LPA Comments on Proposal to Consolidate the Historic Resources Commission with the Board Zoning Appeals/Sign Code Board of Appeals and the Building Codes Board of Appeals

The following letter was submitted to the City of Lawrence Board and Commissions Structure Committee and City Staff on June 2, 2023:

Dear Chairwoman Ashworth and members of the of the Board and Commissions Structure Committee,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance to express our organization’s concerns regarding the Board and Commission Structure Committee’s proposal to consolidate the Historic Resources Commission with the boards for zoning/sign code appeals and building appeals. Our objections to this proposal are based on the following considerations:

First, because the city has elected to become a “certified local government” (CLG) under the National Historic Preservation Act, the makeup of the city’s Historic Resource Commission is prescribed by federal and state regulations. Under these regulations, all the members of a CLG must be professionals or laypersons “with demonstrated interest, knowledge or training in fields closely related to historic preservation…,” while at least 40% of a CLG’s members must be “preservation-related professionals.” Continued status as a CLG will be required if the city is to continue performing state preservation law reviews of properties in Lawrence as it presently does.

If the proposed consolidated board is to be a CLG taking the place of the current HRC, all members of the consolidated board will be required to have this specific preservation-related background or interest required by federal and state regulations, despite the fact that a preservation focus is not essential to the handling of most zoning, sign code and building code appeals. Moreover, an additional requirement for members of a CLG that is not presently imposed on members of the other affected boards is that CLG members are expected to undertake preservation-related training on an annual basis. Since any consolidated board's workload will be considerably heavier than the current HRC workload, it may be difficult for the city to find a sufficient number of persons willing to serve who also meet the CLG’s preservation-related background requirements.

Second, HRC’s alignment with the city’s strategic plan is not limited to its “Strong, Welcoming Neighborhoods” theme. HRC also plays an important role in advancing the “Unmistakable Identity” outcome of the plan by helping to preserve the city's “quintessential downtown” and its other historic structures and districts. The city’s current strategic plan clearly recognizes that preservation of these heritage resources is key to preserving the city’s “Unmistakable Identity.”

In contrast to the responsibilities entrusted to the zoning, sign code and building code boards of appeal, HRC’s role as an advocate for preservation is not limited to enforcing the specific provisions of the historic resources code relating to construction, alteration, and demolition. Instead, HRC is charged with the responsibility to survey the city’s historic resources and investigate and make recommendations to the City Commission concerning historic districts and structures that merit protection. HRC also is responsible for developing a “preservation component for the comprehensive plan of the city and recommend[ing] it to the Lawrence- Douglas County Planning Commission and to the City Commission,” and for “inform[ing] and educat[ing] the citizens of the City concerning the historic and architectural heritage of the City.” Lastly, HRC is charged with testifying before other city and county boards and commissions on any matter affecting historically and architecturally significant property, structures, and areas.” See, Lawrence City Code, Chapter 22, Section 22-205 (B) (20,(3),(4),(9),(17),(19),(20).

These policy- making and advisory functions of the HRC are fundamentally different from the almost exclusively adjudicatory responsibilities of the other boards with which HRC is proposed to be consolidated. Consolidation risks having these important HRC duties overwhelmed by a substantially increased consolidated adjudicatory workload.

Third, even when HRC serves in an adjudicatory role in deciding on certificates of appropriateness, it has developed hearing procedures that are much less formal and much more conducive to dialog with applicants, neighborhood associations and community groups such as LPA than the more formal litigation-like hearing practices of the BZA. This informal, give-and-take approach is consistent with HRC’s responsibility to “advise and assist owners of properties or structures within the City on physical and financial aspects of preservation, renovation, rehabilitation, and reuse…” Lawrence City Code, Chapter 22, Section 22-205 (B)(7). The dialog HRC has fostered for exploring creative alternatives to demolition and changes to proposed designs to make them more compatible with the context of historic structures or districts has helped to facilitate the adaptive reuse of historic structures and development in historic districts. LPA is concerned that the significantly enhanced workload that would confront the proposed consolidated board would significantly diminish the opportunity for this valuable informal dialog.

For these reasons, LPA strongly urges the Boards and Commissions Structure Committee to revise its current proposal to remove the Historic Resources Commission from any consolidation and to leave it as a free-standing body.

Thank you for your consideration and your service to the community.  

Respectfully submitted,
Mike Delaney, President

 cc:       Jody Meyer, Chair, City of Lawrence Historic Resources Commission     (jodymeyerlaw@gmail.com)