Opinion: Don’t get rid of OHPC

Dear Editor,

I hope that the controversy regarding the Historic Preservation Commission does not stem from a simple misunderstanding, but it might.

At the last regular Village meeting, it was stipulated that the previous law did not require amendment (read elimination) if the personnel were changed. The boards’ perception of our operation is as unwelcoming, unhelpful and arbitrary. The word used was “problematic”. But if two (unspecified) members were induced to “retire,” the law could remain. This proposal is itself problematic as there is no provision for changing the Commissioners at the whim of a particular elected official or officials.

The Commission is constituted to be independent. This is regular and normal. We serve for predefined terms (mine expires in April), and can only be removed if we are unable or unwilling to do our jobs.

This brings us to the issue. At the same meeting, one of the trustees was quoted by Wendy Post as saying, “Here’s a lady paying $12,000 in taxes on a home that needs plumbing etc., and we are arguing with them about windows.” Put aside for a moment that we are not arguing with anyone. We have no application before us. The work in process is without our input. This problem is that the agreement the Village made with the National Park Service (NPS) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requires us to concern ourselves with windows and all other original details of the buildings in the District, especially those defined as “contributing” to it. This obligation is at the heart of our ability to remain a certified local government (CLG), with all that entails for the Villages’ independence.

We operate under very specific guidelines. In the case of the new “gateway” building currently under construction, it is to keep the flow, massing, and linear (read doors, windows and trim) elements consistent with the existing buildings it will join. It should look like it belongs there. It is specifically NOT to attempt to create features that look as though they are original. It is not supposed to look like it has always been there. With existing and especially with “contributing” buildings, our responsibility is the opposite; we are to require that the original details be maintained whenever possible.  

When the law is followed, and sufficient time is allowed, when people make application, attend meetings, dutifully and thoroughly delineate their plans, provide sufficient detail to allow the Commission to clearly understand what will change if enacted, the District, and the Village are well-served. It is the clear dictate and the precise acceptance of that responsibility that comprises the agreement with the SHPO and NPS. When people are allowed to “do their own thing” and flout the law and the CLG agreement the Village is out of compliance, and will lose the support of the Federal and State governments. We would lose the ability to decide for ourselves what is appropriate, and these formerly local decisions would be made in Albany.

The trustees that perceive the priorities of the Commission to be beyond what is reasonable need to read the agreement the Village signed. The agreement with the NPS that authorizes the CLG is not open to your re-interpretation. It says what it says; and it says that we must protect the details and features of the buildings defined as “contributing.”

Please, trustees, don’t act on Local Law #3, and let us get back to the business of maintaining the District.

Sincerely,

Mark Trabucco

Resident, Owego Historic District since 1975