December 2024
Joe Lawniczak, Wisconsin Main Street
As most of us have witnessed over the past decade or longer, communities that have preserved their older and historic buildings have distinguished themselves from those that haven’t, and have experienced a vibrancy not seen in most of our lifetimes. Most people are drawn to areas with historic charm,. and that character provides a surprisingly perfect backdrop for splashes of color, artwork, and fun, funky spaces. That in turn helps to attract businesses, customers, and residents, which helps to stabilize property values and often increases resale value for property owners and property tax revenue for municipalities. However, preserving that historic character doesn’t just happen on its own. It requires ongoing advocacy, incentives, regulations, partnerships, diplomacy, and sometimes hard-fought battles.
While there are property owners who inherently appreciate the value of historic buildings and consider themselves stewards of these surviving places from previous generations, many others simply see them as studs and a roof. To some, any building improvement, or even demolition, is viewed as an improvement, even if it destroys every historic element of the property. But regardless of whether or not someone has an emotional connection to these buildings, there is inherent social and economic value in historic buildings that should be protected. Sometimes this needs to be uniquely highlighted for those who may not appreciate that value at first glance.
It’s essential that preservation advocates make their case from a perspective that property owners or elected officials can relate to, rather than waxing poetically about architectural details or building styles. Most often, that means focusing on the financial impact and perspective. For property owners, citing the available studies that show how property and resale values in historic districts, either residential or commercial, are more stable and often increase at a higher rate than in comparable non-historic districts may catch their attention. And for elected officials, using those same property value numbers to show how protecting the historic character of a district can positively affect property tax revenues will often resonate with them.
After the recovery from the 2008 recession, Wisconsin communities saw a tremendous surge of rehabilitations and reuses of historic buildings. This was in large part thanks to the tireless efforts of preservation advocates who fought for decades to prevent mass demolition and destructive urban renewal policies. Most communities are thriving today because of the historic character they helped to preserve. But in the last few years, there seems to be a resurgence of anti-preservation and anti-regulation sentiment across the state and nation, coming from all sides of the political spectrum. More and more people are of the mindset that owners should be able to do whatever they want to their personal property. Preservation advocates seem to be back in the same battle that they fought 20-40 years ago.
Another factor has been the popularity of home improvement shows. While some of these shows focus on historic restoration and rehabilitation, most of them practice home remodeling, which is entirely different. Remodeling means taking a building and changing its appearance to reflect current trends. But trends never last more than 10-20 years, meaning they will be out of style in less than a generation. Whereas restoration and rehabilitation relate to the original design of the building, meaning it will always retain its intended character, even when converted to new uses, and won’t go in and out of style as trends change.
Home improvement shows usually leave out the local planning, design, permitting, and building inspection processes as well. As a result many viewers don’t realize that local regulations apply, leading them to think there are no restrictions on what they can do.
To combat these issues, communities for decades have enacted local tools to aid in protecting these irreplaceable assets. Things like zoning ordinances, historic preservation ordinances, landmark or preservation commissions, financial incentives, design guidelines, and design review are all common and effective. They are essential to assuring that building renovations, additions, or adjacent new construction fit within the context of and don’t detract from the character of a district. And to be clear, these design regulations at the local level only apply to the exterior of buildings, not the interior, which is a common misconception.
But to be effective, these regulations must be adopted, respected, and enforced by the municipality and the community. Far too often, they are adopted but not upheld by the local zoning or code official, the zoning board, department administrators, or elected officials. This can obviously set unwanted precedents. After all, ordinances are local laws which all property owners should be required to follow, all municipal staff and elected officials should adhere to, and all design guidelines and design review should reflect. If there is a majority of opposition to certain regulations in a community, they should be addressed in future ordinance amendments. But until then, what has been adopted should be abided by.
Although the local historic review committee worked with this property owner for months to approve plans, once construction began the owner ignored the plans and removed all historic elements. The local building inspector and chief elected official were unwilling to make the owner abide by the plans or the zoning ordinance, and unfortunately, there was nothing the committee could do.
But regulations must be fair and balanced, as overstep can work both ways. Far too many design review committees across the state have become overzealous and inflexible in their reviews. This can be just as detrimental as not having any regulations at all. Effective historic district design review does not mean that every building rehabilitation must be a precise historic restoration, or that new construction must look like it was built in the 1800s. It means that remaining historic elements should be retained and repaired whenever possible, and any replacement or addition should at least respect the original design.
If a review board is known to be unreasonable, property owners may go to great lengths to avoid that headache. They may do exterior renovation work without a permit, or demolish a building entirely, knowing that it’ll be too late to reverse it by the time the board finds out. Or they may choose to do nothing to their buildings and let them deteriorate, which can be just as destructive to the building.
If the situation is bad enough, the property owners could band together and petition the municipality to either de-list the historic district (something that requires the majority of property owner approval), or to persuade the municipality to strip all design review powers from the committee. This too would obviously be devastating from a historic preservation perspective and run counterproductive to the review committee’s objective.
To avoid this, a design review committee must do each of the following:
- Know every part of the zoning ordinance that affects the historic district. This can include sections on historic preservation, new construction, and even fencing, parking, and signage.
- Make sure that the design guidelines and every decision by the committee follows the zoning ordinance exactly. That doesn’t mean that exceptions or compromises can’t be allowed if warranted, but the basis of everything must start with the ordinance.
- If possible, have someone on the committee who has a working knowledge of preservation, architecture, construction, and/or building codes. This will help the committee to provide basic design suggestions when requested, or to calmly but confidently counter arguments made by the applicant. There will be times when compromises need to be made. The committee must be able to determine what can be allowed without jeopardizing the building’s historic integrity.
- Know where the committee’s powers and jurisdiction begin and end. In virtually all local ordinances that give a historic preservation commission the powers of design review, it is limited only to the building exterior, and in many cases, only those sides of the building visible from the public right of way. Building interiors are not part of their purview. Some municipalities only grant the commission “advisory” design review powers, which while better than nothing, is not ideal. It’s also common for some non-historic properties to be included in a historic district because they sit between historic ones. Often, these properties must undergo the same design review as the historic ones, since what happens to them can affect the overall district. Similarly, any new construction or building additions proposed within a district are typically subject to design review as well, even though they’re not historic.
- Make sure that the building code official and the zoning administrator know their role when dealing with historic properties. Most often, a building or demolition permit cannot be issued until the plans are approved by the historic preservation commission. And during construction, the zoning and code officials should be checking for compliance with the historic preservation aspects of the project just as they would with other zoning and code issues.
- Not all property owners have an appreciation for, or an understanding of, historic preservation. If something they’re proposing doesn’t meet the design guidelines, don’t assume they are being malicious towards historic preservation. They may simply not have experience with historic renovations. Thankfully, most want to do what is appropriate, but they don’t know what that entails. Many aren’t even aware of what needs a permit before they can begin. Perhaps surprisingly, the same is true of architects and contractors, many of whom have experience with new construction or remodeling, but not with restoration or rehabilitation. The design review process can and should be an educational tool, and a chance to build a collaborative working relationship.
- To prevent property owners from renovating or demolishing a building without proper approvals, create an easy-to-read info sheet or brochure with a clear map of the affected properties, a bullet-pointed list of the key design regulations, what is required, what is allowed, what is prohibited, what needs a permit, what doesn’t, who to contact, and why preservation is important. Then get this into the hands of all affected property owners, municipal staff, real estate agents, local architects, and contractors, etc.
- All review board members must be diplomatic. The decisions they make affect what people can and cannot do with their personal property. Members must be able to compromise when appropriate, yet stand firm when needed, all while treating applicants with respect.
- When meeting with an applicant, a review board must never automatically disregard the applicant’s ideas. Listen to them, and if their proposal is still inappropriate, politely explain why it wouldn’t meet the guidelines or the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Then, if requested or warranted, recommend more appropriate alternatives, and make them part of the discussion. Never let your emotions take over. Stay calm and professional at all times.
- Any permit process takes far too long in the minds of property owners, developers, and contractors. Anything that can be done to minimize the time it takes to go through the approval process should be considered. Meet on an as-needed basis instead of a set monthly date. Utilize email and virtual meetings as needed to expedite discussion and decisions, while still abiding by public notice requirements. Allow applicants to send digital plans and photos instead of requiring printed versions. Always inform them from the beginning of what is expected of them, what materials are required, what forms need to be filled out, public notice periods, etc.
- Document every single item that is discussed, debated, agreed upon, or disputed during a design review. When an agreement or compromise is reached between the committee and the applicant on a particular item, consider requiring the applicant’s signature for each so they can’t claim they were unaware of something later. Do the same for any items that were not approved. Consider recording each meeting if agreed to by the applicant.
- Once the committee decides, each member should stand by that decision, even if they voted differently. If a committee member continually expresses their disagreement to the general public after the fact, the chairperson should take corrective action.
- Avoid interjecting personal preferences into decisions. Be open to some freedom of expression when appropriate, such as allowing bolder colors on doors, windows, and trim as long as it doesn’t damage or destroy original elements or overly distract from the character of the district. Since painting is a reversible action (meaning it can be changed relatively easily), it’s generally recommended that paint colors not be regulated. This is especially true for signage, where a business’s brand colors are important for them to incorporate, so a review board should never tell them they can’t use them in their signage. At most, steering them toward historic or traditional color palettes for trim and other building materials will be more effective than dictating paint colors. With that said, if an applicant is proposing windows or other materials that have a pre-finished (and non-changeable) color, that is considered non-reversible and should be reviewed as needed.
- While it’s very tempting for preservationists to prohibit murals on historic buildings, there are instances where they can be appropriate, or at least acceptable. And communities who prohibit murals are, quite frankly, making enemies of artists who might normally be preservation advocates. Murals may be appropriate on side or rear walls (never on the primary façade) of commercial buildings if those walls are materials such as stucco, concrete block, previously painted brick, or if done on a mural panel that is carefully attached to the building.
- Be open to new technologies such as solar panels, green roofs, and some time-tested newer materials, but only if done sensibly and in a manner that doesn’t damage or diminish a building’s historic character. After all, most historic buildings were built before electricity, indoor plumbing, or insulation, but were adapted in the past to accommodate these new technologies. The same can be true today with proper sizing and placement. Review committees who are overly restrictive on things such as solar panels are making enemies of sustainability advocates who might otherwise be preservation advocates.
- That said, it’s important to realize that not all new technologies or products are appropriate for historic buildings. For example, replacing intact and repairable historic windows with new vinyl windows is rarely, if ever, appropriate. Replacing original wood siding with vinyl or Smart siding is not a proper match. Or replacing an intact original storefront with a new roll-up operable storefront is never recommended. But if the original storefront was removed long ago, an operable storefront, or a more modern stationary one, may be acceptable if the proportions of the openings (transoms, display windows) reflect what would have been there before.
If your community has a design review process in place for historic districts, or if it is considering creating one, hopefully the information above will help to guide the way it functions. By doing so, hopefully it will make opponents into advocates, and the recent success rate of quality rehabilitations and restorations across Wisconsin and the nation will continue for generations to come.
