The Heights Historic Districts

[Porchman]

Check out their advertisement on swamplot if you think this is misinformation.

From Rice's Glasscock School..

Historic Houston Neighborhoods

Houston’s tremendous growth from village on the bayou to town to city came about because of increasing wealth from trade in cotton, lumber and eventually oil. Beginning in the 1890s, architects and landscape designers created suburbs now seen as close-in neighborhoods to house the influx of people. Local historians, including Stephen Fox, will look at several of these unique neighborhoods, including Courtlandt Place, Westmoreland and Independence Heights, to tell the story of the birth, growth and in some cases, the rebirth of some of these neighborhoods. In the opening lecture, Betty Trapp Chapman will examine the roots of Houston’s planned neighborhoods, and Courtney Tardy of the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance will close the series with a look at methods and attempts to preserve Houston’s neighborhoods.Neighborhoods to be discussed:

• Westmoreland
• Garden Oaks and Oak Forest
• Broadacres, Shadow Lawn and Shadyside
• Independence Heights and Magnolia Park
• Country Club Place and Idylwood
• Courtlandt Place

"Misinformation", no. Misinterpretation, yes. This discussion is lacking "ears" and discernment. That's not productive.

[chester77008]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Krol,

I did not buy into an historic district. It is being imposed upon me. It is my right to disagree.

Your facts are extremely vague. Since you seem to be in the know...can you please explain exactly how I would be allowed to add on to the size of my bungalow? I would assume I need plans, which cost money. Am I allowed to increase the width of a bungalow? If so, by how much?

[20thStDad]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

You kind of had me until the bolded part. Sorry, but in no way do your property rights extend beyond your property line. Wanting your surroundings to remain exactly they way they were when you bought is nothing more than a hope, it's certainly not a right.

[Ross]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Your property rights stop at your property line. Absent mutually agreed deed restrictions, the color, size, and appearance of your neighbors house is none of your business.

The plain text of the proposed ordinance gives control of paint color, demolition, and improvements to HAHC, which isn't elected, and will not be responsive to homeowners they percieve as not toeing their line. HAHC will, ultimately, be composed of control freaks who love telling other people what to do.

[sevfiv]

Fwiw, the GHPA did not chime in here - I was passing along information I received from them in an email update. And I agree with Porchman - more from GHPA about the intentions and what is being sought in the ordinance would be nice.

I am hoping they include that on the soon-to-be published web site mentioned in the email..

[Marksmu]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Krol,

Your facts are not really facts at all...after seeing late last night on here that there were possibly Criminal repercussions for making modifications to an existing home without approval I actually went online and read the ENTIRE ordinance, something I am almost 100% certain that the Mayor, most of our city council, and all her goons have not done.

The ordinance is an outrage. Its one of the largest power grabs I have ever read.

Absolutely no where in the ordinance does it say they cannot control the color of your house. In fact the ordinance controls "any alteration" to the exterior of the home. Alteration is defined on page 1 of the ordinance as "any change to the exterior of the building, structure, object or site. Alteration shall include, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO"

It is not limited to what is written, they have intentionally left the door wide open to what they can control. In fact by stating that they can control the site, they can also automatically control the landscaping, fencing, and everything else they feel like it. THAT IS NOT misinformation, that is black and white written down in the ordinance.

You may want to argue that painting is "ordinary maintenance and repair" Well - ordinary maintenance and repair, does not need approval under the ordinance, unless the maintenance and repair "does not change the design, character, texture, or material of any exterior feature or constitute and alteration" (already defined above to be unlimited)

Well...maybe it doesn't apply to me because nothing historic happened on my property, and my house is an ugly non-historic Jim Weekly home built in the 50's after the original bungalow burned down! Wrong again. If you are within the historic district, then the whole thing applies to you. That is located on page 5 of the ordinance 33-202 "scope"

What is potentially really scary in the ordinance??? I will tell you. The ordinance can potentially be applied retroactively. You see the ordinance applies to the "site" and as defined "site" includes buildings and structures whether ruined, demolished, or relocated where the location retains historical, architectural, or archaeological value and integrity. But what could they do to the site??? They could require you to restore it! Under enforcement - 33-203(a) reads that "the city attorney may institute any legal action necessary to enforce this article or enjoin or otherwise cause the abatement of any violations hereof, including legal action necessary to recover damages, or REQUIRE RESTORATION OR RECONSTRUCTION" (This is admittedly a stretch, and I dont think they would require a person to tear down their new house and put the old one back...but the point is that you dont actually KNOW what they will do....its not in YOUR CONTROL, its in the control of a bunch of people who want to control your property, who are APPOINTED, not elected by the Mayor, who has already clearly stated her agenda, and is intentionally trying to ramrod this through without public opinion)

So, what its just money right? Wrong - the poster above who stated it was a misdemeanor, A CRIME, was correct. Dont ask me how, I really do not understand how they could reach so far, but they have - it will be a CRIME, a misdemeanor, punishable by a minimum of $50 and not more than $500 for each violation found. Not only that, each day that the violation remains uncorrected is a NEW crime....Example. You paint your house Tan on a Saturday - the powers that be decide they dont like tan. They tell you its not historic, make it white. Then they fine you $500 on Monday when they find out You say what a crock of doo doo....but you have a job, and can only paint on the weekends....so you decide to fix it on Saturday...well thats a costly mistake, but Tuesday-Friday are all separate new violations...that delay could potentially cost you $2500 because they dont like the color you chose.

Well...Im not in a historic district now, Im West of Ashland, so I am safe right? - Wrong - the ordinance allows the city council to designate (without chance for objection) buildings, structures, objects, sites, landmarks, and historic districts. They can do it as they see fit, when they feel like it, and you do not get to object in any real way....that is on page 10 "Division 3, Sec 33-221 "Designation" When instigated by the HAHC, you caat comment on it. When instigated by the homeowners you need 67% but when done by HAHC, nothing. They decide, because they know better than you what is good for your property. You are just too stupid to know what you should like.

So, what if you like the ordinance, and you just want to do some minor work that will require a permit - Everything that requires a permit requires inspection (except emergency repairs, which will still need to be certified as compliant afterward, and corrected if deemed inappropriate)

Well you will need plans drawn up to submit, or you will have to offer a photo with detailed instructions and materials of the changes to be made. That costs money and then they have 35 days minimum and as long as 70 days to decide on your application. If they reject it, you can resubmit and their time line starts over.

That is just some of the highlights in this joke of an ordinance...there are many more that I did not take the time to highlight.

The bottom line is that the ordinance, as written can control EVERY aspect of the outside of the house. It specifically exempts the inside of the home for the time being. It allows for massive expansion of areas as they deem fit, simply by having HAHC, in HAHC's own opinion decide that the area is historic.

None of this is MISINFORMATION, its all in the ordinance....look it up yourself.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

It is legally impossible, 100% impossible for my property to infringe upon your rights, if it does not cross your property boundary, or cause a legal nusiance. Your rights END at your property line. You do not get to say what I do on my side, anymore than I get to say what you do on your side. If that were not the case I would just force you to move, because I don't like your attitude and your snobby feelings of entitlement encroaching upon my enjoyment of my property.

This designation of historic has been done AFTER everyone bought without our input. It materially affects the value of our property, and is a taking of our private property rights.

[OutfieldDan]

Wow! Lots of inaccurate information here and a seemingly lack of desire to have accurate information or, at the very least, to dismiss accurate information when it is offered.

Here are some facts: additions will still be allowed, there's nothing about paint color, most requests get approved by historic commission, demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved, there are tax incentives for improvements and they will continue, new construction will still be allowed. That's just a start on the facts.

There's a lot of discussion about property rights, but what about when an owner's right to do what he/she wants with his/her property infringes on my property rights to continue to enjoy my property and what I bought into, which was a historic neighborhood.

A small group of builders and realtors who don't even live in Houston Heights are behind the inaccurate information and fear mongering. That is not surprising.

BTW, Nicholson is not in any historic district.

Here are some specific facts and information about the meeting last night:

1. Additions must be approved by HAHC. If they don't like your addition, it's NOT approved. If the addition is visible from the street you may not be able to construct it at all.

2. At last night's meeting it was said that painting your home is OK. However the language is broad enough to allow HAHC to require approval for painting. It seemed last night that they attempted to placate the audience about paint, but in the future HAHC could include paint color in their subjective decisions. One comment from the floor was from a Historic District resident who was DENIED by HAHC to replace his light fixture on his porch. Information provided last night also concerned appropriate window replacements if a homeowner wanted to upgrade to be more energy efficient, and of course HAHC must approve your windows. All windows must be appropriate to the historic look and choices are limited and more expensive in the marketplace.

3. Most requests do NOT get approved by HAHC. Eventually the property owner relents because there is NO option. I would like to see the statistics of approvals of plans as proposed by the homeowner.

4. Demolitions of dilapidated property get approved now and will continue to get approved. This is false. Very few demolitions are approved and very few will be approved in the future under the new law.

5. Tax incentives are limited to a portion of city taxes (small part of total property tax), expire after 15 years, and apply only if the homeowner spends a large amount for restoration. There is no tax break for living in a historic district, or for improving your home unless you spend more than $50,000.

6. New construction will NOT be allowed unless the HAHC approves of it. If your home burns down you will NOT be allowed to rebuild it without a certificate of appropriateness and you will be required to change your home design to be appropriate historically. As an example it was mentioned last night by a HAHC representative that in the Heights, porches would be required and flat roofs that exist now on many commercial properties will be prohibited.

FWIW, the meeting format did not allow anyone who attended the opportunity to speak We could only pose a "question" to be answered by Lovell or her minions. Despite the rules, some did interrupt from the floor and expressed their opinions - which were ALL critical of the new rules. The only questions being answered concerned new procedures until someone interruped from the floor and requested that the "tough questions" be answered. Later, comments from the floor were ignored. It was mentioned that many of the questions were not questions, but instead statements of opinion, and these were discarded with no comments to the audience. Apparently the idea that the meetings are to gauge public reaction is false and instead the design of the meetings is to supress the public's reaction. I guess that there were 200-300 that attended.

Apparently attendees will have to be more disruptive at the next few meetings to get their opinions heard.

Edited July 28, 2010 by OutfieldDan

[SCDesign]

For those of you that didn't go to the meeting last night, which is probably everyone, here is what happened:

First and most important: there were only about 300 people there in an auditorium that probably seats 2,000. Of those 300 probably 250 were against this ordinance. The pictures are going to show a mostly empty venue that will be perfect proof that the public really isn't all that worked up about this issue. If people are against this they need to turn out to these meeting!

This meeting was just about what is being proposed but they did not want to talk about specific areas. They will talk about specific areas when they hold the area meetings. They did take written questions and are supposed to post teh questions and answers in the City website this week. Of course they downplay the impact of the Ordinance but they did everything they could to NOT be specific about what it actually will do.

Highlights:

1) The idea of getting your signature off of the petition, and stopping the designation, is dead. Marleen said that the Planning Committee meeting for the Distric submittal was last week and it was approved by them and sent with support to the City Council. They will not withdraw support or request its removal from the Agenda, so next week it will be named a Historic District

2) They will not do a re-petition. Period. They MAY do a mailed out ballot to remove Historic Designations from districts if it is clear that there is significant oppositions, which will be determined in an as yet undetermined manner. Since they do not believe there was any fraud in the petition process they do not believe there will be fraud in a ballot process, so they are sure that the ballots will be an honest process and there will be no reason for extrordinay measures to insure the it is fair.

3) Preserving the DISTRICT is paramount so everythng in the district will require HAHC inspection. Any work requiring a permit must get a CoA before the permit is issued, on all strucutures whether contributing or not. If your new house burns down you will not be allowed to rebuild the same structure if it is deemed not compatible, you will have to design a new compatible structure, regardless of the number of non contributing structures on your block.

REALLY SCARY! Marleen said, when people protested that this change was not what they agreed to when they signed the petition, that Preservation is a process that must be taken in steps and that the signers should have realized that what they were signing was just the beginning. Each change is a step toward their ultimate goal of preserviing Houston and this is just another step. If this is just another step WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP?

Ending the meeting Sue restated that this is something she supports and will fight for, but she does want to hear what everyone wants to say. When someone shouted "THIS IS ZONING, IT NEEDS A REFORENDUM!" She shouted back "NOT IT IS NOT AND THERE WILL BE NO REFORENDUM!"

If anyone else was there please add anything that I forgot, and correct me if you find anything that I am wrong about.

One last thing: the turnout was pathetic! If people are really against this there need to be a hell of a lot more showing up. I don't think even 1,000 per meeting will be enough to make them do a new ballot. It's going to take THOUSANDS who are vocal, intelligent and serious to get their attention.

Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to note that the rep from the City Attorney's Office said, basically, "we can't stop people from suing over this, and we expect it, but we do not feel it will be overturned so we are prepared to fight (with your money)"

Edited July 28, 2010 by SCDesign

[heights]

Have there been any mainstream media stories about this issue and the potential consequences?

[Marksmu]

Oh, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to note that the rep from the City Attorney's Office said, basically, "we can't stop people from suing over this, and we expect it, but we do not feel it will be overturned so we are prepared to fight (with your money)"

Well - Being that I am an attorney, I own a house effected by the ordinance, and I dont have to pay my own fees, I can fight it relatively cheaply. If it passes, I will sue....I would need to get plenty of evidence, which could be provided by realtors and builders, but I am not going to sit back and let a bunch of bureaucrats destroy my investments so they can live in their personal utopia where they can control everything they want.

I'm sick of more and more government intrusion, this just takes it much much farther. Its sickening to think that I am forced to pay taxes to support these idiots agenda! We are certainly getting what we voted for this time around...

[SCDesign]

Well - Being that I am an attorney, I own a house effected by the ordinance, and I dont have to pay my own fees, I can fight it relatively cheaply. If it passes, I will sue....I would need to get plenty of evidence, which could be provided by realtors and builders, but I am not going to sit back and let a bunch of bureaucrats destroy my investments so they can live in their personal utopia where they can control everything they want.

I'm sick of more and more government intrusion, this just takes it much much farther. Its sickening to think that I am forced to pay taxes to support these idiots agenda! We are certainly getting what we voted for this time around...

I have a very good friend who is a Real Estate attorney and he said this might just make him go into litigation. He kind of drooled as he said "class action"

[jamesw]

I too am not too happy about this. I recently bought a house in the Historic District (moved over from Pinelawn) and it has a set of double doors from the second story ONTO NOTHING. I guess the builder ran out of money... I've been thinking of either adding a deck or deck/port cachere up there but that would require a CoA. Since it's on the side of the house, would I get one????

Anyhow, at first I was not worried about it because my housing is a Non Contributing Structure. But now that is all getting tossed out the window! I guess if this passes, I can just ask the city for the money back that I just spent on this house which is Non Contributing but I will STILL be prohibited from remodeling....argh!

Cheers

James

[SCDesign]

I too am not too happy about this. I recently bought a house in the Historic District (moved over from Pinelawn) and it has a set of double doors from the second story ONTO NOTHING. I guess the builder ran out of money... I've been thinking of either adding a deck or deck/port cachere up there but that would require a CoA. Since it's on the side of the house, would I get one????

Anyhow, at first I was not worried about it because my housing is a Non Contributing Structure. But now that is all getting tossed out the window! I guess if this passes, I can just ask the city for the money back that I just spent on this house which is Non Contributing but I will STILL be prohibited from remodeling....argh!

Cheers

James

James, as of now you don't need a CoA so if you are planning on doing it in the next year you should go ahead and get a permit. If you have a permit they can't take it back or stop you doing the work. A permit is good for a year, and you can get an extension for another 6 months with no problem. That's not the point, I know, but... After this passes you'll probably have a better chance of removing the door and patching the hole than doing a balcony or porta cochere.

[Marksmu]

I have a very good friend who is a Real Estate attorney and he said this might just make him go into litigation. He kind of drooled as he said "class action"

Well, there is a very certain set of circumstances that will make this work. Only a builder, or an individual wishing to build is going to really be able to meet the requirements set forth in statute in order to make their claims ripe.

There is a VERY similar case out of dallas that speaks to the ripeness issue, TCI West End Inc. v. City of Dallas....274 S.W.3d 913

Essentially your claim for a regulatory taking via inverse condemnation is not ripe until the city denies the permit, and the HAHC denies your plans. Then you essentially have to request a variance. Once they deny the variance, then and only then is your claim ripe to even be able to sue.

If the city wants to, they can pick/choose the cases...if by chance they think the person applying wont sue, or does not have the funds to sue then they can deny...if they feel that the person will sue and has funds they can grant the variances, and allow the construction. If they grant everything prior to it becoming ripe, they can essentially pick/choose who gets into court, and who gets to build.

After researching the regulatory taking in Texas, I am certain that a case can be made that this ordinance is a taking...the unfortunate side is that the person who wants to try to overturn this is essentially going to have put out the funds to have plans made, apply for permits and run the whole HAHC horse race, be denied, and then apply for the variance, be denied...then they can sue. That is quite a few steps to just get into the courtroom over something this outrageous.

James (SCDESIGN is correct for now...if it passes) As to just putting a porch on the side of your house...(Im guessing your on Ashland at 14th - I have seen a house that has such a feature there) it would appear that all you have to do is take pictures of it now...make up plans for what Jmyou want to do, have an artist rendering or sketch completed, give them a list of materials and the costs, and then apply through the HAHC. If they deny you can go for a variance, if they deny again, you can sue.

Its going to come down to a homeowner angry enough and with enough money who is willing to take this on. It would be good if it were a builder, who actually wants to build the house, already owns the lot, has a set of plans...then we could drum up community support to pay expenses of suit and get this thing declared a regulatory taking.

It only takes one good case to set the precedent, and the city will have to follow it from then on. It just needs to be set up right from the get go. It would not be good to get a bad case as precedent as the first case to try the ordinance.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Marksmu

[jamesw]

SC: very good point. All of this has REALLY got me thinking about applying for a permit.

The thing is, I might just do away with the driveway completely (I have a corner lot w/ garage access from the sidestreet) and build one room upstairs and one downstairs where the driveway goes along w/ the house. That would be considered an addition on the side of the house and I can see the commission having a problem w/ that even if I make it look VERY good (wrap the porch around, use appropriate style and materials, etc).

It's just so frustrating that this can get passed w/ no public vote, no re-petition, etc. How is that possible????

Cheers

James

[SCDesign]

Well, there is a very certain set of circumstances that will make this work. Only a builder, or an individual wishing to build is going to really be able to meet the requirements set forth in statute in order to make their claims ripe.

There is a VERY similar case out of dallas that speaks to the ripeness issue, TCI West End Inc. v. City of Dallas....274 S.W.3d 913

Essentially your claim for a regulatory taking via inverse condemnation is not ripe until the city denies the permit, and the HAHC denies your plans. Then you essentially have to request a variance. Once they deny the variance, then and only then is your claim ripe to even be able to sue.

If the city wants to, they can pick/choose the cases...if by chance they think the person applying wont sue, or does not have the funds to sue then they can deny...if they feel that the person will sue and has funds they can grant the variances, and allow the construction. If they grant everything prior to it becoming ripe, they can essentially pick/choose who gets into court, and who gets to build.

After researching the regulatory taking in Texas, I am certain that a case can be made that this ordinance is a taking...the unfortunate side is that the person who wants to try to overturn this is essentially going to have put out the funds to have plans made, apply for permits and run the whole HAHC horse race, be denied, and then apply for the variance, be denied...then they can sue. That is quite a few steps to just get into the courtroom over something this outrageous.

James (SCDESIGN is correct for now...if it passes) As to just putting a porch on the side of your house...(Im guessing your on Ashland at 14th - I have seen a house that has such a feature there) it would appear that all you have to do is take pictures of it now...make up plans for what Jmyou want to do, have an artist rendering or sketch completed, give them a list of materials and the costs, and then apply through the HAHC. If they deny you can go for a variance, if they deny again, you can sue.

Its going to come down to a homeowner angry enough and with enough money who is willing to take this on. It would be good if it were a builder, who actually wants to build the house, already owns the lot, has a set of plans...then we could drum up community support to pay expenses of suit and get this thing declared a regulatory taking.

It only takes one good case to set the precedent, and the city will have to follow it from then on. It just needs to be set up right from the get go. It would not be good to get a bad case as precedent as the first case to try the ordinance.

I'll volunteer to do the plans and make all of the submittals, at my expense, for anyone who would like to take it on. I have 200+ plans that I've drawn over the last 10 years, specifically for the Heights, so that's not problem. Most of them have already been built so there would be pictures to show the end product, and a couple have been nominated for Community Improvement Awards by the Heights Association. I don't have the land though so I can't be the principle. How would it look to have an award nominated plan submitted and rejected? I did a very nice Italinate Victorian on the corner of 13th and Columbia that was built 2 years ago that would be a perfect plan to start with: not too big, hugely Victorian and exactly what people think of when they think of the Heights.

[Krol]

Right off the top of my head, there's a bungalow in the 1400 block of Arlington which is currently being expanded (width and total square footage). The plans were approved by the historic commission. There's another bungalow in the 1800 block of Arlington that is currently for sale that was also expanded. These plans were also approved by the commission. Go take a look. 80% of applications to the commission get approved.

Krol,

I did not buy into an historic district. It is being imposed upon me. It is my right to disagree.

Your facts are extremely vague. Since you seem to be in the know...can you please explain exactly how I would be allowed to add on to the size of my bungalow? I would assume I need plans, which cost money. Am I allowed to increase the width of a bungalow? If so, by how much?

[Heights Homeowner]

SC, you are absolutely dead on about this ordinance and what it means as well as about the city. It was clear on Tuesday night that their intention is to chip away at our property rights. Marlene Gafrick, the Planning Director said that their plan was to "incrementally make the ordinance more restrictive" and that has been the plan all along. Sharie Beale said so in a HAHC meeting two years ago. She also said in an email to keep it quiet because they were still collecting signatures. This is local government over stepping and not caring how they do it.

Heights residents have a lot to be worried about.

[SilverJK]

Ok so I bought my house almost a year ago, on the edge of Woodland Heights. We aren't currently in the limits of the "historic district" but they will probably deem my block as part of it soon enough (Pecore). One of the main reasons we invested in this 'hood was because of the eccleticism and randomness of it. I guess Mayor Parker disagrees.

If someone puts together some good signs, I would love to post one in my front yard. (Pecore is pretty high traffic)

Also, if this rediculousness gets passed, maybe all non supporters should paint a purple/limegreen/orange stripe on our houses the day before it goes into effect. (or some other similar slap in the face).

This power grab literally makes me sick. Get off my lawn!

[TheNiche]

Its going to come down to a homeowner angry enough and with enough money who is willing to take this on. It would be good if it were a builder, who actually wants to build the house, already owns the lot, has a set of plans...then we could drum up community support to pay expenses of suit and get this thing declared a regulatory taking.

Why not instigate, follow through on the process, and sue the City yourself, leveraging your professional skills to keep your costs under control?

After all...you've mentioned several times how you had intended to knock down your rent house in the historic district, presumably to build something new in its place, whether for your enjoyment or for economic gain. Surely you could demonstrate an impairment so severe that it might constitute a regulatory taking.

Challenging constitutionality is a losing battle. You know it, too, which is why you aren't volunteering your case as the guinea pig. ...or perhaps its because you poisoned the potential for a good case by admitting elsewhere on the forum that you intended to demolish it with or without the necessary authorizations, which could be interpreted as flaunting your intent to commit a crime. (That was really dumb, btw.)

Edited July 29, 2010 by TheNiche

[jamesw]

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/houston_heights_design_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

[Marksmu]

Why not instigate, follow through on the process, and sue the City yourself, leveraging your professional skills to keep your costs under control?

After all...you've mentioned several times how you had intended to knock down your rent house in the historic district, presumably to build something new in its place, whether for your enjoyment or for economic gain. Surely you could demonstrate an impairment so severe that it might constitute a regulatory taking.

Challenging constitutionality is a losing battle. You know it, too, which is why you aren't volunteering your case as the guinea pig. ...or perhaps its because you poisoned the potential for a good case by admitting elsewhere on the forum that you intended to demolish it with or without the necessary authorizations, which could be interpreted as flaunting your intent to commit a crime. (That was really dumb, btw.)

I am fairly confident that a strong case of regulatory taking can be made...and yes I do have a rental house in the historic district that is not historic, and it was bought with the express purpose of possibly knocking it down and building a new one, but not a spec home for someone else...you see if you go back to the original posts I have on HAIF (3 years ago), I bought a new home in 2007 that had significant builder defects. I was having a very difficult time getting the builder to make the required repairs. I bought the older house, and renovated the inside with the thought that if my builder does not remedy my problems and instead exercises his unilateral option to simply purchase the home back instead of repairing it (as was provided by the TRCC) then I would simply live there until I had a set of plans and then knock it down and build a new one. As it turns out my builder stepped up to the plate and went above and beyond in repairing my house. So I rent the other house. Its not in great shape structurally, it has old house issues, but aesthetically it is quite pleasing on the inside.

I have had zero problems renting the house, and I am not a builder or speculator...I did not buy it thinking I would later knock it down and build a spec house...I bought it thinking I may have to make it my home at some point..and property at the time was not getting any cheaper, and I had pulled all my money out of the stock market (anticipating the declines that come with a Democrat presidency) leading up to the 2008 election, which is when I bought the property. Its been a good investment to date, I see no point in pulling out now...its been a winner.

I would gladly offer my professional time/energy at no charge to defeat the ordinance, but at the moment I do not have the need or desire to kick out a very nice renter, design a new house, have the plans drawn, go through the hassle of building, and then try to sell a spec home...I am sure there is money to be made doing that, but I am not in that position or looking to be in that position. I am not a builder and I am not looking to move...but I am an attorney, and I am willing to offer my time/energy to help someone else do exactly what I would have to do if I needed to build a new home.

As I stated before - to make your claim ripe, you have to be actually trying to do what is expressly forbidden by the ordinance I am not trying at the moment....A builder who has a lot they are trying to build on, with a set of plans that will get rejected is in a much better place than I am....I'm offering an expensive legal service free of charge to somebody who wants to challenge the ordinance. They have nothing to lose by letting me fight the ordinance for them...worst case scenario we lose, and the builder is back where he was before the suit. The only thing lost is time....If the plaintiff wins, the only thing won is the right to build...or minimal compensation for the actual taking of the rights....Its not going to be about money, its going to be about principal and property rights.

The current Texas Regulatory Taking test is below:

Texas courts, on a case-by-case basis, have employed several general tests to determine whether a compensable governmental taking has occurred under the provisions of the Texas Constitution, such as: (1) whether the governmental entity has imposed a burden on private real property which creates a disproportionate diminution in economic value or renders the property wholly useless,

(2) whether the governmental action against the owner's real property interest is for its own advantage,²² or

(3) whether the governmental action constitutes an unreasonable and direct physical or legal restriction or interference with the owner's right to use and enjoy the property.23

I believe that numbers a person can offer evidence satisfying all three tests, especially number three. The restrictions certainly dont make a property useless, they just make it less valuable...

[AtticaFlinch]

What I don't understand, and what I still don't understand even despite all the back and forth in this thread, is why the City is choosing to make their stand in the Heights with mostly residential wood frame houses, especially when it's obvious the neighborhood with the most real historical value is the near East End, directly across 59 from Downtown, which is still full of turn of the century brick clad warehouses.

Oh well. At least it's good to see Heights residents getting worked up about something actually relevant to their lives instead of whether or not a Walmart builds nearby.

[Marksmu]

For those worried about expanding their houses in a historic district, have a look at the design guide for the Historic Heights:

http://www.houstontx...sign_guide.html

Before I read that I was definitely worried, but it clears up a LOT of misinformation that's been posted here. For example, you CAN add on to the side of your house, not just the back.

Cheers

James

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

[jamesw]

I received an email from the Senior Planner - Historic Preservation stating that under the amended ordinance Hardi Plank and Vinyl Windows will now be considered "appropriate."

The point about considering the other houses on the block is a good one though as there is a small 2-1 bungalow next door. But then again, if I lived next door, I wouldn't want to look out the window at a giant exterior wall of someone else's house.

Cheers

James

[SCDesign]

Right off the top of my head, there's a bungalow in the 1400 block of Arlington which is currently being expanded (width and total square footage). The plans were approved by the historic commission. There's another bungalow in the 1800 block of Arlington that is currently for sale that was also expanded. These plans were also approved by the commission. Go take a look. 80% of applications to the commission get approved.

I designed and built the house on the 1800 block of Arlington so I'm glad you used that as an example. You CAN get plans approved for additions and expansions in the Historic Districts. I've done it a dozen times. The problem is that everytime I do it there is a laundry list of "suggestions" that they make in order for staff to recommend the plan for approval by the committee. Changes that are significant and costly and usually force substantial redesign and compromise by the owner. On this house they wanted the cantilever on the south side removed because "they didn't do cantilevers on the original structure". Without that cantilever I could not have a bedroom there, which would have forced me to remove one of the other bedrooms or redesign the whole thing. With this house I was fortunate enough to have a beautiful tree that I was trying to save and I was able to threaten to cut down the tree in order to force a compromise. On a number of other plans the only chip that I had to play was "you can let me do this and I'll do most of the other things that you want, or I'll wait 90 day and do what I want. Care to deal?" WIth this ordinance we lose that barganing position, even the ability to threaten cutting down a tree since they can control your whole lot, and the HAHC will have no reason to ever be reasonable or compromise.

As for your 80% number, if you include all of the applications for changing windows, porch rails, and all the little things that you are forced to ask permission to do now, than yeah, 80% is about right. Also, consider that the staff will discourage you from letting a submittal get to the committee unless that are going to recommend it for approval or you are submitting a plan knowing it will be rejected and are just starting the 90 day clocsk. Most plans get stopped well before they get to the committee.

Edited July 29, 2010 by SCDesign

[chester77008]

You CAN add to the side if the HAHC decides to allow you. That guideline takes your neighbors home into account before allowing you to do additions. If your addition would be larger than the neighbors or the blocks, then you will get rejected. The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

A reading of that guideline with the ordinance, makes one believe that if your house is currently historic, and has hardi plank siding you recently replaced, but you wish to make an addition, then the whole house would have to be resided with wood siding which is what is approved by the HAHC. Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

You should still be worried, we still have a very subjective HAHC deciding who gets to do what additions on a case by case basis, with no real avenue of appeal. You are no longer in control of your own property - a board of people who are obsessed with arbitrary control now gets to decide for you.

The question of adding to the side of your house is a very important one that is being ignored by planning, they have yet to answer the question. The ordinance requires that any addition be able to be removed at a later date to return the bungalow to its original state. Therefore, if you add to the side and modify the roof line of the bungalow the HAHC will not approve. If you add to the width of the bungalow at the rear, they will approve. They want additions to be obvious additions, thus leaving the bungalow in its original state.

[SCDesign]

I received an email from the Senior Planner - Historic Preservation stating that under the amended ordinance Hardi Plank and Vinyl Windows will now be considered "appropriate."

The point about considering the other houses on the block is a good one though as there is a small 2-1 bungalow next door. But then again, if I lived next door, I wouldn't want to look out the window at a giant exterior wall of someone else's house.

Cheers

James

James,

You can do an addition to the side of your house, and to the back as well, but it will have to be considered appropriate and approved. The HAHC will not generally allow you to do additions to the side that can be seen from the street. The number that is generally thrown around it "40 feet from the front edge of the structure" as far enough back to not affect the look from the street. You can do it closer if you are doing something that could have originally been done on the house, like a small bay window or nook. Since most bungalows in the Heights are about 40' deep you are basically forced to add to the back of the house.

There was a really nice plan submitted by Brickmoon Architects for a house in the 1800 block of Cortland that was rejected not because of the addition to the back but because of the dormered bay with a covered porch that they wanted to add to the dining area (if you have a bungalow you know where that is, about 15 feet from the front corner). It was a shame because the house would have been beautiful the way it was. I don't know if they found a way to work around it but I didn't see how they could have made it work with that space. It was rejected late last year and they haven't started work yet so they may not have been able to.

NOTE: I don't know the people at Brickmoon and do not know their position on this ordinance. I think they are very talented and like a lot of the things that they design but I know very little about them. I'm stating an example of something that I witnessed at an HAHC meeting.

[s3mh]

The ordinance also requires your addition to use materials that are historic.

Hardi Plank is expressly forbidden by the ordinance.

Do you have the section nos. for these? I cannot find what you are describing.

[Marksmu]

Do you have the section nos. for these? I cannot find what you are describing.

Sec. 33-241 - requires any exterior modification or addition to use the same material...unless they change the wording, hardi plank is forbidden, it was not invented until well after the original homes were constructed.

"The proposed design for any exterior alterations or addition must not destroy significant historical, architectural, or cultural material, and must be compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the property, and the area in which it is located"

I am not trying to be dishonest, or sell misinformation in an effort to defeat this...its all in the ordinance....the worst part of the whole ordinance is the only part of your home they cannot control, by the open and vague wording they intentionally used is the interior. Everything else, even the landscaping can easily fall within the wording of the ordinance.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Marksmu