{"id":2645,"date":"2013-04-05T11:30:35","date_gmt":"2013-04-05T15:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/?p=2645"},"modified":"2013-04-09T11:55:07","modified_gmt":"2013-04-09T15:55:07","slug":"news-proposed-comments-to-historic-preservation-offices-2016-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/2013\/04\/05\/news-proposed-comments-to-historic-preservation-offices-2016-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"NEWS: Proposed comments to Historic Preservation Office’s 2016 plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

The ANC’s Zoning, Preservation, and Development Committee provided consensus on a proposed resolution for the ANC to consider this Wednesday.\u00a0 The HPO 2016 Plan was discussed in a previous post here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

DRAFT-PROPOSED comments on 2016 Historic Preservation Plan<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Whereas,<\/strong>\u00a0the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has released a draft \u201c2016 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan: Enriching Our Heritage\u201d and seeks public comment;<\/p>\n

Whereas,<\/strong>\u00a0ANC\u00a02B recognizes the effort that went into the draft plan and commends the\u00a0HPO\u00a0on its work;<\/p>\n

Whereas,<\/strong>\u00a0ANC\u00a02B includes parts of 5 historic districts and numerous designated historic landmarks, and thus deals regularly with the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and the\u00a0HPO;<\/p>\n

Whereas,<\/strong>\u00a0ANC\u00a02B agrees with the draft report that \u201csome of the [HPRB\/HPO] systems are rusty,\u201d that the\u00a0HPRB\/HPO\u00a0\u201ccommunications are not up to par,\u201d and that the\u00a0HPRB\/HPO\u00a0\u201cneed[s] to strengthen and reinvigorate . . . partnerships,\u201d especially with respect to ANCs;<\/p>\n

Therefore be it resolved<\/strong>\u00a0that\u00a0ANC\u00a02B requests that the draft plan be revised to address explicitly the following points:<\/p>\n

1.\u00a0Effective Enforcement<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should explore how to more effectively enforce historic preservation laws, rules, decisions, and orders. Frequently, violators pay a limited fine, sometimes as little as $500, but are not forced thereafter to actually correct the offending construction or work. Rules and decisions are not meaningful unless they can be properly enforced.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0Great Weight: Addressing\u00a0ANC\u00a0Opinions<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address improving how\u00a0ANC\u00a0resolutions are discussed in\u00a0HPO\u00a0staff reports and\u00a0HPRB\u00a0decisions. The\u00a0HPO\/HPRB\u00a0needs to comply with D.C. law requiring agencies to provide \u201cgreat weight\u201d to\u00a0ANC\u00a0opinions by addressing, point-by-point, any\u00a0ANCresolutions submitted to the\u00a0HPO\/HPRB. Currently,\u00a0HPO\u00a0staff reports frequently fail to even mention theANC\u00a0opinion, let alone discuss each substantive point set forth in the\u00a0ANC\u00a0resolution as required. This means that the final\u00a0HPRB\u00a0action, which is generally an adoption of the staff report (with or without changes), does not explicitly address relevant\u00a0ANC\u00a0resolutions. This violates D.C. law and needs to be corrected.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0Great Weight: Notice to ANCs<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address improving notice to ANCs of applications before the\u00a0HPRB. The\u00a0HPO\/HPRB\u00a0is the only regulatory board that does not currently send a notice document directly to ANCs for each application within the respective\u00a0ANC\u00a0that will be on the board\u2019s agenda. This is contrary to the practice of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the District Department of Transportation Public Space Committee, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and the Zoning Commission. In practice, this diminishes \u201cgreat weight,\u201d because it prevents ANCs from carefully reviewingHPO\/HPRB\u00a0applications and providing timely and thoughtful opinions.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0Transparency and Accessibility<\/strong>\u00a0We support the plan\u2019s recognition that the \u201cgovernment\u2019s rules for the preservation process should be understandable and easily obtained.\u201d We find that\u00a0HPRB\/HPOdecision-making is difficult to predict and difficult to follow. The\u00a0HPRB\/HPO\u00a0should develop and share an understandable plan of procedures and guidelines. This should include (1) an\u00a0HPRB\u00a0docketing system, (2) published transcripts of all\u00a0HPRB\u00a0meetings, (3) final crafted and published\u00a0HPRB\u00a0orders, similar to the orders issued by other boards such as the Board of Zoning Adjustment or the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Again, those orders should address\u00a0ANC\u00a0resolutions point by point, as described above.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0Ensuring Timely and Fair Staff Reports<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address how to improve the timeliness and fairness of\u00a0HPO\u00a0staff reports. The\u00a0HPO\u00a0needs to release draft staff reports in time for relevant ANCs to weigh in and respond, before the\u00a0HPRB\u00a0hearing on the matter. Otherwise, ANCs are submitting opinions in a vacuum, rather than addressing the discrete points that will be before the\u00a0HPRB\u00a0in the staff report. In addition, the\u00a0HPRB\u00a0needs to ensure that staff reports are fair and cite all relevant precedent. For example, the\u00a0HPO\u00a0issued a 16-page staff report on the\u00a0ICG\/Third Church project (900 16th St NW) that referenced the height of buildings as far away as Massachusetts Avenue NW, but never mentioned the Hay-Adams Hotel less than one block away, which was granted a waiver by\u00a0HPRB\u00a0four years earlier, and is higher than what the\u00a0ICG\/Third Church sought in its application.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0Fair Appeals Process<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address the process for appealing an\u00a0HPRB\u00a0decision, which can be slow and costly. The\u00a0HPRB\/HPO\u00a0should work together with the Mayor and Council to develop and ensure a fair, efficient, and transparent appeals mechanism that is not overly burdensome on applicants.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0Recognition of the Place of Preservation Among Other Important Policies & Values<\/strong>\u00a0The plan lacks any discussion of how preservation fits into the framework of broader law and policy in the District, and that other values and policies \u2013 such as civil rights, treatment of the aged and disabled, public safety, smart growth, individual property rights, or economic development \u2013 may at times override preservation concerns.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0Consideration of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Concerns<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address how to improve\u00a0HPO\/HPRB\u00a0procedures when seniors and the disabled are involved. The\u00a0HPO\/HPRB\u00a0needs to provide for fast-tracked consideration of\u00a0ADA-related proposals \u2013 especially those that involve modifications to structures to allow seniors and those with disabilities to stay in their homes. Seniors and disabled citizens who suffer health setbacks cannot wait months or years for approval of such modifications.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0Recognition of the Supremacy of the Constitution and Federal Law<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address howHPO\/HPRB\u00a0will incorporate applicable Constitutional and federal laws explicitly into its decision-making. TheHPO\/HPRB\u00a0must recognize that the United States Constitution and federal law, as the supreme law of the land, control\u00a0HPRB\/HPO\u00a0decision-making and actions. In past cases, the\u00a0HPRB\u00a0has refused to consider or discuss the implications of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This was done ostensibly on the basis that the\u00a0HPRB\u00a0is limited to considering only the relevant regulatory factors under D.C. law, and those federal questions went beyond that limited scope. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how law works in the United States. All government bodies must comply first and foremost with the Constitution, then applicable federal law, and then applicable local law. Ignoring Constitutional and federal law questions is not behaving with limited scope and power, but with overly expansive power. D.C. laws limit the powers of the\u00a0HPO\/HPRB, and the Constitution and federal law limit those powers even further.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0Respect for Democratic Choices<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address how to improve upon the substantive rules for historic districts and the processes for approving historic districts, not just how to communicate about preservation more effectively. The plan frames the opposition to new historic districts in Barney Circle, Chevy Chase, and Lanier Heights as a communication and perception failure. This implies that if residents had better understood historic district designations, the districts would have been approved. This demonstrates a lack of respect for the democratic process. It also represents failure to recognize that the substantive rules of historic districts may need to be revised to address legitimate voter concerns.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0Expanding the \u201cEconomic Hardship\u201d Criteria to Include Non-profits<\/strong>\u00a0The plan should address correcting the oversight that non-profits are not explicitly included in the waiver rules. Under existing rules, applicants who demonstrate economic hardship may be granted a waiver. However, the rules as drafted include hardship on for-profit entities, but do not include non-profit entities, such as schools, charities, or religious institutions. This should be corrected.<\/p>\n

Be it further resolved<\/strong>\u00a0that\u00a0ANC\u00a02B requests that\u00a0HPO\u00a0ensure substantial\u00a0ANC\u00a0commissioner participation in its \u201csteering committee\u201d that the\u00a0HPO\u00a0has convened for the plan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The ANC’s Zoning, Preservation, and Development Committee provided consensus on a proposed resolution for the ANC to consider this Wednesday.\u00a0 The HPO 2016 Plan was discussed in a previous post here. DRAFT-PROPOSED comments on 2016 Historic Preservation Plan Whereas,\u00a0the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) has released a draft \u201c2016 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan: Enriching … Continue reading “NEWS: Proposed comments to Historic Preservation Office’s 2016 plan”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,31,19],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2645"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2645"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2647,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2645\/revisions\/2647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dupontcircleanc.net\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}