It’s in the letter

Click here to read the letter from James Finelli

Dear Editor,

The Village contracted with outside legal council to write local law #3, subject of next Monday’s (Oct. 16, 7 p.m.) hearing. They also solicited guidance from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). They wanted to know whether the CLG status was being jeopardized. It is. Too bad they didn’t think to ask before spending the money.

Mr. Finelli also copied me, as Chair of the Commission slated for extinction. It is perfectly clear that the Village has a great deal to lose with the vote to eliminate the Owego Historic Preservation Commission (OHPC).

Although the new law reads as if proper attention is given to the importance of preservation to the general welfare of the public, and purports to “protect and enhance the landmarks and historic districts…” and “encourage investments in the acquiring, resurrecting, refurbishing, restoration and continued upkeep and maintenance of these valued treasures,” and makes a nod to, ”original design and construction.” Within its’ own text, the law puts its finger squarely on the problem it creates.  Section 126-1 Purpose (E), reads, “The intent of this section is not to provide a pathway for renovations or improvements to property in a manner that is not in keeping with a properties original design aesthetics and appeal, or in a manner that is injurious to the value and general appeal of the properties or landmarks or to the surrounding, adjacent or neighboring properties values and appeal.” [Italics mine] On the contrary; the haphazard way the law is enforced virtually ensures this would happen.

It is also clear that there is provision in the scheme for additional expense. Chapter 126-2 (E) Duties of the Committee shall include: (1) Recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees, after consultation with the Code Enforcement Officer, regarding employment of staff and professional consultants as necessary to assist carrying out the duties of the Committee.” [Italics mine] This is how they envision coping with the loss of the educated (read “trained”) volunteers who now occupy the OHPC. (The current OHPC is virtually cost-free. We usually expense $35/meeting for a recording secretary. Lately, not even that. Our training is at the expense of the SHPO.)

The law puts the initial responsibility for compliance with the Code Officer. [Chapter 126-6] So, in addition to overseeing all new construction in the Village, doing fire inspections, inspecting the 600-plus rental units, and enforcing code when garbage piles up, etc., we will be responsible to get him/her trained to take the place of the seven-member Commission, and assume their duties. Incidentally, we meet typically twice a month for two to three hours. It is difficult to imagine one Officer coping with this level of additional work. More cost?

As observed above, much of the balance of the act reads as though adequate thought has been given to making it work as intended.

So, let’s see what the SHPO thinks. The legal opinion, by James Finelli, was returned to the Village dated Oct. 5, 2017 and is characterized as “SHPO’s formal response.” The following aspects of the law are found “non-compliant with the CLG agreement between the NYS SHPO and the Village of Owego.”

1. Abolishing the Commission

2. The responsibility given the Code Officer

3. Final review authority being given to the Village Board of Trustees 

The letter goes on to delineate several of the benefits being abandoned:

1. The Village will no longer have access to the CLG grant program.

2. Village government will no longer be notified when properties within Owego are being recommended for nomination to the State and National registers. Nor will the Village be able to review, comment on or veto proposed nominations within Owego.

3. The Village will no longer be able to request Certification for Tax Purposes of local historic districts for those properties NOT [Bolding mine] listed on the State and National Registers.

4. The Village will no longer have the assistance of CLG program staff to coordinate historic preservation efforts with the technical expertise of the SHPO.

And the final grace note: “A property owner who makes improvements that involve installing windows, siding materials, porch elements, or decorative features which do not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES [bolding mine] from participation in the state and federal historic rehabilitation tax credit programs”

The initiative to upend the current Chapter 126 and replace it, in order to eliminate the current Commission, appears unwise. Very likely all of the consequences were not evident when the law was proposed. With this new information, it is hoped that the mayor and Trustees will reevaluate the pros and cons of proceeding, and decide against doing so.

Sincerely,

Mark Trabucco

Chair, Owego Historic Preservation Commission

Click here to read the letter from James Finelli. 

Be the first to comment on "It’s in the letter"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*