PROPOSED CHANGES

Stricken type: Language proposed to be omitted from current ordinance

Double Underlined Type: Language proposed to be added to current ordinance

1. Eliminate the 90-day certificate of waiver for alteration and demolition (“no means no” §33-250).

Under the current ordinance, when applicants seek certificates of appropriateness to demolish or relocate historic structures, to alter historic structures insensitively, or to construct incompatible new buildings in a designated historic district, the HAHC may deny the application but 90 days from the date the application was filed the city must issue a certificate of waiver that allows the applicants to proceed with the project. Under the proposed amendments, the HAHC’s denial of a certificate of appropriateness for alteration, restoration, or new construction would be final subject only to an appeals process, but denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or relocation would not preclude the demolition or relocation, but rather, extend the waiting period from 90 to 180 days. The GHPA and the HHA support eliminating entirely the certificate of waiver described in §33-250 of the ordinance because the ordinance should not make it easier to demolish or relocate rather than to restore historic structures.

2. Appoint hearing officers to entertain appeals that could be brought by any interested party (§33-218 and 253).

Under the current ordinance, if an application for certificate of appropriateness is denied the applicant can either wait until the certificate of waiver is issued 90 days after the application was filed, or the applicant can appeal the denial to the Planning Commission. If the applicant appeals to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission fails to rendered a decision within 30 days, the decision of the HAHC is automatically affirmed.  Under the proposed amendments,  appeals from denials of certificates of appropriateness would be heard by a three-member board composed of a historian, a real estate professional, and a person who is neither a historian nor a real estate professional. If the board fails to meet and render a decision within 45 days of the notice of appeal, the HAHC’s denial would be automatically reversed. The GHPA and the HHA oppose the proposed appeals process and support amending the ordinance to extend the right of appeal to any interested person, to have appeals heard by a hearing officer who is a licensed attorney, and to retain the provision affirming  the HAHC’s decision in the event of appellate inaction.

The GHPA and the HHA support amending §33-218 governing the body before whom appeals are brought to provide:

Sec. 33-218.  Appeal Officers.
Appeal officers shall be attorneys licensed to practice law in the state of Texas.
[Need to add procedure for appointing hearing officers.]

The GHPA and the HHA support amending §33-253 to provide:
(a) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness, <who is> or any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the HAHC with respect to  an <the> application may appeal that decision to <the appeals board> an appeals officer by filing a written notice of appeal, stating the grounds for the appeal, with the planning official within ten days following the date the HAHC renders its decision.

Reason: In the a recent lawsuit styled Galveston Historical Foundation v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Galveston, Texas, 17 S.W. 3d 414 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist] 2000, review denied), the First Court of Appeals in Houston recognized a historic foundation as an aggrieved person with standing to appeal a decision of a city planning department to grant permit for erection of sign in historic district.

(b) The <appeals board> appeals officer shall consider the application, the findings of the HAHC, and any evidence presented to the HAHC..  The <appeals board> appeals officer shall reverse or affirm the decision of the HAHC based upon this article and the criteria applicable to the certificate of appropriateness.  The decision of the <appeals board> appeals officer shall be in writing and shall be final.  If the <appeals board> appeals officer does not render a decision on the appeal within 45 days following the date of filing of the notice of appeal, the decision of the HAHC with respect to the application for the certificate of appropriateness shall be <deemed reversed> affirmed, and the application shall be <deemed approved> denied <fully in accordance with the application> by operation of law.

Reason: The deliberative decision of a public body should not be reversed by the inaction of another public body that fails to make a record of its proceedings.  Moreover, instead of lengthening the period preceding the issuance of a waiver certificate for demolition or relocation from 90 to 180 days as proposed by Sec. 33-250, implementation of this appeals provision could effectively reduce the period preceding the issuance of a waiver certificate to the 45 days of the appeals process.  Moreover, adoption of the appeals process proposed by the HAHC is likely to increase public perception that pursuit of historic designation is unwarranted because designation provides little to no protection for historic resources.

[Need to add a notice provision and a statement of procedures that need to be followed in order to bring an appeal; i.e., this section could adopt the procedures required for bringing appeals to City Council.  The most important aspects of this section should be to close the record to factual development at the HAHC level and to charge the appeals officer with the task of deciding only whether the HAHC correctly applied the law (i.e., the ordinance) to the facts.]

3. Require applications for the creation of future historic districts to include design guidelines and historic district plans which would—at a minimum—be based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and once adopted would be used to evaluate applications for certificates of appropriateness (§33-266-270).

Design Guidelines. Under the current ordinance applicants seeking historic landmark or historic district designation have the option of including in their application a  “conservation plan” which is defined as “an inventory and analysis of historic resources within a geographic area of the city designated or proposed for designation as an historic district pursuant to the provisions of this article that contains standards for alteration, rehabilitation, restoration, construction, relocation and demolition of buildings, structures, objects or sites in an historic district.”  To date,  no designated historic district has submitted such a plan on which the HAHC would rely when considering applications for certificates of appropriateness.  Under the proposed amendments, applications seeking historic landmark or historic district designation would be required to include in their applications architectural design standards to guide the HAHC when considering applications for certificates of appropriateness.  The design standards would be amended and landmarks and historic districts designated prior to adoption of the proposed amendments could submit design standards for review by the HAHC and approval by City Council. 

The GHPA and the HHA support replacing the term “standards” with the term “guidelines,” because use of  “standards” implies inflexibility in application.  Instead of requiring applicants for historic district designation to create individual design guidelines, the GHPA and the HHA advocate creation by the city’s preservation officer of generally applicable design guidelines like those used by other cities, e.g., Nacogdoches, which — in the absence of more specific guidelines—could be used for considering applications for certificates of appropriateness or could be customized for individual landmarks or districts. Design guidelines should be flexible enough to allow for compatible development, not carbon copies of historic buildings.  At a minimum they should include standards articulated by the Secretary of the Interior.  Design guidelines will provide the desired predictability for all involved.  Owners or purchasers in historic districts will know what is expected of them.  Builder/developers in historic districts will know what is expected of them.  During the rewrite of Chapter 42, the number one desire of builders/developers was predictability.  Design guidelines will give the HAHC specifics by which to evaluate submitted projects requesting a certificates of appropriateness.  Design guidelines should provide appropriate and compatible development.

Historic District Plans.  Historic district plans are not included in either the current ordinance or the amendments proposed to it.  Historic district plans would not address the housing stock, but rather, the three key elements of the district; setbacks, lot sizes and open space that determine how and where the housing stock fits in the overall plan.  In addition the historic district plan would address the streetscape of a district.  The publicly owned parts of an historic district are as important as the private structures in helping define the unique character of the district.  The historic district plan’s streetscape components would encourage retaining character-defining features, expanding their use when the opportunity arises, and making additional improvements to create a streetscape that complements the historic nature of the district.  A good example of the elements that make up a streetscape can be found in the Winchester, Virginia web site at    www.ci.winchester.va.us/planning/historic.

Use Design Guidelines and Historic District Plans to Evaluate Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. The current ordinance provides that new construction must be compatible with structures and objects along the blockface and facing blockfaces. The proposed amendments provide that design standards are to be considered in making the foregoing determination and that economic hardship and unusual and compelling circumstances can be reasons for granting applications.  The GHPA and the HHA believe that economic hardship should not be recognized as a reason for issuing a certificate of appropriateness and that the design guidelines and historic district plans should be used for evaluating applications for certificates of appropriateness. Alternatively, the GHPA and the HHA advocate adding the following language to the § 33-242:

HAHC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness for new construction in an historic district upon finding that the application satisfies the following criteria:

(1) The proposed new construction must be compatible with the setbacks, including the side yard setbacks, of contributing structures along the blockface and facing blockface(s), unless there are no contributing structures and objects located along the blockface and facing blockfaces in which case the new construction must be compatible with the setbacks provided of contributing structures located elsewhere in the historic district;
(2) The exterior features of the proposed new construction, including but not limited to the building materials, porches, doors, windows, and roof line, must be compatible with the exterior features of  contributing structures and objects located along the blockface or facing blockface(s), unless there are no contributing structures located along the blockface and facing blockfaces in which case the exterior features of the proposed new construction must be compatible with the exterior features of contributing structures located elsewhere in the historic district; and
(3) The proportions of the proposed new construction, including but not limited to height, width, length, mass, form, scale, ratios of windows to walls, and roof line must be compatible with contributing structures and objects located along the blockface or facing blockface(s), unless there are no contributing structures located along the blockface and facing blockfaces in which case the proportions of the  proposed new construction must be compatible with the proportions of contributing structures located elsewhere in the Old Sixth Ward Historic District; and
(4) The new construction shall not destroy, damage, or destabilize any archaeological resources, and if excavation is required will comply with the requirements of section 33-246 of this Code.

Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to require or impose a single architectural style in any historic district.

Source: Sec. 8 of the Texas Historic Commission’s Model Ordinance, and “Guidelines for New Construction” issued by the City of Nacogdoches, Texas.
Reason: To establish specific and objective criteria for issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for new construction.

4. Exempt historic districts from Article III of Chapter 42 and add a new Article IV to Chapter 42 establishing development criteria for historic districts.

Article III of Chapter 42 contains the development criteria that allow lots located in the areas of the city defined as “urban” to be subdivided for purposes of effecting new construction.  The GHPA and the HHA support exempting historic districts from Article III and amending Chapter 42 to add a new Article IV which would incorporate the development criteria contained in the historic district plans adopted for each historic district.

In 1996 the Lanier administration decided that Chapter 42, Development Ordinance, should be rewritten in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the inner city.  The biggest change was dividing Houston into two different areas, suburban and urban.  Urban was designated as the 110 square miles inside Loop 610.  Suburban included everything else.  The preamble to the revised Chapter 42 spoke to a more compact development in the urban area.  The way the ordinance provided for this was to establish different performance standards for both areas in Article III.  The urban performance standards called for shorter front setbacks, smaller lot sizes, less compensating open space and a maximum of twenty-seven single family dwelling units to an acre.

In our city without zoning, residential neighborhoods must rely on deed restrictions to fend off the encroachment of incompatible land uses, inappropriate development and other unwanted problems.  To keep things in their proper perspective, it is important to remember certain key facts.  No more than one-third of all residential neighborhoods in the urban area are adequately deed restricted.  Of the urban neighborhoods that are deed restricted, most do not prohibit subdividing lots. It is also important to remember that most “urban” residential neighborhoods were originally developed at a maximum of five or six single family dwelling units to an acre.   All seven current City of Houston designated historic districts and the majority of the potentially designated historic districts are located inside the “urban” area.  If we are to truly preserve our historic housing stock and maintain the unique character and fabric of our designated and potentially designated historic districts, they must be exempt from the performance standards of Article III of Chapter 42.

Under Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) created by petition such as the Old Sixth Ward TIRZ can implement land use regulations.  Under Section 42-100, TIRZs to which that the city has delegated the authority to adopt land use regulations and that have adopted land use regulations, may adopt regulations will replace Chapter 42 within their bounds.  Because historic district designation is created by the petition process, the GHPA and the HHA believe that designated historic districts—like petition-created TIRZs— should be exempt from Article III of Chapter 42.  For ease of reference, the design guidelines and historic district plans discussed in #3 could be codified in a new Article IV of Chapter 42 in a way currently done by the Sign Ordinance for each newly created scenic district.  

5. Require appointees to the HAHC to have a demonstrated interest and knowledge in historic preservation and parliamentary procedure.

The current ordinance includes various qualifications and provision that certain HAHC positions be filled by individuals with specific expertise, but does not require HAHC members to have any knowledge or experience with historic preservation,  to receive any training, to attend meetings regularly, or to conduct meetings in accordance with any operating rules or procedures.  Nor does it include provisions stating that the HAHC is subject to the Texas Open Meetings or Public Information Acts.  The proposed amendments do not contain any changes to the sections governing the HAHC and its operations.

            Qualifications and Training. The GHPA and the HHA support adding the following new sub-sections to §33-211:

(..) All HAHC members regardless of background, shall have a known and demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation within the city of Houston.
Source: Sec. 2(b) of Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance; Sec. 51A-3.103(a) of Dallas ordinance, and Sec. 29-80(c)(3) of Galveston ordinance.

(..) Following appointment and prior to participating in meetings, all members of the HAHC shall attend training and orientation developed by the City Department of Planning and Development.  Such training shall include sessions on the content of the city’s preservation ordinance, including the responsibilities of HAHC members, distinguishing characteristics of the city’s designated historic districts, principles of historic preservation,  architecture, reading construction documents, and conducting public meetings.
Source: Sec. 29-80(c) of Galveston ordinance, and Sec. 51A-3.103(c)(1) of Dallas ordinance which requires the landmark commission “to thoroughly familiarize itself with the structures, land, areas, and districts within the city that may be eligible for designation as historic overlay districts.”

            Reason: HAHC members cannot be expected to make sound decisions without knowledge of these issues.

            Meetings, Vacancies, and Removal. The GHPA and the HHA support adding the following new             sub-section to §33-212:

(..)  The HAHC shall meet at least monthly, if business is at hand.  Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairman (or mayor) or on the written request of any two HAHC members.  All meetings shall be held in the evening and shall be conducted in conformance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551, and all records of the HAHC shall be public records subject to the Texas Public Records Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 552.
Source: Sec. 2(g) of the Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance. See also Sec. 51A-3.103(d)(2) and (3) of Dallas ordinance.

Reason:  HAHC has had trouble both making and maintaining a quorum at its meetings; applicants should not have to wait an entire month to be heard when a hearing is denied due to lack of a quorum.  Meetings held during evening hours should eliminate conflicts that prevent both commissioners and members of the public from attending meetings. Reference to the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts should be included in the ordinance to ensure compliance.

The GHPA and the HHA support amending subsection §33-212(b) to define how a year is calculated  and supports amending subsection §33-212(d) to provide that a quorum shall exist when a majority of the HAHC members occupying positions not considered to be vacant are present.

(b) A position on the HAHC shall be considered to be vacant if the member appointed to that position is absent from HAHC meetings three times <with> within the period of <a year,> twelve consecutive months (or a calendar year), unless the member presents a written reason for each absence to the mayor and those absences are judged to be excusable by the mayor or a member of the mayor’s staff who is designated as liaison to the HAHC.

. . .

(d) <Seven members of the HAHC shall constitute a quorum. No more than one ex-officio mebmer of the HAHC shall be counted for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.> A quorum exists when there are physically present a simple majority of the number of members officially appointed to the HAHC, regardless of the total number of members actually provided for the HAHC, except that a quorum may not be fewer than five members.

Source: Sec. 51A-3.103(b) of Dallas ordinance. Note, too, that the Dallas and Galveston ordinances allow appointment of alternates to their historic commissions, and Galveston allows city council to remove a member who misses three consecutive meetings.
Reason: The HAHC has had trouble both making and maintaining a quorum.  HAHC members who have missed three or more meetings within a one year period and who wish to retain their positions should have to provide written statements of the reasons for their absences which should become part of the public record.   The HAHC’s inability to make and maintain a quorum adversely impacts the public perception its competence. Procedures used by other municipal commissions (e.g., the Building Standards Commission) could be used as a model for this section of the ordinance.

Responsibilities. The GHPA and the HHA support adding a new sub-section to §33-214 governing HAHC responsibilities:

 (..) Adopt such rules of procedure for meetings and proceedings of the HAHC as are necessary or convenient to accomplish the purposes set out in this article.  A copy thereof shall be maintained in the director’s office for public inspection, and copies may be purchased from the director at the fees prescribed by law.

Source: §33-218 allowing the proposed appeals board to adopt rules of procedure.

Reason: Questions concerning proper procedure arise on a recurring basis at HAHC meetings.

 Procedures and Notice Requirements. The GHPA and the HHA support adding a new sub-section to §33-239 governing notice requirements for HAHC proceedings:

(a) Notice of a public hearing before the HAHC on applications for certificates of appropriateness shall be given by the planning official no less than (ten) 10  days before the date of the public hearing as follows:

(i) Notice shall be given by mail

(A) to the owner of the property for which the application for designation is made, or to the owner’s representative, at the notice address shown on the application; and
(B) to any civic associations registered with the planning official within whose service area the property at issue is located; and

(ii) Notice shall be posted by sign on the property for which the application has been filed.  The sign shall conform to specifications prescribed by the planning official and shall be placed at a location reasonably calculated to be seen easily from at least one public right-of-way.

Source: Adapted from notice requirements contained in §33-226 of the current ordinance.
Reason: Interested parties cannot participate in the public hearing process unless they have notice that a public hearing is being held and time to prepare comments.

6. Allocate resources to hire a sufficient number of staff members to administer and enforce the ordinance (§33-203).

Although the current ordinance allows violators to be fined as little as $50 and as much as $500 per violation, no one in the planning department is currently charged with the responsibility or authority either to enforce the ordinance or to check that certificate of appropriateness recipients comply with the terms under which the certificates are granted.  The proposed amendments do not suggest any substantive change to §33-203 governing enforcement. The GHPA and the HHA support amending §33-203  to add a new subsection intended to ensure that the ordinance is enforced:

(..)  All work performed pursuant to a certificate of appropriateness issued under this ordinance shall conform to any requirements included therein.  It shall be the duty of the building inspector to inspect any such work to assure compliance.  In the event work is not being performed in accordance with the certificate of appropriateness, or upon notification of such to the HAHC and verification by the building inspector, the building inspector shall issue a stop work order and all work shall immediately cease. No further work shall be undertaken on the project as long as a stop work order is in effect.
Source: Sec. 12 of the Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance.
Reason: Every ordinance should have an enforcement clause both to ensure that the terms of the ordinance are enforced and to ensure that someone is responsible for effecting enforcement.

7. Clarify the meaning of key terms by including and/or amending the definitions of the following (§33-201).

The GHPA and the HHA support amending the ordinance to include the following definitions:

Compatible: Compatible: means such relation and consistency between two or more structures or objects that the structures or objects demonstrate a  harmonious and consistent relation distinguished by scale, material, compositional treatment and other features that add to the character of the scene.
Source: Sec. 29-51 of Galveston’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Reason: Sec. 33-242 governing requirements for issuance of a C of A for new construction in a historic district states that the new construction must be compatible with the setbacks along the blockface and facing blockfaces; that the exterior features of new construction must be compatible with the exterior features of structures along the blockface or facing blockfaces; and that the proportions of the new construction, including the height, width, length, and roofline, must be compatible with the structures and objects along the blockface or facing blockfaces; a definition of  “compatible” is needed to ensure that these provisions are consistently, objectively, and predictably applied in like manner to all applications.

Contributing structure: Contributing structure means a building, structure, object, or site that <is identified as contributing upon the designation of the historic district in which it is located> is identified as reinforcing the cultural, architectural, or historic significance of the historic district.
Reason: The deleted language limits the definition of “contributing structure” to structures that are in place at the time a district is designated. The proposed definition will encourage relocation of historic structures to designated historic districts as an alternative to demolition and will contribute to the preservation of the historic districts by helping to ensure that the number of historic structures remains above 50%.

Economic Return: Economic return means a profit or capital appreciation from use or ownership of a building, structure, object, or site that accrues from investment or labor.
Source: Sec. 35-7002 of the San Antonio ordinance.

Reason: Consideration of economic return is one of the issues the HAHC is directed to consider when ruling on claims of economic hardship.  The proposed definition encompasses both income producing and non-income producing properties.

Ordinary maintenance and repair:  Ordinary maintenance and repair means any work to correct or prevent deterioration, decay or damage to a building, structure, object or site (or any part thereof), provided that the work does not change the design, character, texture or material of any exterior feature or constitute an “alteration” as defined above. “Ordinary maintenance and repair” generally refers to activities relating to a property that would be considered ordinary or common for maintaining the property, such as the replacement of a porch floor with identical or in-kind materials.  It may also include other activities such as painting.

Source: Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance.
Reason: To clarify the definition and dispel mistaken beliefs that the ordinance applies to activities such as house painting.

Non-contributing structure: Noncontributing structure means a building, structure, object, or site that <is identified as noncontributing> upon the designation of the historic district in which it is located, is identified as not reinforcing the cultural, architectural, or historical significance of the historic district, and could not be restored to reinforce the cultural, architectural, or historical significance of the historic district.
Reason: The ordinance should clearly limit the definition of “non-contributing structure” to those structures that lack all potential for contributing to the historic character of the district.

Potentially contributing structure: Potentially contributing structure means a building, structure, object or site that is identified as <potentially contributing upon the designation of the historic district in which it is located> having incompatible alterations or deteriorating conditions that, if reversed, would allow the building, structure, or object to reinforce the cultural, architectural, or historical significance of the historic district.

Reason: Language limiting the definition of “potentially contributing structure” to structures that are in place at the time a district is designated has been stricken so that the district may be enhanced through the absorption of relocated structures or through the development of new information about existing structures.

Unreasonable economic hardship:  Unreasonable economic hardship means an economic burden imposed upon the owner which is unduly excessive and prevents a realization of a reasonable economic return on the value of his property as an investment.
Source: Sec. 35-7002 of the San Antonio ordinance.
Reason:  The proposed definition states criteria used by other ordinances for evaluating claims of economic hardship rather than define the term.  See, e.g., Sec. 11 of the Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance.

Alternatively, the GHPA and the HHA support replacing the phrase “unreasonable economic hardship” with the phrase “no economically viable use of the property” like the city of Dallas has done in its historic preservation ordinance.  See Sec. 51A-4.501(h)(2)(D) of Dallas’ New Historic Preservation Ordinance.

8. Create a preservation fund to aid low income property owners.

The current ordinance does not include a preservation fund.  The GHPA and the HHA also support creation of a Historic Preservation Fund composed – in part – of damages recovered from persons who intentionally violate the ordinance. The fund could be used for a variety of purposes, including restoration of low-income residences.

Historic Preservation Fund

(1) The department of planning and development, in cooperation with the department of housing and community development, shall develop appropriate funding structures and shall administer the historic preservation fund.
(2) The historic preservation fund is composed of the following funds:

(A) Outside funding (other than city general revenue funds or capital funds), such as grants and donations, made to the city for the purpose of historic preservation and funding partnerships with community organizations.
(B) Damages recovered from persons who illegally demolish or adversely affect historic structures.

(3) The outside funding may be used for financing the following activities:

(A)Full or partial restoration of low-income residential and nonresidential structures.
(B) Full or partial restoration of public owned historic structures.
(C) Necessary repairs in demolition by neglect cases.
(D) Acquisition of historic structures, places or areas through gift or purchase.
(E) Public education of the benefits of historic preservation or the regulations governing historic districts.
(F) Identification and cataloging of structures, places, areas, and districts of historical, cultural, or architectural value along with factual verification of their significance.

(4) Damages recovered for persons who illegally demolish or adversely affect historic structures must be used only for the following purposes:

(A) Construction, using as many of the original materials as possible, of a structure that is a reasonable facsimile of a demolished historic structure.
(B) Restoration, using as many of the original materials as possible, of the historic structure.
(C) Restoration of another historic structure.

Source: Sec. 51A-4.501(k) of Dallas ordinance.

9. Disallow removal of historic district designation and allow removal of historic landmark designation only if the HAHC finds that designation was granted on the basis of erroneous information or that the landmark has suffered irreparable damage not caused by the owner or the owner’s agent (§33-224).

Under the current ordinance the HAHC can recommend that City Council designate certain structures and areas of the city as historic but cannot recommend that City Council remove historic designation The proposed amendments permit the removal of historic designation. The GHPA and the HHA oppose removal of historic district status and support amending the ordinance to include a provision adding a provision that allows historic landmark designation to be removed only in the following two circumstances:

 a) the HAHC finds that designation was based on erroneous information;

b) the HAHC finds that irreparable damage not caused by the owner or the owner’s agent has occurred to the building, structure, object, or site.

 Sources: Texas Historical Commission’s Model Ordinance has no such provision.

Reason: The ordinance must recognize the HAHC’s ability both to correct mistakes by removing designations that were based on erroneous information and to remove designations following damage caused by catastrophes such as fire, flood, windstorm, etc.  The requirement that the owner or the owner’s agent be found not to have been responsible for the catastrophe is needed to discourage unscrupulous owners from engaging in “self help” to remove designations. Moreover, economic hardship should not serve as a reason to remove designation because designations are only made following a public hearing process and designations are not made over an owner’s objection. Subsequent buyers who purchase the property with knowledge that it is designated who are presumed to have paid fair market value that reflects the designation should not be able to have that designation removed for economic reasons without providing an unjust windfall profit.

10. Include a preamble stating the public purposes the ordinance is intended to serve

The current ordinance begins with a two and a half page preamble stating the reasons for which it was enacted and the policies it is intended to promote, e.g., strengthening civic pride, attracting visitors, and generating economic prosperity for the community.  The amendments proposed by the HAHC eliminate these statements; the GHPA and the HHA advocate retaining them.
Reason: The policy statements contained in the preamble provide an important guide for city officials charged with enforcing this ordinance.  See Texas Historical Commission, Local Government Assistance Series, No. 1: Guidelines for Drafting Historic Preservation Ordinances and Model Ordinance at p. 7: “The ‘purpose’ clause is an important part of any ordinance for it explains the advantages to enacting this [ordinance].”