|
Statement of Purpose. The document explains the
legal consequences of historic landmark designation, explains the difference
between a historic landmark and a historic district, sets forth the process
the Commission has followed in processing properties for historic landmark
designation, and explains the factors that persuaded the Commission to
accept the claims for special significance for the City House.
Legal Consequences Of Historic Landmark Designation
(property must have special significance).
1. The property owner may apply for an automatic
deferral of the property taxes due for that portion of the property which
has been designated as a historic landmark. If the property should lose its
historic landmark designation, the owner must pay full back property taxes
for three years with a penalty.
2. Owner must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Historic Landmarks Commission before obtaining a building permit or
demolition permit.
3. The Historic Landmarks Commission can delay the
demolition of a historic landmark for up to 365 days.
4. The local governing board may use the power of
eminent domain to acquire a historic landmark scheduled for demolition. The
historic landmark could then be sold with legal instruments in place to
assure its preservation.
5. The Historic Landmarks Commission may acquire the
fee simple or any lesser included interest in a historic landmark. The
historic landmark can be sold with legal instruments in place to assure its
preservation.
Differences Between Historic Landmarks And Historic
Districts.
1. Properties in historic districts do not have to be
individually significant.
2. Interiors of structures in historic districts are
not covered by design review.
3. Interiors of historic landmarks can be covered by
design review if the owner consents.
4. There is no provision for the use of the power of
eminent domain to acquire structures in historic districts.
5. There is no provision for property tax deferral for
properties in historic districts.
Process For Evaluating Potential Historic Landmarks.
1. Historic Landmarks Commission places prospective
historic landmarks on its Study List, meaning that the property warrants
further study.
2. A Survey and Research Report advancing the claim
for special significance for the prospective historic landmark is prepared
and submitted to the Commission’s Survey Committee.
3. The Survey Committee reviews the Survey and
Research Report and formulates a recommendation to the Historic Landmarks
Commission as to whether the property should be recommended for historic
landmark designation.
4. The Historic Landmarks Commission decided whether
to approve, disapprove, or amend the Survey Committee’s recommendation.
5. The Survey and Research Report is submitted to the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History for comment.
6. If the letter from the Division of Archives and
History asks for clarifications or corrections in the Survey and Research
Report, changes are made when deemed appropriate by staff and the report is
resubmitted to the Historic Landmarks Commission.
7. The Historic Landmarks Commission determines
whether it wishes to schedule a joint public hearing with the local
governing board that has zoning jurisdiction over the prospective landmark.
The City House
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
was contacted by the owner of the City House, located at 500 East Kingston
Avenue, concerning the possible landmark designation of the property. Staff
visited the property and determined that the house was potentially
eligible. The owner applied to be put on the Commission’s Study List, and
the Commission voted to do so on March 10, 2003. The property owner then
hired Ryan Sumner, a historic consultant who had produced reports for the
Commission in the past, to produce a Survey and Research Report. Mr.
Sumner submitted a report to the Commission in 2005. Staff recommended that
several changes be made to the report, and Mr. Sumner submitted a revised
copy of the report to the Commission’s Survey Committee on January 26,
2006. The Committee recommended that the Commission process the property
for designation and the Commission voted to do so on February 13, 2006. To
comply with the State’s general statutes, the Commission sent a copy of the
Survey and Research Report to the State Historic Preservation Office in
Raleigh for their comments.
Claudia Brown of the State Historic Preservation Office, in a letter
dated May 15, 2006, commented that the Survey and Research Report for the
property contained some deficiencies and “irrelevant and confusing
information” and that the report did not show that the property had the
requisite special significance for local landmark designation. The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission immediately delayed
processing the property until a revised Survey and Research Report could be
produced. Significant revisions were made to the report by Ann Boggs, a
consultant for the Commission. Ms. Boggs used the State’s comment letter
as a guide to revise the report.
In her letter Ms. Brown wrote that the original report contained
irrelevant information concerning a previous owner of the land, a Mr. John
Brown. Ms. Boggs reduced the reference to this person to just a single
sentence.
Ms. Brown questioned the speculative attribution of local architect James
McMichael as the possible architect of the Duplex. In response Ms. Boggs
removed this argument from the report.
Ms. Brown suggested that a “discussion of other early duplexes in
Dilworth and elsewhere in the city” would be helpful. In response, Ms.
Boggs carefully studied historic fire insurance company maps to determine
the extent of surviving duplexes in Dilworth and concluded that “The City
House was constructed in 1909, and is one of the oldest suburban residence
in Charlotte which was initially designed as a duplex and is the oldest
recognizable suburban example of this architectural form.”
Ms. Brown’s final stated concern was that the architectural report was
inaccurate in its identification of the building’s style. In Mr. Sumner’s
defense, his categorization of the house as “Italianate” was based on an
earlier National Register nomination that was approved by the State Historic
Preservation Office. Nevertheless, Ms. Boggs incorporated Ms. Brown’s
categorization of the house as a “late Queen Anne-early Colonial Revival
design” into her revised version of the report.
In addition to the previously noted statement of significance, the
Commission determined that the revised report also adequately demonstrates
that: the City House represents a new building type that was associated in
the early twentieth century with the growing urban character of the city,
and that the City House occupies a prominent position in the landscape of
Dilworth, Charlotte's first streetcar suburb. In addition to these findings
the revised report also demonstrates that the property has the requisite
integrity in terms of interior and exterior architectural elements to convey
the historical character of the Duplex. The dual front doors, as well as a
well-defined entrance hall on the west side of the house that leads directly
to an upstairs that closely mirrors the layout of the lower unit, clearly
identify the building’s original use as a duplex. For these reasons the
Commission voted on September 11, 2006 to move ahead with recommending that
the Charlotte City Council designate the property as a local historic
landmark.
|