More News

One speaker after another told the Montgomery County Council last week that the changes proposed to the county's historic preservation law are a bad idea.

Some 33 people, including historic preservation professionals, homeowners and a carpenter, identified flaws with the amendment proposed by Councilman Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown. Two speakers testified at the March 31 hearing in support of the proposals — a woman who said she was unable to sell her parents home in a timely manner after their deaths because neighbors nominated it for historic designation and an individual who said the needs of individual property owners deserve greater consideration, which is what Knapp said is his intention in proposing the amendment.

The proposal is designed to bring clarity to the historic preservation process, said Knapp, who added he was not discouraged by the comments made at the hearing.

"I get it, I understand it, I think it's very valuable," he said, referring to his appreciation of historic resources. "The challenge is to get the balance."

Knapp drafted the amendment in response to testimony he heard over a number of months last summer from property owners who did not wish to be included in the Master Plan of Historic Preservation for the Damascus-Goshen area.

The last property removed from the list was Friendship United Methodist Church in Damascus, which was built in 1901 by an African American congregation. The church, like the other property owners who did not want to be on the list, said the designation would create hardships.

Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson was among those who spoke against the proposed amendment.

"The [Planning] Board unanimously and strongly recommends the council not adopt the amendment as drafted," Hanson said.

He pointed to problems with a provision in the proposal requiring four of the five Planning Board members to support a property's designation over the owner's objection and another that cedes zoning authority from the County Council to the Planning Board in cases where the Planning Board votes against designating a property historic. He said that might violate state law.

"It would inhibit the ability to protect historic resources," said Gary Sith, deputy director of the county's Department of General Services, who represented the county executive.

Under current law a property must meet one of nine criteria to be designated historic. Under the proposed amendment, if an owner objects to the designation, the property would have to meet three criteria to be declared historic and four Planning Board commissioners would have to approve its inclusion. The proposal would also eliminate high artistic value as a criterion for designation.

"Experience has shown that jurisdictions with owner-consent provisions protect very few resources," Julia H. Miller, special counsel to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, wrote in a letter to the council. "The requirement that three criteria be met in lieu of one whenever an owner objects to designation suggests a lack of understanding of the designation criteria and the level of research and documentation behind each nomination."

Some of the problems with the amendment might have been avoided if people who work with historic preservation law had been consulted, said Gwen Wright, former supervisor of the county's Historic Preservation Commission.

The County Council wrote the historic preservation law 30 years ago, at a time when rapid growth threatened historic buildings, David Rotenstein, acting chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, said.

"Councilmember Mike Knapp has introduced legislation that would effectively deconstruct the nationally recognized program," he said.

He and others suggested the council instead improve the language of the current law.

The council will accept comments on the proposal through May 22 and hold committee worksessions on the amendment in June.