Amendment strengthens Janesville's historic ordinance
Share your opinion
The Janesville Historic Commission has scheduled two meetings with residents about proposed changes to the city’s historic overlay ordinance.
The meetings are in conjunction with the commission’s regular meetings at 5:15 p.m. Monday, Nov. 30, and Monday, Dec. 14, in the training room on the fourth floor in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St.
Photo
Photo
Richard J. Fletcher
JANESVILLE — A proposed amendment would put teeth in Janesville’s historic overlay ordinance by giving the Historic Commission the power to deny a resident’s renovation requests.
Now, the commission can deny an owner a building permit. But after waiting six months, the owner can do whatever he or she wants.
Letters explaining the proposed changes will be mailed this week or next to residents in Courthouse Hill, the city’s largest overlay district, and to the owners of buildings in four single-property overlay districts. Two meetings with residents are scheduled to gauge support.
The Courthouse Hill contains about 235 properties.
“The commission would like to get the property owners’ opinions of what they feel is an appropriate amendment,” Brad Cantrell, community development director, said.
“Do they feel this goes too far?”
The amendment includes an appeal process to the city council.
Cantrell estimated the proposal could reach the city council in February or March.
Rich Fletcher, commission chairman, said the current ordinance defeats the commission’s purpose.
The commission’s decisions are based on national standards of historic rehabilitation and preservation, he said. The commission also sponsors seminars to educate homeowners about appropriate renovations.
When the ordinance was created, commission members didn’t want to appear overbearing or heavy-handed, Fletcher said. A six-month waiting period seemed like a good compromise.
But the compromise limited the effectiveness of the commission, he said.
“If we deny the permit, they can do what they want, anyway,” Fletcher said.
The people who live in Courthouse Hill like its historic feel and want to maintain that, he added.
The proposed amendment is a natural outgrowth from the original ordinance passed in the 1980s, Cantrell said.
The six-month period was a chance for commission members and residents to work together to find a solution more appropriate to the structure’s architecture.
And it has worked, Cantrell said.
“I think in that neighborhood people take pride in their homes. They purchase homes in the neighborhoods because of the historic nature, and I think that the people want to do the right thing.
“It’s been rewarding to see how things have worked and how the commission has worked with individuals to improve their properties,” he said.
Cantrell said commission members go to the sites, meet the property owners, make recommendations, offer resources and suggest more appropriate materials.
Approval of the amendment would put more responsibility on commission members so homeowners are steered in the right direction at the start of their projects, Fletcher said.
It also would serve as an example when other historic overlay districts are established.
Nov 12, 2009 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
I live in a historic district too. i can do whatever I want to BUT it still have to be code. Those are also rules we need to abide by. This is just another rule you see.
Nov 12, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
The thing is you already know this BEFORE you buy a home in the court house hill. So if you DONT like the idea dont buy the home!
Nov 12, 2009 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz,absolutely right.
With these "commisions" it's "Do as I say,not as I do".For after all We know whats best for us(oops I mean )You.
Nov 12, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a personal rights issue. Commissions such as this are usually staffed by the most liberal, self-serving, pseudo-intelligentsia in the community. They will take your right to do to your property as you see fit, because (for example) they think it's neat to see old buildings like they looked when built, and if you are too stupid to realize that THEY like to see old buildings like they looked when built, then it's their duty to circumvent your rights so that you are not intruding upon theirs, and you are adhering to what they believe in, so that they can remain happy. Your happiness be damned.
-
I love old buildings, more than most people, but I love my freedom more, and people like this commission want to take it away, one freedom at a time until there is none.
Nov 12, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Great more funds wasted on frivolous zoneing. Streets/plows/actualy issues in-need? Nah, lets save the old buildings first.
Just throw the money away in economic hard times, so we can continue the hard times. Brainless, simply brainless.
Nov 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
opinionsforfree- you CAN get credits and stuff to fix up your home!!!!! Sorry I cannot remeber who to call for the info about this. I bet if you call historic commision they can lead the way.
Nov 12, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yay more government. I own one of those houses. HOW ABOUT this stupid commission offering me grants etc so i can fix up my historic home that the last owner ran into the ground.
Richard J. Fletcher Your a tool for even thinking about this.
Nov 12, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
carlitosway, if the other property is not in the district it is not required to get permission from the Commission. I suggest a hedge.
Nov 12, 2009 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
A good friend bought a home in the 600 block of milwaukee street and it is next to an 6 unit apt. and he had a hell of a fight trying to put up a privacy fence (to keep their garbage and kids out of his yard) and was not allowed to go past a certain point in his OWN yard. Now that is wrong that they can decide what kind of fence he can use and where he can place it. I know I would tell them where to place theirs. Yet right behind him on his property line they put up a so called fence that was actually pieces off a garage and doors off a barn. take a look across from fire dept. on Milton ave. gray 2 apt home.
Nov 12, 2009 at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'd be damned if someone should have the right to control MY decisions on MY property. DICTATORSHIP is all this country is. BBB I agree this is wrong.....
Nov 12, 2009 at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is wrong period.
Nov 11, 2009 at 11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
blood, the Monterey is not in the Courthouse Hill Historic District, which is the only part of the city covered by this ordinance at present.
.
Personally, as an advocate of historic preservation, I have no objection to the cell towers atop the Monterey. There was certainly in my memory always a sign up there and the towers are not more obtrusive, and cell towers/antennae are a natural addition to tall buildings. (In fact, Chicago insisted that Trump Tower include one.) Historic rehabilitation requires that buildings be able to maintain an economic use.
.
Back to the ordinance, though. I would like to see the Commission be given some review powers in the other historic districts. At the very least property owners could become more aware of the potential for restoring and rehabbing their buildings, and better use the Commission resources. I don't even believe the standards need to be as high as on Courthouse Hill, certainly for most structures. But getting owners on board a voluntary system of treating their buildings with the care they deserve would be a step forward.
Nov 11, 2009 at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Can we pass an ordinance to take the cell tower equipment off the top of the historic Monterey Hotel why we're at it. Oh that's right,it's currently being restored to it's historic significance by the current owner! There I go getting all historical about a community treasure!!!
Nov 11, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Now, the commission can deny an owner a building permit. But after waiting six months, the owner can do whatever he or she wants."
good now it actually make sence.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.