| |
Historic Preservation vs. Don't Tread On Me Those owning property hold only title to the rights, powers and interests in the land, rather than owning the actual land itself. These rights, powers and interests are referred to as the “Bundle of Rights,” and may be compared to a bundle of sticks wherein each stick represents a distinct and separate right or privilege of ownership. The bundle of rights include:
1) The right to possess and use;
2) The right to control the property within the limits of the law;
3) The right to quiet enjoyment;
4) The right to dispose of all or part of the rights by sale, encumbering the property, granting easements, bequeathing, etc.;
5) The right not to take any of these actions.
As a specific example as to how one or more of the rights can be removed from the bundle, a landlord transfers the right to possess to a tenant in consideration for the money the tenant pays. Likewise, the right to use the property is limited within city limits by zoning laws which limit permitted uses in given areas.
Historic overlay zoning further limits property owners’ right to control the property by requiring committee approval for any changes to the exterior of the structure, roof type and other features visible from the street. It is considered an overlay because it is an additional restriction to whatever the existing zoning permits.
Generally, any and all work that affects an existing building or lot within a HP Zoned District, must be submitted to the Tulsa Preservation Commission for a “Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Review” prior to beginning the project. The following activities, however, are exempt from HP Zoning review.
1) Replacement of guttering, replacement of roof covering with like material and the application of paint to non-masonry surfaces (approval needed to paint any masonry or change roof type);
2) Interiors of buildings;
3) Portion of buildings not visible from adjoining streets (approval necessary for changing windows, doors, siding, etc.);
4) Accessory structures (garages, decks, fencing) that are not part of the primary structure if they are not located in the front yard;
5) Antennas;
6) Landscape maintenance and new planting;
7) Temporary stabilization.
Demolition requests are normally issued a Certificate of Appropriateness only if the property is imminently dangerous to life and property, does not contribute significantly to the district, or cannot be preserved. Demolition requests, even for properties that have become economically obsolescent, are automatically stayed for 60 days and may be extended for additional 60 days while all interested parties are consulted. Once the stay has lapsed, a property owner is then free to demolish the structure. The owner would then have to start the process of obtaining approval for the required Certificate of Appropriateness for any new structure.
While I personally agree with the intended purpose of historic preservation, the true-life application falls short and takes place through a process that has no set required standards for how a area approves such limitations on their property owners’ rights or even how these codes are enforced. A historic overlay is granted or denied by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission based on how hostile the public hearing crowd is and not by some required special majority vote (like 75%) of the property owners who are having their rights reduced. Furthermore, the approval process lacks specific rules of what is allowable, and is based on arbitrary decisions of committee members who do not have to live with the result.
In all press and neighborhood newsletter accounts of zoning meetings, what you never see are the tales of those affected. You never hear of the resident from the North Maple Ridge Historic District who spoke about her having to sell her home and move, because such restrictions were preventing her from installing a skylight and were ruining the enjoyment of her life. You never hear about the elderly lady who had to hang quilts over the windows in the winter because she was not allowed to put up storm windows. You never hear about the Swan Lake resident who installed an expensive new front door and was told by the appropriateness police to remove it. Residents have resorted to installing storm windows in the dark of night. At one approval meeting I attended, a couple from the Brady Heights neighborhood spent an hour defending their right to take down a mailbox and install a mail slot, because transients were stealing their mail which included checks for their consulting business.
As a Realtor, I deal daily with property values and repair issues. If I am working with a buyer and showing a historic district home that has not yet been updated, it is my duty to warn them that even though it is a great home and a great neighborhood that their rights will be limited. I believe that the reality is that historic zoning usually benefits just a core group of upper-end homes that have already been updated. Meanwhile, the surrounding marginal homes sit and deteriorate because no one is willing to take on the expense of renovating that property with the additional required approval process and the possibility of improvements being denied. Wood rot, energy inefficiency and eventual economic obsolescence are by no means charming.
I am also a longtime resident of a great midtown neighborhood. From dustbowl to the Beatles to millennium’s end, my children represent the third generation of our family to attend Lee Elementary. I once was the paperboy for the homes I now show, and, like most residents, I realize how fortunate I’ve been to grow up and remain in such great spot on the planet. No one is in favor of destroying the quality of life that exists in this neighborhood, but as one resident eloquently stated when Sunset Park historic zoning was defeated, “These are not museums but are our homes and lives”. The sentiment of this neighborhood was summed up by another resident who brought the room to applause with the statement “This neighborhood has been made great by the people who live here, and we don’t need outside help to keep it that way”. Too bad these statements didn’t make the paper either.
As with all governmental policies, the reality never reaches the desired goal. Personally, I do not have the need or desire to have another controlling entity in my life. Unfortunately, we cannot successfully legislate good taste, or we would all be in trouble in someone’s eyes.
| |
