YOUR SAY: P&Z's response to October 11 editorial criticizing proposed improvements to the design review process
I have read with bewilderment Jamie Webb's Oct. 11 submission criticizing Planning & Zoning's effort to improve its design review process in the historic districts and feel compelled to respond. In his fervor to advocate his preservationist position, Webb presented a distorted interpretation of the proposed regulations. P&Z has been providing oversight and protection for historic neighborhoods since 1978 when it first developed the historic zoning districts and design review process and has no intention of reversing that success.
Macon-Bibb can be very proud of the fact that it has 12 nationally designated historic districts and 5 historic zoning districts. Many organizations and individuals are to thank for that. Our success has been in part due to the tireless work of P&Z and its Design Review Board, all of whose board members are uncompensated for their work. The P&Z Commission, who Webb suspects of such dark motives, not only created the DRB he has such high praise for, but it also appoints the members of that board.
INCORRECT CLAIMS
Webb made many incorrect claims and assertions, but the responses provided here will address the most egregious. Webb's assertions are in italics followed by P&Z's response:
1. The proposed changes have been designed to favor developers and to lessen P&Z's "headaches" relating to public oversight.
Wrong. The need for the proposed changes has been driven by frustration with the current design review process and the need to improve — and where appropriate — streamline the process for home and business owners who are making minor improvements to their properties. Over 90 percent of the applications that go before the DRB don't involve "developers" and the bulk of these involve minor design issues.
In addition, the commission ratifies over 99 percent of these projects that the DRB sends to P&Z with a recommendation with no opposition from the public. The bulk of the proposed amendments Webb criticizes as "pro-developer," actually come from the Model Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is provided by the Historic Preservation Division of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources and was specifically designed to comply with the State Historic Preservation Act.
As discussed below, those amendments include the requirement that changes be "material" (i.e. significant) to require review and that costs should be considered to some degree in determining whether any particular requirements should be imposed against property owners.
Webb's contention that the cost of preservation must never be considered in preserving historic properties is as unrealistic as it is onerous, not to mention of doubtful legality. No one would ever buy a home or a building if they knew that they would be required to preserve that structure regardless of cost. Webb evidently would have no hesitation in requiring the owner of a $100,000 home or building to spend $500,000 to save it.
2. The oversight the Design Review Board provides will be eliminated and the proposed changes will weaken the preservation protections of our historic resources by "loosening the rules;"
Wrong again. The proposed amendments specifically provide that any material design matter, including all demolitions, new building construction, significant additions (more than 20 percent of a structure), as well as any matter judged to create a material design issue, will go to the DRB. Only the minor, noncontroversial matters would be handled by staff. This same materiality threshold is present in both the state law and the model ordinance. The P&Z Commission will, as it always has, appoint qualified, fair-minded DRB members willing to serve and spend many uncompensated hours addressing what are often fairly heated matters. One of the longest-serving members of the DRB was in fact the current chairman of the P&Z Commission, Kamal Azar, who served on that board for nearly 12 years.
3. The existing design guidelines for Macon's historic districts will no longer be used.
Wrong. The existing design guidelines currently used for all the historic zoning districts will continue to be used by both the staff and the DRB in the review of all proposed projects.
4. The number of demolitions will increase because of "serious loopholes" written into the regulations.
There are clear standards in the current rules for delaying a demolition (for up to 180 days), but the standards for when a demolition can be permanently prohibited are less clear and would benefit from clarification. The amendments provide that clarification, with standards taken directly from the State's Model Ordinance that require consideration of eight different factors before allowing any demolition, most of which Webb ignores and others he misstates.
Those factors include whether "reasonable measures" can be taken to avoid collapse of the property; whether the current structure is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value; whether the structure in question is one of the last examples of its kind in the neighborhood or county; the future planned use for the property; and the overall importance and uniqueness of the structure.
The Model Ordinance, following the State Act, also provides for "undue hardship" to the property owner to be a consideration in applying the entire ordinance, as do the proposed amendments. Also contrary to Webb's assertion, the amendments do not create a new rule where a "single building inspector or engineer" can allow demolition. Under current regulations, demolition cannot be prohibited if the Macon-Bibb building official certifies that demolition is required because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. The amendments do not change that, except to add the possibility of judicial review. This is obviously a difficult situation for any government since historic preservation and public safety can at times be at odds.
Where the Commission votes to preserve a historic structure but the building official requires it to be torn down as an imminent threat to public safety, judgment is called for. But ultimately, public safety cannot be disregarded. The best way to preserve our historic structures is for the community's preservation advocacy groups to find and dedicate resources to preserving those structures in a proactive manner before they become abandoned and dilapidated, when saving them becomes a real hardship.
5. Design review in historic neighborhoods should be handled by a new "Historic Preservation Commission," separate from P&Z, which should have the final authority in all design review issues.
Webb's claims that a new "Historic Preservation Commission" is necessary for Macon to obtain "certification" are not accurate since Macon's legislation is expressly "grandfathered in" under the State Act because it predates that act. There is a six-step process laid out by the Historic Preservation Office of the DNR for certification, which Macon-Bibb can seek at any time. The "financial incentives" Webb refers to that come with certification, are mainly small planning grants that are awarded on a 60/40 basis, requiring the local government to contribute 40 percent of the cost.
Becoming certified in historic preservation may well be worth investigating, but the costs and benefits, as well as what is actually required, should be clearly understood.
The benefit of a new and additional layer of bureaucracy imposed upon property owners in our historic districts is dubious especially when there is an existing process in place that has been a driving factor in preserving, protecting and growing our incredible historic neighborhoods for decades. Webb's idea of a new historic preservation commission is another example of the trap communities often fall into of creating a new entity with new authority when someone is dissatisfied by a decision of the existing governing body.
The ultimate question is not so much how to have a preservation oriented design review process. The real issue is how to best preserve a community's quality of life, including its historic resources. The DRB is there to provide a balanced review, not just to be an advocate for historic preservation or to function as a quasi homeowners association. It must consider the rights of property owners on whom it is imposing what are often serious costs and balance that against the preservation of historic resources and the general public good. There is never an easy answer to that challenge.
As to the need for a "historic preservation" commission, Macon already has such a commission; it is the Design Review Board, whose work Webb so strongly praises.
James P. Thomas is the executive director of the Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission.
This story was originally published November 7, 2015 at 9:38 PM with the headline "YOUR SAY: P&Z's response to October 11 editorial criticizing proposed improvements to the design review process ."