HPC 1984 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appendix D "Commission Issues of the Eighties" • ,Report on Regional Conference in Ypsilanti, Michigan Keynote Address by Frank Gilbert, Senior Field Representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation Mr. Gilbert dealt with the legality of.landmark ordinances by quoting the opinion of Justice Brennan in the Penn Central case. He reported there were three prevalent issues discussed in the case. Following are the quotes and Mr. Gilbert's comments. 1. State and cities may enact land use restrictions or controls to enhance quality of life by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic features of a city. This was a declaration by the Supreme Court that aesthetics are important to cities. 2. NYC's objective of preserving structures and areas with special historic, architectural, or cultural significance is an entirely permissable governmental goal. This was at a time when over 500 U.S. cities had established district commissions and Justice Brennan was recognizing and validating them. Mr. Gilbert also indicated that various groups such as the Sierra Club had given supporting testament in the case. He stressed the importance of alliances with other governmental and non profit groups. 3. The restrictions imposed on its parcel (Penn Central) are appropriate means of securing the purposes of the NYC law. appropriate means" indicates that all necessary procedures should be followed such as notice property owners, accurate records, fair and public hearings, an appeal procedure, hard- ship relief, etc. He stressed the importance of technicalities and fair treatment of property owners. These points are also important to the reputation of the Commission in the community. Mr. Gilbert also stressed the importance of documentation for local landmarks and districts on their architectural and historical significance so that when they go before the Common or County Council, there will be adequate evidence for they designation. 4. The application of NYC's landmark law is not "a taking" of appellant's property. The restr'iactions imposed are substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare Police powers related to the health, safety, and general welfare. 5. The NYC law permits its owner not only to profit from the terminal but to retain a reasonable return on its investment 6. The owners must be able to make reasonable beneficial use of the landmark site. The state or local government can ask the owner to show hardship or a burden. 7. If appellants can demonstrate at some point in the future that circumstances have so changed that the terminal ceases to be economically viable, appellants may obtain relief. 4tru In contrast to discriminatory zoning which is the antithesis of land use control as rt of some comprehensive plan, the NYC law embodies a comprehensive plan to preserve ctures of historic or aesthetic interest wherever they might be found in the city. Mr. Gilbert stressed the importance of being part of a master plan for the city and working with city planners.