Geneva debates owners' rights in historic districts

Should Geneva maintain the power to designate historic landmarks without the consent of the property owners? And if not, will that lessen its ability to preserve the city's historic character, often cited in city surveys as important to its identity?

“That is the age-old question: How do you balance property rights vs. community good?” Alderman Dawn Vogelsberg said Monday night, after a nearly three-hour debate on the subject.

The city council is considering a request made by some residents this spring. They want to eliminate the ability of the city to designate a property as a historic landmark or to create a new historic district without the consent of the property owners affected.

If the law were to change, it could go three ways, according to a staff presentation. The council could keep “no owner consent” but require a supermajority vote of the city council on a designation, drop “no owner consent” but require only a simple majority vote on any designation, or drop “no owner consent” and require a supermajority vote in favor of the designation.

The people requesting the change live in an area the city was considering for designation as a historic district, on the near south side. Residents protested vehemently in May and June, and the council voted to drop the matter.

Under current law, anyone can nominate any property for landmark status. They would then have to complete an application and provide research to support their position. The matter would next be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, and a recommendation would be made to the council.

“The current ordinance leaves one with the feeling that the city can do something TO us. Wouldn't it be better to feel that the city can do something FOR us?” said Marty Smircich, one of the protesters.

But Preservation Partners Director Liz Safanda said the council should keep “no owner consent” as a tool. She showed slides of the Riverbank Laboratories property on South Batavia Avenue, where buildings, including one designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, were proposed to be knocked down in 1998 to make way for a townhouse development.

“If this wording had not been in our city code, I would not be showing you these slides tonight,” she said.

She also pointed out that in the 17 years the council has had the ability to override an owner's wishes, that's been the only case where it was used.

Saying he understood the value of historic preservation to the town and to his neighborhood, Tom Simonian also made the case for private property rights.

“I also understand I am a homeowner and I don't want to be in a situation where I don't have some kind of consent or control or leverage or whatever you want to call it,” said Simonian, who lives in the area that was proposed for a historic district. “Why should someone else be allowed to do it (application) if they (the owner) doesn't want to do it?”

Mayor Kevin Burns announced at the start of the discussion that nothing would be proposed at the meeting, nor would any vote be taken. Alderman Richard Marks asked the city's development staff to research the supermajority possibility.

Alderman Sam Hill suggested owners be given more notice any time someone nominates their property for designation.

Geneva has had historic preservation ordinances, in varying forms, since 1982. It has one historic district. Changes to the exteriors of buildings in the district have to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, which uses standards set by the Secretary of the Interior to determine if they are appropriate. The city recently lost a court case over its denial of a resident's wish to install non-historically appropriate windows.