At last week’s Common Council meeting (4.17.12), there was a proposal to modify part of Whitewater’s Landmarks Ordinance (Chapter 17.04, et seq.) to (1) establish certificates of appropriateness for Landmarks Commissions approvals now authorized under Whitewater’s municipal code, and (2) extend the approval process to city-controlled properties as well as private ones.
These are both sound ideas, as they would give Whitewater a transparent, standardized, and uniform Landmarks Commission approval process, without adding any additional approval requirements for private owners.
A mistaken impression that these proposed changes mean additional regulations for private owners caused the proposal to be tabled.
The proposal is truly non-partisan – there’s no right, center, or left to it. Better still, it’s a non-partisan gain.
(Embedded below is a video of the council session. I have added in parentheses the times during the video when remarks to which I refer begin. The discussion begins at 18:45.)
Here’s how Whitewater’s City Attorney McDonell correctly described the proposals (19:10):
The ordinance that you have before you is an amendment to the Landmarks Ordinance (the Landmarks Commission ordinance). I know that members are here and they can certainly correct me or add, but my understanding is that upon going to some training, they found out that the approval process is now that the state of the art nomenclature is for a ‘certificate of appropriateness.’
So, they initially were interested in updating the ordinance, which already did provide — and has for many years provided — that they have the right to review and approve any alterations to the exterior of any building that’s a landmark or within the historic district.
What the ordinance does in part – it changes the approval process from just being called an approval to an issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.
Secondly, they requested that the ordinance be amended to provide, to clarify, and to be certain that if the City of Whitewater does any exterior alteration of any landmark site or building that it owns in the historic district that it will be required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks Commisison.
Those are the two main changes. There’s been some thought that this is an ordinance that is now requiring approval of the Landmarks Commission for any alterations of landmarks and in the historic district.
That’s been the law for twenty or thirty years, and this just changed the language for it.
He’s right. These are, in principle and fact, merely efforts to bring Whitewater’s Landmarks Commission process into conformity with best-practices elsewhere.
These are not additional regulatory burdens on private owners — they’re process improvements that are regulations-neutral.
Approvals would merely bring with them certificates of appropriateness to memoralize those approvals.
Why are these proposals a good idea?
Transparency.
A review of Whitewater’s existing Landmarks Ordinance confirms that the commission now has the power to designate, adopt guidelines for designation, rescind designations, and that improvements to landmark sites must be kept in good repair. The first of the two 4.17.12 proposals merely memorializes existing authority.
It’s a good idea to establish a specific document – a certificate of appropriateness — to memoralize these landmark-related actions. One will be able to look for that document, rather than search through minutes, hope to recall what happened at a meeting, or debate what form is a legitimate one for Landmarks Commission approvals (there’s sure to be this debate, and a particular certificate solves this problem.)
The public benefits when administrative bodies adopt specific forms for processes. That’s why, at every administrative level in America (local, state, federal), there are designated forms and pleadings to be used.
Clear, identifiable, open – a more transparent (and so better) modification to an existing authority.
Standardization.
Other communities nearby, and across the state, have adopted certificates of appropriateness. They haven’t done so because it hurts them — they’ve done so because it helps them by making things clearer for all involved. We’ve no reason to consign ourselves to a cloudy process when we can establish a clear one.
This proposal reduces uncertainty, and that’s good for public or private planning.
We’d simply be adopting a statewide standard of care that makes landmarks actions elsewhere more intelligible and definitive. Whitewater needs more clarity, and this is a step in that direction.
Uniformity.
A portion of this proposal, as noted above, would apply a certificate of appropriateness to both public and private sites (excepting, as the existing ordinance already does, safety emergencies).
One standard for all properties (of which there are not many at any rate) is the right standard. Asking government to meet the same standards that the residents are asked to meet is a consistency from which Whitewater will benefit. Not two standards, but one easily memoralized practice for these few, affected properties.
This ordinance involves only the few, nineteen landmark properties in the city (27:00), there is only one property under commission considertation now (26:10) and properties may be de-listed (26:30) in any event. We have only one small historic district (28:00). This is a commisison with a narrowly-defined scope.
The proposal helps move Whitewater toward more transparency, standardizing practices with other communities and assuring consistency within the city.
It’s also encouraging that these ideas came about in the best way — from dedicated residents attending a conference, gathering good ideas that are common elsewhere, and then submitting them as proposals for Whitewater. That’s something to encourage generally, and in this instance.
These are good ideas and amendments worth supporting.
Common Council Meeting 04/17/2012 from Whitewater Community TV on Vimeo.