Town still mulling historic preservation ordinance

The Nashville Development Review Commission is still working on a proposed ordinance that would create one or more historic districts in town and regulate what happens to certain types of buildings.

The DRC conducted a public hearing about the ordinance on Sept. 16.

DRC member David Martin explained that the town has never really had an ordinance that can preserve buildings that are deemed historic; it’s only had a demolition delay ordinance. This new proposed ordinance wouldn’t give anyone the sole authority to step in and stop a demolition, he said, but it would outline a process for interested parties, such as a neighborhood association or governmental entity, to intervene.

“There are ways to circumvent the demolition ordinance and take a building down, but primarily it is to save our historic buildings, and I think there are a number of them are possibly in danger of being demolished depending on who buys them in the near future,” he said.

“It’s much stronger than we have right now,” added DRC member Warren Cole, who runs the Hobnob restaurant in one of Nashville’s most iconic historic buildings.

“This document adds to the tools that a fully functioning preservation committee could use,” added audience member Jim Schultz, from Peaceful Valley Heritage. That volunteer-led preservation group rallied to save the downtown Dennis Calvin house from demolition earlier this spring.

“It would certainly increase the amount of time it would take in order to demolish something, and it would allow for many levels of intervention to occur that there’s really no time for under the present ordinance that we’re working with,” he said.

He fears that without this ordinance, people could buy historic buildings downtown and gut them, and that would change the character of the community and hurt one of the main reasons people come here.

The ordinance would remove the DRC and replace it with a historic preservation commission, and that body would regulate what goes on in a historic district downtown, explained DRC member Brandon Harris.

Each structure in the district would be “graded” according to its historical significance, or lack thereof. Not all structures would be subject to strict guidelines.

Audience members asked questions about potential costs that could come from this ordinance.

Sherrie Mitchell, candidate for county council, asked if enforcing it would put more work on any county employees. The county planning office already is in charge of enforcing many town zoning ordinances. DRC members couldn’t answer her question right away.

Nancy Crocker, candidate for town council, who also lives in a historic house, asked if the ordinance would allow for any money to help people maintain their historic properties. The DRC couldn’t answer that right away either.

Other members of the audience suggested giving grants or tax credits for that sort of work.

Debbie Bartes, a downtown business owner and member of the county Area Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, was concerned how these rules could affect home buyers or owners by potentially putting more costs on them. Since the historic district hasn’t been created yet and where it would go isn’t clear, DRC members couldn’t answer her concern.

DRC member Bruce Gould, who owned and had planned to raze the Dennis Calvin house, expressed concern that this ordinance will have a chilling effect on economic development by delaying a developer’s timeline and incurring more costs for that wait.

County resident and Area Plan Commission member Russ Herndon, whose background is in building, said he supports this ordinance because it could protect Nashville’s historic “smile” — “every time somebody comes down and tears down a house, there’s a missing tooth, and all of a sudden, it doesn’t look so inviting,” he said.

“I don’t want houses to be town down,” added Crocker, “but if we’re going to do something, we need to do something to keep them up.”

The ordinance the DRC is looking at now was adapted from the state’s historic preservation commission, so town leaders expect to make some tweaks to fit what makes sense for Nashville.

Nashville Chief Administrator Phyllis Carr told the town council last month that she didn’t have a good guess on when the ordinance would be ready for the council to review.

Town Council approves changes made to sign ordinance

The Nashville Town Council has approved changes to its sign ordinance to align with a Supreme Court ruling.

The Brown County Area Plan Commission had recommended the changes in August and the town council approved them on Sept. 20.

Communities can’t have rules for signs that differ based on what the sign says, so that it doesn’t appear communities are regulating or interfering with freedom of speech. For example, rules for church signs can’t be different than rules for business signs.

The changes include a provision that says any “noncommercial” message on a sign can be substituted for a “commercial” message, without a permit. This is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of one type of speech over another.

Also among the changes is a rule that if a sign is going on government-owned property, the county planning director and the governing body in charge of that property have to approve it before the sign goes up. For example, in downtown Nashville, the county commissioners are in charge of the county courthouse and the town council is in charge of the Village Green, or “four corners.” Adding the government agency’s approval is new.

No changes were made to a rule that prohibits internally lit signs. They are still not allowed.

Town creates first official parks commission

Nashville’s town park committee has been made an official town commission after questions emerged about who had approved work to be done on vacant park land.

The questions arose at the Sept. 20 town council meeting when town council President “Buzz” King asked for more coordination. He said he was unaware that trees were scheduled to be planted on the vacant park land behind his house on Johnson Street, and he said he also didn’t know about the planters that a local contractor installed with money from a Duke grant.

King was concerned that because there were no set plans yet for how the park land would be used, additions like those might not make sense and might have to be moved once a plan is made.

Town council and park committee member Jane Gore told King that she had seen an invoice for the planter work in a park committee meeting. Gore, council member Alisha Gredy, town council candidate Anna Hofstetter, community member Melanie Voland and former town intern Zachary Huneck had been on this committee, which has been collecting ideas on how to use the park land; town manager/economic development director Scott Rudd was on it as well until he resigned to take a different job in the office of the Indiana lieutenant governor last month.

Gore told King that the council had been talking about the tree plantings for several months. Most recently, they were mentioned in a council meeting on Sept. 6.

King and Nashville Clerk-Treasurer Brenda Young suggested that this become an official commission appointed by the council, which would mean their meetings would be posted and anyone could attend.

The council held off on approving a claim for the planter work until they received an itemized bill.

The Nashville Town Park Commission will be over the under-construction park at Washington and Johnson streets and the Village Green’s “four corners.”

Anyone wishing to be on the commission can fill out an “expression of interest” form on the town’s website, townofnashville.org.