For anyone that has attended meetings of the Historic District Review Board, you leave many times scratching your head at the decisions that have been made. It seems they are more driven by whim rather than a consistent reading of the so-called historic guidelines.
At the December 20th Regular Meeting, Town Council had to try and clean up another mess created the HDRB.
On December 12,
The appeal highlighted the frustrating nature of dealing with this board, where inconsistency is the norm. While preserving the historical character of the town via the power of a historic overlay district, preservation seems to be a relative term and is handled differently depending on, who, what and where you are. We have seen siding debacles galore–vinyl is strictly verboten, while cement slurry products like Hardie Board are slapped up all over the place.
We’re still waiting for someone to explain the historic approach of the Cape Charles Hotel.
The board’s approach to chimneys, both new and old has been especially ridiculous. At 204 Washington, the board went on a tear, rejecting the use of a vinyl covered chimney. Unfortunately, it was revealed that the then mayor George Proto, had the exact same type of vinyl chimney.
In this case, the applicant provided several instances where chimneys have been taken down–the chimney is located on the backside of the home, is non-functioning, and according to the contractor,
Councilman Grossman did his own research and provided several examples where the HDRB allowed chimneys to be taken down–in some cases, they were even in the front of the home and were contributing features.
After several minutes of discussion, the Council in a 4 to 2 vote, decided to back the HRDB’s decision and deny the appeal only because, well they’re the Historic District Review Board. There were the proverbial comments about more training for board members, which seems to come up every time Council needs to cover its posterior after a dubious decision.
About the Author
Precedent isn’t the standard. It never was. Read any of the standards and guidelines produced by the Department of the Interior and you’ll see language that discusses four types of treatment (not all the same but dependent upon various criteria of each structure’s particular historical development), and recognition that bringing any building back to a particular point in time in that building’s history is not mandatory. The 1996 Town Preservation Plan states as much. Neither is vinyl siding prohibited, not in the current ordinance nor in the 1996 Preservation Plan. “What aboutism” isn’t the issue here. Gross misunderstanding about what regulates historic preservation is. Please see the agenda packet for the January 3, 2019 Town Council work session for documentation and context.
Wayne who wrote this article for you? It is apparent that the author is not familiar with the history of the HDRB or the guidelines.
Wayne the silence is deafening. Won’t you answer a simple question?
Note: Which question? I’ll do my best.
who wrote this article?
Note: I take full responsibility.
HDRB’s, Condo Homeowners associations and petty tyrants have what in common?
The power to make your lives miserable and the joy of doing so.
With regard to the Historic standing of Cape Charles ,I have to yet see a Historic Building of any consequence having been built in the 1700 or 1800 except for Eyre Hall and one or two others spread through Northamption county. Cape Charles was a Railway Town and until very recently . That no longer exists what ever you do to up grade the existing Fisherman cottages and Railway workers houses You can not make a silk purse from a Pigs ear .