Please note that I’ve referred to the Local Historic Districts Act (MCL 399.201, et seq) as the LHDA, the Clarkston ordinance (152.01, et seq of the Clarkston Code of Ordinances) as the Clarkston Ordinance, and the HDC charter proposal as the Charter Proposal.
Discussion:
LHDA, 399.201a(r), Clarkston Ordinance 152.04, and Charter Proposal 16.2(b) – “Repair” means to restore a decayed or damaged resource to a good or sound condition by any process. A repair that changes the external appearance of a resource constitutes work for purposes of this act.
LHDA, 399.201a(s), Clarkston Ordinance 152.04, and Charter Proposal 16.2(b) – “Resource” means one or more publicly or privately owned historic or non-historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, features, or open spaces located within a historic district.
LHDA, 399.201a(v), Clarkston Ordinance 152.04, and Charter Proposal 16.2(b): “Work” means construction, addition, alteration, repair, moving, excavation, or demolition.
LHDA, MCL 399.210 and Clarkston Ordinance 152.12 – Nothing should be construed to prevent ordinary maintenance or repair of a resource within a historic district, or to prevent work on any resource under a permit issued by the inspector of buildings . . .
Consistent with the definitions of “work” and “repair” under the LHDA and the Clarkston Ordinance, Section 16.8(c) of the charter proposal prohibits the HDC from regulating repairs that do not affect the external appearance of a resource.
Notes:
The HDC has inappropriately asked residents to approach them for repairs that don’t change the appearance of the resource so they can be reviewed and approved. The HDC has never had the authority to do this. It does this because it wants to “catch” people doing things they shouldn’t.
HDC Commissioner Melissa Luginski publicly stated that she thinks the charter proposal means the HDC is “basically being called names.” That’s untrue, because not every HDC commissioner has behaved unreasonably, though we can attest to a personal experience with Luginski and former HDC chair Jim Meloche several years ago when we identically replaced our decayed and damaged modest pillars and porch railing spindles as part of a painting project, which fell squarely within the definition of repair and ordinary maintenance that didn’t change the exterior of a resource. Luginski visited our home (and likely trespassed on our property) to inspect what was going on, and without speaking to us or our workers, she decided we weren’t doing a “like-for-like” replacement, the HDC got an unauthorized stop work order and required us to apply for a permit from the HDC to do the work. By the time we were able to work through Luginski’s and Meloche’s unnecessary process to show it was in fact a like-for-like repair and outside of the HDC’s authority to regulate, it was too late in the season to finish the project and some of our new wood replacement was exposed to the elements throughout the winter. That is an example of unreasonable conduct in connection with repair and ordinary maintenance that we were allowed to do under the LHDA and the Clarkston Ordinance – by Melissa Luginski. Calling out inappropriate conduct is not the same as calling someone names.
Paid for by Susan Bisio, P.O. Box 1303, Clarkston, MI 48347 with regulated funds.)