Hi, I thought of something early this morning, it takes me a long time to process information. We discussed trying to make all of Belmont Heights historic and that it would be ok for a street or area to be excluded. My thinking is if a street choses not to be historic that they would not be able to change their mind as probably most of their houses would be out of compliance (referring to the area we discussed who probably would not want to join us). I would think the only way they could qualify for historic designation is if they were included in a large group of houses in compliance. This then would be a one time opportunity. Which raises another point, could a street or area choose to leave a historic designed site? Bette
Comments
Expansion strategy
Regarding whether a street or area could leave a historic district, I think we'll have to check both the city ordinance (which is being updated currently) and the BH HD ordinance. The key question, however, is whether a house is considered "contributing", because if it is, I don't see how they could get out of the HD. If it's "non-contributing," it really doesn't matter because as Kerstin said last night, they can do pretty much what they want with a non-contributing property. Also, if the property can be considered "contributing," it would be considered historic and still fall under the city ordinance even if not in the HD. So the homeowner would be required to get a Cert. of Appropriateness.
Regarding the expansion strategy, I have a couple of thoughts. 1) The time-frame that Kerstin mentioned was 1-3 years, with 1 year being the time to make Rose Park South an HD (with alot of community support) and 3 year being the time it took to establish the original Rose Park HD. Given that reality, to try to expand to the whole of BH may be a very long process with a lower probability of success. 2) We know that there are some sections of the Heights where opposition is likely to be very vocal. We could get bogged-down in dealing with that that could hinder overall progress. 3) To establish greater credibility from an association standpoint, it may be better to expand into a smaller area to get a win under our belts. It would also build momentum for further expansion and allow us to move up the learning curve. 4) Given the above, my recommendation would be to find the "low-hanging fruit" and expand into an area with high probability of success.
Sorry to be so long-winded. If anyone gets a chance, could you please review my minutes from last night's meeting and make any additions or corrections.
Thanks!
Paul
Post new comment