Opinion: From the Chair of the OHPC

Dear Editor,

A letter appeared in last week’s Owego Pennysaver regarding the Owego Historic Preservation Commission (OHPC) that contained a number of inaccuracies, and as a knowledgeable spokesperson, I would like to correct as many as I can.

In the first Paragraph, we are chided for sometimes being punitive. This only ever occurs when someone has evaded responsibility, say, by removing or installing a feature or structure without benefit of prior review, one might say, ”illegally.”

As regards paragraph 2, we do not seem to have any trouble at all, under the current system, attracting conscientious new residents and business owners. In fact the last two years have seen a great number of enthusiastic “newcomers” added to the District.

Further along, the Village administration asserts that they have been “petitioned” to eliminate the Commission. Petition is used loosely here to reflect verbal grousing and the typical rantings found on Facebook. Also they contend that the standard process of applications for review is ‘byzantine.” 

On the contrary, our application is one page; the typical applicant only needs to fill out one or two of the six sections. The applicant is not required to attend the meeting. Recently, (the new yoga shop owner) called me to apologize for forgetting to attend and was pleasantly surprised to find that their application was approved anyway. I told her the application was complete and clear, and what they desired to do was entirely acceptable. 

Frequently an applicants’ contractor appears, as this person is likely to be able to answer any questions we might have. This was the case with Original Italian’s application for a replacement awning. (Which was approved.) It should be noted that invariably applications that are complete are buttoned up in the first and only meeting addressing them, and that our perennial approval rate is well over 90 percent, year after tedious year.

Which brings us to an oft-heard disparagement; that we “dictate colors.” I don’t ever remember our telling someone they couldn’t paint a building the color they preferred. Our main issue with color is documentation. We are required to document, and yes, approve ANY visual change to the buildings in the District.

Color has never, and will never adversely affect the longevity or integrity of a structure, and as such, we don’t have an opinion. 

The recommendation that one employ a Historic Palette of colors is simply a manner of avoiding conversations about the efficacy of any choice, while appropriately documenting the changes. When Buffy Arhbal (Insurance) or Niagara Bank wished to change signage, the colors did not in any way conform; but they were corporate colors, dictated by the home office and we understood they were part of the package of being a franchisee. Much like the blue Chevrolet ‘bowtie’ I would have been prepared to fight for.

The administration claims that the changes proposed return local control to decision-making. Again, the opposite is true. Once the Commission is eradicated, our valuable and much-coveted status of Certified Local Government (CLG) goes with it. 

For large projects such as The Parkview renovations, The Nelson project, the previous wildly successful Nelson project at 231 Main St., or any number of applications having State or Federal monies attached, oversight would be provided at the State level with all of the complications and consternations one imagines.

The letter ends with a plea for the complainants to appear and recite their issues and gripes. They had better. In the absence of some substantive issues with the local Historic Preservation Law #126, or egregious misfeasance by the Commission, the Village Board will be seen by just about any outside, objective observer as punitive, arbitrary and contrary, with little or no factual basis for what appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

Sincerely,

Mark Trabucco 

Chair, Owego Historic Preservation Commission