The Heights Historic District Guidelines & Ordinances

[MOpens]

That right there is sick. The pro-ordinance people are bat-turd-crazy! I bet they specifically photographed houses with signs opposing the ordinance.

"Crazy"? In the Heights? Nah, I just consider it normal these days. That's ok though, you should see my growing collection of photos of houses that will be the subject of a demolition-by-neglect complaint. Once I test the process on my main target, I intend to file complaints on a regular basis. In fact, I may drop so many of them on City Hall's doorstep that they think I am bat-turd-crazy!

[RedScare]

Yep, that is the legacy of this ordinance. "Neighbors" taking pictures of your house, so that they can better snitch you out. Of course, these are the same "neighbors" who places stones by the street to prevent parking, let their dogs crap in your yard, call the police to ticket your car instead of leaving a note, all the while telling everyone that the Heights is like a small town where everyone is friendly. It is a remarkably uncivil group that lives amongst us, led by a certain poster who loves to post her vitriol on this forum.

[SilverJK]

So, when the anti-ordinance realtor takes pictures of houses specifically with pro-ordinance signs and puts them up on her blog to tell everyone how she thinks the new ordinance would prevent their improvements/renovations, that is not bat-turd-crazy?

No it isn't. Pro-ordinance people are doing this to attack specific people on a personal level, the anti-ordinance realtor was making examples to make their point to try to get the ordinance stopped. The realtor was not specifically doing it to threaten a particular individual, nor was it to later use to prove a violation. What the pro-ordinance crowd is doing is dirty and vengeful on a personal level. Your support for this shows you truly are a terrible neighbor and a detriment to the neighborhood.

[samagon]

I wonder if you can just cover the windows with plywood during the application process to replace them? Write witty slogans on them, such as "Sorry your view of my house is marred by plywood, talk to the HAHC to make it go faster"

You haven't technically done any changes to the house, there's no permit required, I don't know. I'd do it and see what happens.

I'd also get one of those gaudy Halloween door covers (you know, the ones that look like a pumpkin), and put it on, never to be removed.

No it isn't. Pro-ordinance people are doing this to attack specific people on a personal level, the anti-ordinance realtor was making examples to make their point to try to get the ordinance stopped. The realtor was not specifically doing it to threaten a particular individual, nor was it to later use to prove a violation. What the pro-ordinance crowd is doing is dirty and vengeful on a personal level. Your support for this shows you truly are a terrible neighbor and a detriment to the neighborhood.

exactly. How someone cannot see the difference is baffling.

Edited July 13, 2011 by samagon

[barracuda]

A person can do a surprisingly enormous amount of work on a Sunday....I'm not saying to do your work without a permit on a Sunday, I'm just saying a lot of work can be done on Sunday.

Saturdays can be surprisingly productive as well. It's even better if you have a massive dumpster blocking the view of the construction from the street. Just saying.

[Marksmu]

No it isn't. Pro-ordinance people are doing this to attack specific people on a personal level, the anti-ordinance realtor was making examples to make their point to try to get the ordinance stopped. The realtor was not specifically doing it to threaten a particular individual, nor was it to later use to prove a violation. What the pro-ordinance crowd is doing is dirty and vengeful on a personal level. Your support for this shows you truly are a terrible neighbor and a detriment to the neighborhood.

You hit the nail on the head. S3MH will probably never be able to understand the difference.

The neighborhood is turning from a nice play with friendly folks, to a place full of people who not only know better than you do what is good for you and your property, but are also so chicken turd, they are afraid to confront you about anything...instead of being neighborly they resort to ordinances, police, and other means that are indirect because they are afraid of confrontation. Always willing to let someone else do the dirty work, but more than happy to go vote anonymously for something.

If there is one accurate sterotype about the pro-ordinance crowd it is that they are extremely liberal cowards who will lie to get what they want.

[s3mh]

No it isn't. Pro-ordinance people are doing this to attack specific people on a personal level, the anti-ordinance realtor was making examples to make their point to try to get the ordinance stopped. The realtor was not specifically doing it to threaten a particular individual, nor was it to later use to prove a violation. What the pro-ordinance crowd is doing is dirty and vengeful on a personal level. Your support for this shows you truly are a terrible neighbor and a detriment to the neighborhood.

Oh please. You put a picture of someone's house on the internet and you are not attacking them personally? The realtor was basically calling these people hypocrites for supporting an ordinance that would have made their particular rennovations/additions impossible. I knew where each house was and knew some of the owners.

And it is funny that you all are all high and mighty about people taking photos of houses to be able to stop people from violating the ordinance in the same thread where people are suggesting getting around city inspectors by doing work on a Sunday. While I do not think there is any need to go around taking pics to prove up violations, I can certainly understand why others would.

[barracuda]

If there is one accurate sterotype about the pro-ordinance crowd it is that they are extremely liberal cowards who will lie to get what they want.

Wouldn't they be the opposite of liberal?

lib•er•al: favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms

[RedScare]

Wouldn't they be the opposite of liberal?

lib•er•al: favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms

There is certainly nothing liberal or progressive about passing ordinances that prevent progress and legislate the status quo. In general, this would be considered a conservative view, except for the trampling of property rights. The use of government to save a "community in decline" has the look of fascism in a narrow conotation. Probably the best description is simply nosy neighbors with too much time on their hands.

[Marksmu]

Oh please. You put a picture of someone's house on the internet and you are not attacking them personally? The realtor was basically calling these people hypocrites for supporting an ordinance that would have made their particular rennovations/additions impossible. I knew where each house was and knew some of the owners.

And it is funny that you all are all high and mighty about people taking photos of houses to be able to stop people from violating the ordinance in the same thread where people are suggesting getting around city inspectors by doing work on a Sunday. While I do not think there is any need to go around taking pics to prove up violations, I can certainly understand why others would.

I dont think the point was necessarily to call them a hypocrite...it was to inform them and others that although they supported preservation, the ordinance that they were supporting was so bad and so over-reaching that it would prevent them form doing the improvements that they had already done...most people who voted for it were uninformed, and easily swayed by a well funded campaign of lies full of fear tactics.

There is a big difference in the two groups of people taking the photos....many people, but especially those who supported the ordinance, need a little extra help understanding things...almost nobody reads ordinances, and they are very boring, so the only thing you can do is show them in pictures how it will actually operate.

Your friendly neighbors out taking pictures now are doing so to punish, and to make sure that they can impose their will on the people who actually PAID for, live in, and actually have to maintain the house.

[SilverJK]

I have trademarked the image of my house, any usage of its image is illegal. = ] jk

S3mh, I realize that you really just can't see the difference in using someone house as an example vs. using a picture of someone's house to get back at them for not supporting their cause. This is very much in line with your victory day claims "we won't forget" post, and truly saddens me that you are a member of my neighborhood that I love. How can you support an Emotional Ordinance (it supposedly supports the "feeling" of neighborhood) without giving a crap about your actual neighbors emotions? Your self entitled know it all attitude is sad at best, the fact that you and your cronies were able to ram this crap through without majority support is slap to the face of everyone else in the neighborhood, and democracy in general.

[Jesse]

The neighborhood is turning from a nice play with friendly folks, to a place full of people who not only know better than you do what is good for you and your property, but are also so chicken turd, they are afraid to confront you about anything...instead of being neighborly they resort to ordinances, police, and other means that are indirect because they are afraid of confrontation. Always willing to let someone else do the dirty work, but more than happy to go vote anonymously for something.

Sounds like a Home Owners Association.

Wait, I thought The Heights didn't have HOA's?

[s3mh]

I have trademarked the image of my house, any usage of its image is illegal. = ] jk

S3mh, I realize that you really just can't see the difference in using someone house as an example vs. using a picture of someone's house to get back at them for not supporting their cause. This is very much in line with your victory day claims "we won't forget" post, and truly saddens me that you are a member of my neighborhood that I love. How can you support an Emotional Ordinance (it supposedly supports the "feeling" of neighborhood) without giving a crap about your actual neighbors emotions? Your self entitled know it all attitude is sad at best, the fact that you and your cronies were able to ram this crap through without majority support is slap to the face of everyone else in the neighborhood, and democracy in general.

The heights east and west recieved the support needed to get a historic district. Those who wanted to get rid of the districts had a chance to do so by a majority vote. They failed miserably and now are falsely claiming that there isn't majority support just because the process did not require a complete re-petitioning or re-vote on the district. I will not forget those who have made fortunes off of the Heights who stuffed mailboxes with bull about property values falling, paint color restrictions and other fiction in order to try to defeat a grass roots movement to have real historic preservation in the Heights. And by not forgetting who was against the ordinance, I meant that they will not get my business and will not get recommended to anyone who asks. That is called the free market at work. I will vote with my dollars. I am planning an addition and it is very obvious who will not get my business. It is a free country. I am allowed to express my opinion about those who did not support the ordinance just as much as they had the right to fill mail boxes with all of their misinformation.

And you need to take a remedial civics class. We do not live in a democracy. We have a representative form of government, from the municipality on up. We do not vote on every issue that affects our property and community. In fact, you would probably be very much against putting major land use issues that affected the community up for a vote instead of being handled by ordinance and the Mayor's administration. Walmart and a six story condo building would not happen if the community got to vote on those issues.

If people are taking photos of houses in order to be prepared to enforce the law, then that is fine with me. A good neighbor follows the law. A bad neighbor breaks the law and expects everyone to keep their mouths shut and let them get away with it. Being vindictive is breaking the law because you did not support it, not taking measures to make sure the law is followed.

[RedScare]

Of all people to lecture us about good neighbors...

[SilverJK]

The heights east and west recieved the support needed to get a historic district. Those who wanted to get rid of the districts had a chance to do so by a majority vote. They failed miserably and now are falsely claiming that there isn't majority support just because the process did not require a complete re-petitioning or re-vote on the district. I will not forget those who have made fortunes off of the Heights who stuffed mailboxes with bull about property values falling, paint color restrictions and other fiction in order to try to defeat a grass roots movement to have real historic preservation in the Heights. And by not forgetting who was against the ordinance, I meant that they will not get my business and will not get recommended to anyone who asks. That is called the free market at work. I will vote with my dollars. I am planning an addition and it is very obvious who will not get my business. It is a free country. I am allowed to express my opinion about those who did not support the ordinance just as much as they had the right to fill mail boxes with all of their misinformation.

And you need to take a remedial civics class. We do not live in a democracy. We have a representative form of government, from the municipality on up. We do not vote on every issue that affects our property and community. In fact, you would probably be very much against putting major land use issues that affected the community up for a vote instead of being handled by ordinance and the Mayor's administration. Walmart and a six story condo building would not happen if the community got to vote on those issues.

If people are taking photos of houses in order to be prepared to enforce the law, then that is fine with me. A good neighbor follows the law. A bad neighbor breaks the law and expects everyone to keep their mouths shut and let them get away with it. Being vindictive is breaking the law because you did not support it, not taking measures to make sure the law is followed.

Sounds like you need to go to a basic pre-remedial civics class... it is a representative democracy.

Your unbelievable bullcrap statement that there was support just further shows how ridiculous you are. There was NOT majority support for the current form of the ordinance, you used majority support from the previous ordinance which is basically saying filet mignon is the same thing as dog crap. The petition process was blatantly set up to be impossible. You say it is a free country yet you want to steal everyone's property rights. Your only here to cause problems and try to stir the pot, you think your clever and hide behind the vail of internet ambiguity but all your really accomplishing is giving clear examples to the anti ordinance side how insane the mindset of some members of the ordinance side are. Now go worry about the troll lair under the yale street bridge.

Edited July 15, 2011 by SilverJK

[Tiko]

Sorry for the relatively fact-free content of this post, but I'm hoping someone with more knowledge on the topic will supply details. I've heard that the City is now denying almost all permits in the historic districts that alter the exterior and even just move interior walls. The company Nine Lights has done some very nice (IMHO) jobs nearby that have taken bungalows and removed almost all the interior walls (reinforcing the structure through the roof) and then adding large additions in the rear. From the street you almost can't tell they've been modified. I hear that the Board feels that these violate the spirit of the Preservation Ordinance and they're denying new permits.

[SilverJK]

violate the spirit of the Preservation Ordinance which violates the spirit of the neighborhood. I feel violated.

[RedScare]

Sorry for the relatively fact-free content of this post, but I'm hoping someone with more knowledge on the topic will supply details. I've heard that the City is now denying almost all permits in the historic districts that alter the exterior and even just move interior walls. The company Nine Lights has done some very nice (IMHO) jobs nearby that have taken bungalows and removed almost all the interior walls (reinforcing the structure through the roof) and then adding large additions in the rear. From the street you almost can't tell they've been modified. I hear that the Board feels that these violate the spirit of the Preservation Ordinance and they're denying new permits.

While I certainly hope that this is untrue (as I still hope to finish my remodel someday), I would not be surprised if it were. The rumor during the historic district fight was that they were approving nearly everything, so as to improve their reputation. Since the fight is over, there is no reputation needed.

Anecdotally, an architect friend has numerous stories of idiotic demands by non-architects on the board. However, the board was always known for this. The ordinance did not change anything. I would be most interested in knowing whether the board will allow me to use Hardiplank siding, since I have an 8 year running battle with drywood termites.

[barracuda]

The most recent HAHC meeting notes available online (from Jan 12) show they approved all agenda items, although one project did require stipulations around materials to be used. I do not think they had any authority over home interiors...I need to go back and look at the ordinance to remind myself.

Edited March 29, 2012 by barracuda

[samagon]

FYI, termites are historic.

[SilverJK]

FYI, termites are historic.

So is the use of clordane...

[heights_yankee]

Sorry for the relatively fact-free content of this post, but I'm hoping someone with more knowledge on the topic will supply details. I've heard that the City is now denying almost all permits in the historic districts that alter the exterior and even just move interior walls. The company Nine Lights has done some very nice (IMHO) jobs nearby that have taken bungalows and removed almost all the interior walls (reinforcing the structure through the roof) and then adding large additions in the rear. From the street you almost can't tell they've been modified. I hear that the Board feels that these violate the spirit of the Preservation Ordinance and they're denying new permits.

I don't know where you heard this but I highly doubt it. I have lived in a historic district for 8 years and the interior has never been a concern for the HCAC.

[SilverJK]

I don't know where you heard this but I highly doubt it. I have lived in a historic district for 8 years and the interior has never been a concern for the HCAC.

I'm sure this is true, but this is one of the issues a lot of people were concerned about the "power grab" that will be possible by the HCAC. I'm not sure if it has happened, but I would not be surprised.

[fwki]

HCAC = Harris County Animal Control. But I think this group would be more objective than the HAHC which has other concerns such as what the New York Times is writing about Houston preservation. Also the HCAC folks are better equpped to deal with developers and contractors. Take a look at the January meeting minutes and you'll see an HAHC ruling on replacement siding that goes plank by plank. Talk about micro-management....as if that bunch knows anything about a particular siding project for my home.

[s3mh]

I have seen a few "renovations" done by just keeping the front facade, about 2/3rds of the side walls and the foundation while everything else is completely demolished. After the siding is taken off, windows taken out, widnow, door and front porch treatments/ornaments removed and replaced, there is very little difference between the "renovation" and a complete demo, except for retaining the style of the exterior front portion of the house and not building from property line to property line. This certainly was not the intent of the ordinance, but it may too difficult to revise the ordinance to prohibit this kind of "renovation" to make it worth the effort. The major goal of the ordinance has been acheived. The new construction and renovations are reasonably compatible with the existing historic architecture while allowing people to build 3500-3800 sq ft if they so desire.

[Marksmu]

Well - I think the historic wackos got what they want. I have seen more new construction in the non-historic areas than I ever have....While my rental property may have a questionable resale value because it is in the district - I am quite happy to see all the new construction finally knocking down all the tiny shacks that still littered the area around my actual house....In the 3 blocks around me and only since the ordinance was passed 14 of those shacks are now in a landfill somewhere....13/14 of the new homes are beautiful lot line to lot line construction!.....I think this ordinance is going to vault my property value solely because it does not affect me!

[jamesw]

Take a stroll down the bike trail on Nicholson sometime - and you'll see the effect of the ordinance. Decent looking 25' wide houses packed in like sardines. Some people like it and some people don't (I won't judge either way) but this is what the "near-to" historic areas are going to look like from now on.

It demonstrates the supply and demand to live in the Heights - which is good.

Cheers

James

[SilverJK]

too bad those that do like the new development didn't really get a choice of if they live in a historic district or not. (don't give me any BS about that sham of chance to opt out)

Edited April 3, 2012 by SilverJK

[fwki]

....but this is what the "near-to" historic areas are going to look like from now on....

True, unless your block jumped on the Minimum Lot Size bandwagon....then you end up with million-dollar SFH's mingling with modest historicals sitting on very valuable land until the last holdout cashes in. Swamplot has these annual progressive maps of the lot-size ordinance blocks.......http://swamplot.com/where-houstons-lot-size-restrictions-went-year-by-year/2010-09-09/

[Marksmu]

I am a fan of the minimum lot size restrictions. I like new development, but I don't like to see micro lots. New development is good for property values....townhomes, not so much....4400 should be the minimum. That is a tiny lot....I dont support the way historic ordinances were passed, but I have not seen the same resentment or cowardly tactics used to pass minimum lot sizes. They are a good compromise in protecting a block from being over developed.