A concerted effort by Standish Town Council members Tuesday to balance a desire to preserve history with the need to protect the rights of property owners resulted in their decision to keep the Historic Preservation Ordinance on the books.
With nearly 50 people in attendance, councilors considered an order introduced by Councilor Larry Simpson that would allow voters to decide whether to repeal the ordinance at the June 13, 2006 municipal election.
The ordinance, enacted in November of 2002 by a referendum vote of 1,887 to 1,775, preserves a small historic district located near the intersection of routes 35 and 25 in the Standish Village District by setting guidelines for the care and management of certain buildings and setting up an Historic Preservation Commission to oversee the ordinance.
But many residents believe the ordinance goes too far and gives the commission and, ultimately, the town, too much control over privately owned property.
In an emotional yet generally courteous discussion, residents were divided on their positions.
Burns Cameron, who chairs the commission, adamantly denied Simpson’s earlier accusation, reported by this newspaper, that the ordinance had caused the town to lose a business, referring to Fairpoint New England’s decision not to erect a new building in the historic district that would have employed 115 people.
“We never had anything to do with chasing them out of town,” he said.
And Eleanor Dudek gave the Old Port as an example of what can be done commercially with renovated properties.
“There was no intent to prevent people from selling their properties for commercial use,” she said.
But Bob Higgins, whose house has become a sort of test case of the ordinance, said the strict guidelines have caused a 50 to 75 percent reduction in his equity. Although he commended the commission for doing the “right thing” by issuing a certificate of appropriateness to allow a developer to move the house 200 yards down Route 35 and build a new structure on the lot, he said the lawsuit that has ensued over the decision may cost them the sale.
The lawsuit was filed against the town about a month ago by George McNeil and Eleanor Dudek, who lives adjacent to the disputed property. The suit claims the commission didn’t follow procedures outlined in the ordinance by failing to notify residents of a public hearing before making the decision to issue the certificate.
Other community members urged the council to wait for the results of the Comprehensive Plan before changing or abolishing the existing ordinance.
As the councilors wrestled with the public’s ideas and their own thoughts on the ordinance, a clear theme began to emerge from many of them. While most of the councilors agreed the ordinance should be modified, most were unwilling to force a second vote by the people.
As Councilor Michial Russell put it: “it should be the people who bring the referendum.”
Although Simpson said he felt that “the people did not know what they were voting for” when they initially approved the eight-page ordinance in 2002, when the council vote was taken, the proposal to bring it to a referendum vote was defeated 5 to 2, with Simpson and Council Chair Cindy Hopkins voting yes.
When Hopkins explained the reason for her vote, she said that, although she believed in historical preservation, she thought the residents of Standish should be allowed a second chance to vote on the matter.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
