Bookmark this category
THE PRESENT SITUATION

 Despite previous FHNA efforts, many residents may not know: ” If their property is in the MURO District and/or in the Federally Registered Historic District ” Whether or not they are supposed to seek “neighborhood” approval before making changes to their homes in addition to obvious requirements for building permits ” Who to ask and how to request such approval(s) ” What, if anything, might be the consequences of not following the rules

Residents sometimes proceed with changes to their home”s exteriors and there are numerous instances of shutters being removed completely, wood shutters replaced with fiberglass, replacing wood windows with aluminum windows, placing air conditioners, painting brick facades, building non-conforming decks, and placing antennas or satellite dishes in unsightly locations.

GOING FORWARD Prior to undertaking any changes in boundaries/designations it is necessary to understand the relative benefits, costs and procedures of: ” Expanding the MURO District to conform to FHNA”s boundaries ” Whether or not to petition for a CHAPS District encompassing our boundaries ” Determine whether either designation supplants or supplements the other ” The current role and the future role of the Preservation Society if either of the above two designations is pursued. Immediately we can proceed with the following:

1. We have asserted a policy in the past clearly stating that: “Any development within or near our neighborhood must provide sufficient parking that does not exacerbate the parking situation in Area 9 by either reducing existing parking or

failing to add sufficient spaces to support the proposed development.” This policy should be reaffirmed by the current FHNA Board.

2. We should also decide what elements of design we truly care about in order to maintain the character of our neighborhood and establishing standards for these elements. Examples would include: ” Paint Colors ” Exterior Renovations ” Historical Correctness ” Visible Front Yards and less visible Rear Yard ” Roofline Alterations ” Changes in Building Height ” Deck visibility and impact on neighboring homes ” Other Guidelines

3. Review other neighborhood association”s rules and regulations for comparisons and possible cut-and-paste consideration

4. Establish and contact a “target” group of industry-related professionals to assist with this process including architects, engineers and lawyers. Non-professional participation is also welcome.

5. Assuming progress can begin on items 1 and 2, we should also facilitate the following: ” Consideration of a formal FHNA Statement of Purpose ” Attendance at Society for the Preservation of Fells Point and Federal Hill Design Review Meetings ” Review of neighborhood design proposals ” Awareness of the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance (MURO) standards, procedures and remedies. ” Awareness of the CHAP standards, procedures and remedies.

6. We expect that FHNA will be able this year to evaluate and recommend whether or not to revise the MURO territory to conform to the neighborhood boundaries and/or to ask that the FHNA neighborhood to become a CHAP District.

With acceptance and implementation of all of the foregoing, there will be little value to any of these efforts unless a process for application and review is established and publicized and there is an effective “enforcement” mechanism that is put in place.

FHNA Historic Preservation – - CHAP vs. MURO 9/8/09 Board of Directors Report

Building permit applications within the Montgomery Urban Renewal Ordinance (MURO) district require approval by a design review panel.

FHNA defers those reviews to the Society for the Preservation of Fells Pt. & Federal Hill. (SFPHFP&FH)

The MURO district overlay includes an irregular shaped portion of FHNA.

The balance of our neighborhood outside the MURO district has no jurisdictional design restrictions or guidelines, except building permits triggered by zoning variance appellants.

We have been approached by Commission for Historic Architectural Preservation (CHAP) to create a district for our neighborhood.

An apparent option is to select one or the other, pick your poison.

Alternate-1 would be to enlarge the current MURO boundary to include all of FHNA.

Alternate 2 would be to abandon MURO and adopt a CHAP District.

Boundaries of either should be all-inclusive and coincide with the border of FHNA.

SFPFP&FH claims that their review would be an integral part of the CHAP alternate.

CHAP endures love-hate relationships due to normal two month scheduling delays.

SFPFP&FH endures love-hate relationships with applicants and professional presenters as it takes three months for the panel to produce minutes of their reviews.

A design review typically moves faster at SFPFP&FH than it does at CHAP.

Experience tells us that the CHAP process shows evidence of divisiveness among its own ranks.

Our interest as a neighborhood association should place focus on zoning issues and enforcement.

Neither CHAP nor SFPFP&FH would provide enforcement for either cause.

While the area of FHNA coincides with a National Historic District (NHD), only specific, voluntary applications are included under NHD guidelines and/or restrictions for tax credits.

We should pursue the strategic plan outlined for establishing an FHNA preservation committee to sort through this quagmire.

In any event, volunteers willing to make a substantial and ongoing commitment of time will be the only successful resolve”

By the way, if it”s enforcement we are after, on a case-by-case basis, neither may be an improvement”

See propose CHAP District Boundry Map;

Chap.pdf

Popularity: unranked [?]