There’s a real problem when it comes to the epidemic of Design Review Boards, Historic Preservation Commissions, Boards of Zoning Appeals and City Councils approving demolition of structures in historic districts because they aren’t individually “historic” enough. These decisions completely ignore the power of context – both its positive impact in maintaining and enhancing property values when present, and the waste of time and resources when context is allowed to disappear arbitrarily.

Case in point – the recent decision of the Olmstead Falls Architectural Board of Review to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a 1920s era bungalow house in a local historic district, a decision then subsequently overturned by City Council (see this news story). The owner had petitioned for permission to demolish based on the simple reason that renovation was going to “…cost too much.”

According to at least one Council member, the vote to overturn was based in part on the fact that two ordinances apparently give the ABR two sets of powers – one allowing it only to delay demolition, and the other actually allowing the Board to disallow demolition. Apparently also at issue, however, was the fact that the house was not sufficiently “…historically significant.” The Board of Review was pleased that Council did place a moratorium on further demolitions in order that they might review the issue of competing ordinances.

As correctly pointed out by Board members, the real issue is not one of competing ordinances – it is the realization that allowing someone to demolish a structure in a historic district based on a subjective belief that renovation is deemed “too expensive” not only places the entire National Register Historic District at risk, but it rends the integrity of the design review process, and renders the endeavor a waste of time and money – and possible invalid as well. The value of each contributing building in a district is intertwined with that of its neighbors, and cannot be divorced from it.

Typically, under applicable Ohio law, the standard for legal actions based on “takings” – governmental regulatory overreach – is the deprivation of “…all reasonable economic use” of property, a standard which was clearly not met in Olmstead Falls.

MyHomesteadOhio will keep an eye on the progress of the Olmstead Falls Ordinance, and will report back in a future posting.

Photo:  Typical 1920s bungalow -- MGShelton/Creative Commons License