Nashville leaders are looking over a new ordinance that would create one or more Nashville historic districts and put greater protections on historic structures.
The intention is to “preserve and protect historic or architecturally worthy buildings, structures, sites, monuments, streetscapes, squares and neighborhoods,” the ordinance says.
“It is deemed essential by the Town of Nashville that qualities relating to its history and harmonious outward appearance of its structures be preserved.”
The ordinance would be carried out by a Historic Preservation Commission — similar to the role the Nashville Development Review Commission, or DRC, plays now in assuring Nashville’s visual character stays intact. If this ordinance passes, “the two entities would become one in the same,” said Town Attorney James T. Roberts.
[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]The nine-member DRC was created in 2002 to “preserve and protect the natural beauty and unique village character of the town of Nashville.” Those volunteers currently have authority to review new construction, exterior alterations to buildings including signs, demolition requests and site improvements before work is started on all business-zoned land in Nashville.
Where the Historic Preservation Commission would have authority in town hasn’t been determined, because the boundaries of Nashville’s historic district haven’t been decided yet.
To start out, the draft ordinance suggests making the historic district the same as the Village District, but DRC members’ opinions were mixed on that.
The Village District includes nearly all of downtown Nashville: west to east from Bittersweet Lane to Schoolhouse Lane and Commercial Street, and north to south from Mound to Washington streets. It also includes properties a block further south on Van Buren Street, bordered by Schoolhouse Lane and Pat Reilly Drive — in the area of The Chocolate Moose and Brown County Visitors Center. The Village District includes businesses and some residential properties.
DRC member Brandon Harris stressed the need for public input when the DRC looked over the proposed ordinance for the first time on Aug. 21. He was concerned about putting new rules on property owners — especially homeowners — without asking how they’d feel about them first.
Harris also suggested an opt-out or opt-in process for property owners to give them some say in whether or not they wanted to be in the historic district. Other members of the DRC weren’t so sure that allowing opt-outs would achieve the goals of the ordinance.
A public hearing has been set for 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 11 at Town Hall.
Why do this?
The idea of a historic preservation ordinance has been brought up more than once in the past decade, most recently in April when the Dennis Calvin house on East Main Street was slated for demolition. The new owner, Bruce Gould, a DRC member, had planned to raze the house that had been decaying for years near downtown. At the 11th hour, the volunteer group Peaceful Valley Heritage pulled together thousands of dollars in donations to move the house instead. It now sits on blocks next door, waiting for the town to approve plans for a foundation and additions.
Town leaders fear that without an ordinance, other historic structures in town could be lost.
Nashville’s current ordinances do not allow governing boards to step in and stop a demolition, even if the structures are historic. The most the town council can do is to require an owner to wait 45 days before demolishing anything.
DRC President Penny Scroggins asked if this ordinance would prevent properties from falling into serious disrepair, like the Calvin House was.
Indiana Landmarks adviser Laura Renwick said that properties would have to be maintained in a manner to “prevent loss of historic material and important, character-defining details and features,” but that the Historic Preservation Commission probably wouldn’t use that provision to an extremely strict degree. “It’s not like we’re going to be out and finding ways to be harsh on people; it’s just a tool to prevent things from going too far down the road to be saved (if) it’s important to be saved,” she said.
How it would work
If the town decides to create one or more historic districts, every structure in the district could be surveyed and designated as “outstanding,” “notable,” “contributing” or “non-contributing.”
“Outstanding,” “notable” or “contributing” structures would have to be at least 50 years old, and their rating would be based on their historical and architectural significance.
“Non-contributing” structures could be less than 50 years old, or they could be older structures that have lost their historical significance because of alterations over the years.
Who would make those rating determinations hasn’t been decided yet.
In the new draft ordinance, a person who owns property in the historic district would have to ask the Historic Preservation Commission for a “certificate of appropriateness” to demolish or move any building; add an addition, reconstruct, alter, or change the color of a historic building; or construct a new building that’s visible from a public street. If the property is in the “primary area” of a historic district, permission also would be needed to change walls or fences on the property along public streets; or to add an addition, reconstruct, alter, or change the color of a building that isn’t historic.
If the commission denied a “certificate of appropriateness” to demolish a historic building, the owner would then have to prove that the building was “incapable of earning an economic return on its value,” and then specific “interested parties” would have to be given notice that it may be demolished. The waiting period to actually take it down could be between 60 days and a year depending on how important the Historic Preservation Commission deemed that structure to be.
That waiting period could give an “interested party” time to save it.
“Interested parties” named in the proposed ordinance are the town council, the DRC or Historical Preservation Commission, the Area Plan Commission, a neighborhood association in the historic district, an owner of property in the historic district, a state historic preservation officer or the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. The DRC or Historic Preservation Commission could be the voice of other people not on that list, Harris said.
Gould, speaking at the DRC meeting last week, said he was concerned that extending the waiting period and requiring the “no economic return” demonstration would have a chilling effect on property sales in Nashville. “I’m a developer, and if someone says, ‘You’ve got to wait a year,’ I’m looking for other projects; I’m not waiting a year,” he said.
If a property owner decided to tear a building down without any permission, or before the waiting period was up, he or she could face a stiff fine. Amounts in the draft ordinance range between $1,000 and $25,000 per day.
“We want to have some kind of teeth here that would keep a developer from saying, ‘Thousand-dollar fine? OK, here’s your check,’” Roberts told the town council.
“We don’t want to make it that easy to destroy a historical building in Nashville.”
In addition to reviewing plans for properties in the historic district, the Historic Preservation Commission would have the authority to buy, sell, lease or receive gifts of property “appropriate for carrying out the purposes of the commission,” the draft ordinance says.
Whether or not the new Historic Preservation Commission would also review business sign applications wasn’t clear to DRC members at their meeting.
They also debated whether or not the Historic Preservation Commission could or should have authority in the Hawthorne Drive area since its general character is different than that of downtown Nashville. Current DRC rules do apply to business-zoned properties in the Hawthorne Drive/Salt Creek Plaza shopping area.
Most of the proposed preservation ordinance came from a model ordinance from Indiana Landmarks which other communities use, Roberts said.
“I think we have to start somewhere, and we may have to carve at this quite a bit to make something workable,” Roberts told the town council.
“We have an obligation to our community to take this step, and I think this ordinance — I certainly don’t say it’s perfect at this perfect and I don’t claim credit for it … but I think it’s a good start.”
“I think it’s the best thing we’ve got,” DRC member David Martin told the town council Aug. 16. He wasn’t present at the Aug. 21 DRC meeting.
“I hate to say we’re in a hurry, but we almost lost buildings without having an ordinance that could protect them, and I think we need to get something going as quickly as we can.”
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”Historic preservation ordinance public hearing” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
What: Public hearing on a new historic preservation ordinance for Nashville. Other hearings may be scheduled at a later date.
When: 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 11
Where: Town Hall, 200 Commercial St.
Read the draft ordinance:
[embeddoc url=”http://www.bcdemocrat.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/09/Ordinance-2018-10-Nashville-Historical-Preservation-draft.pdf” download=”all”]
[sc:pullout-text-end]
