in favor of preserving or renovating the salvageable ones rather than demolishing them. And on paper, the ordinance does not look all that bad, although I'm not a fan of some of the criteria, such as the setback requirements that results in unbecoming camelback additions. 

 

What I do have a problem with is the implementation of the restrictions, namely, the fact that some commission members will adjust the criteria when they don't like a particular project. The ordinance was written in a way that gives the commission members quite a bit of leeway in some areas, but some rules, like the setback requirement, are very clearly stated. This ordinance scope creep is evident, considering several denials have had to be overturned by the city.  

 

The only way for the historic district ordinance to be successful (or more tolerable) is if HAHC interprets the ordinance honestly and follows it as it is written. In my opinion, the homeowner should always be given the benefit of the doubt if there is a difficult project or a split decision. They are the ones whose lives are on hold while waiting for a CoA, and they are improving a house and investing in the neighborhood, while also facing increased property taxes.

 

If there is a real need to change the criteria, that should be put to a vote within the affected areas. Of course, I also don't think the original vote-in process was truly sincere, as per one of the previous posts, so I don't know how much good that would do. 

 

I agree with you about the 50% setback rule; it results in camelback shaped homes which don't flow with the original shape of the house.

 

I wonder how one would go about creating a referendum to revise the existing ordinance?

[Marksmu]

I agree with you about the 50% setback rule; it results in camelback shaped homes which don't flow with the original shape of the house.

I wonder how one would go about creating a referendum to revise the existing ordinance?

By compleltly repealing it and starting from scratch HONESTLY

[SilverJK]

I agree with you about the 50% setback rule; it results in camelback shaped homes which don't flow with the original shape of the house.

 

I wonder how one would go about creating a referendum to revise the existing ordinance?

 

 

And to make camelbacking worse... The HAHC has often recommended starting at 66%  back even though the guideline says 50%.  This makes the camelbacking even worse, as it would require you to use an even bigger footprint to get the same sq. footage.  To block "Lot line filling mcmansions" they have created something that causes the same issue they are trying to block... oh but you keep the same facade.    There is no reason why someone couldn't add a second story tastefully without having any setback or less than 50%, and the house wouldn't look nearly as stupid.  Humper houses have got to be one of the dumbest, ugliest things I've ever seen.

[SmellyHoustonian]

What I wouldn't give to be able to de-annex the Heights from the City. Y'all get so worked up over the most ridiculous stuff.

[Texasota]

Dear god yes. Please let them secede.

[Subdude]

Please note a discussion on the legalities was moved to the City Hall sub-forum.  

 

Link:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/28875-historic-preservation-and-exactions/#entry435737

 

Carry on.

 

[jamesw]

Thank you Subdude!

[Texasota]

And to make camelbacking worse... The HAHC has often recommended starting at 66%  back even though the guideline says 50%.  This makes the camelbacking even worse, as it would require you to use an even bigger footprint to get the same sq. footage.  To block "Lot line filling mcmansions" they have created something that causes the same issue they are trying to block... oh but you keep the same facade.    There is no reason why someone couldn't add a second story tastefully without having any setback or less than 50%, and the house wouldn't look nearly as stupid.  Humper houses have got to be one of the dumbest, ugliest things I've ever seen.

 

It's not just about an addition looking "tasteful," (which is somewhat subjective) it's about making the addition look subordinate to and different from the original house. Ideally, it should also be relatively easy to remove the addition if someone in the future wants to restore the house to its original appearance. 

[fwki]

It's not just about an addition looking "tasteful," (which is somewhat subjective) it's about making the addition look subordinate to and different from the original house. Ideally, it should also be relatively easy to remove the addition if someone in the future wants to restore the house to its original appearance. 

This is where the City and the HAHC is headed with the actual, new guidelines.  The Heights folks were told a bald-faced lie by Marlene Gafrick during her town hall meetings about the guidelines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWf-f9JRh4g) and what the ordinance allowed.  The current administration intends to take it all the way to 100% preservation ala National Park Standards where you'll just have some nominal attachment to the original to the addition, eliminating backyards if you want to expand.  Once this becomes evident and widely recognized, the ordinance is toast.  We now have enough on the HAHC and this shift to kill by local vote any substantive expansion of HD's, which is the original intent of this thread.

[Ross]

It's not just about an addition looking "tasteful," (which is somewhat subjective) it's about making the addition look subordinate to and different from the original house. Ideally, it should also be relatively easy to remove the addition if someone in the future wants to restore the house to its original appearance. 

 

Which makes no sense at all.Who cares whether you can return the house to its original appearance?