|
Mr. Morrill,
In your email of November 29 you ask whether a historic landmark designated
pursuant to G.S. 160A-400.5 and -400.6 must necessarily consist of a single
property owned by a single owner or legal entity. Although experience has
shown that landmark designation of individual properties on individual
tracts or lots is most certainly the norm, I see no clear reason why the law
requires a landmark property to be restricted to a single lot or tract or to
a single owner of a single lot or tract.
G.S. 160A-400.5 provides in part that “(n)o property shall be recommended
for designation as a historic landmark unless it is deemed and found by the
preservation commission to be of special significance in terms of its
historical, prehistorical, architectural, or cultural importance, and to
possess integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling and/or
association.” There are several aspects of this language worth noting.
First, the
reference to “property” may be either in the singular or the plural.
“Property” may be used either to refer to a single tract or lot of real
estate, or to a multiplicity of sites that collectively constitute a set of
holdings. The use of the term “property” does not necessarily suggest that
a landmark must consist of a single piece of real estate.
Second, G.S.
160A-400.5 speaks of “each building, structure, site, area, or object”
designated as a historic landmark. That phrase is repeated in G.S.
160A-400.6(2) and in G.S. 160A-400.6(6), among other places in the statutes.
Admittedly, the words “building” and “structure” and “object,” connote or
are associated with single, individual items of property. However, the term
“area” may apply to a geographic delineation that may include less than a
single tract of land or lot (and the accompanying structures), or more than
one such tract or lot. In certain circumstances a “site” may also include
more than one property. If more than one tract of land (and accompanying
structures) or more than one lot is involved, then more than one property
owner may be involved as well.
Third, G.S.
160A-400.5 speaks of the ability of a landmark to “possess integrity of
design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association.” This
language is almost identical to similar language describing historic
districts in G.S. 160A-400.3. Likewise the language of that statute
concerning historic districts also refers to areas of “special significance
in terms of their historic, prehistory, architecture, and/or culture.” That
latter language tracks very closely the language of G.S. 160A-400.5
mentioned in the first paragraph above, which, of course, applies to
historic landmarks.
If the
criteria for both “historic districts” and “historic landmarks” are almost
identical, isn’t about the only distinguishing feature the fact that
districts were intended for multiple properties and landmark status intended
for single properties? Not necessarily. I think that there are at least
several distinguishing features. First, in a historic district,
non-landmark contributing structures and noncontributing structures are
subject to the regulatory measures involved in obtaining certificates of
appropriateness even though they are not eligible for the property tax
benefits available for landmarks. As a result, some sort of historical
designation (arguably landmark status) is required that excludes these
buildings or structures that are not of special significance or that detract
from the character of the area but that includes related properties that
possess the integrity of character that landmark designation requires.
Related properties (perhaps in independent ownership) that possess this
integrity of character would appear to meet this test.
One caution:
an expansive view of landmark designation depends on the ability of
properties involved “to possess integrity of design, setting, workmanship,
materials, feeling and/or association.” The more the land is subdivided and
the more the ownership of affected properties is fragmented, the more
difficult it is for a group of properties to qualify for landmark status.
Perhaps that it why there are so few examples of landmarks involving
multiple owners and multiple buildings.
In summary,
then, despite the fact that a single landmark designation for more than one
property involving separate owners is probably rather unusual, I do not
believe that the law requires a landmark property to be restricted to a
single lot or tract or to a single owner of a single lot or tract.
Let me know
if you want to discuss.
|