City's Planning Commission Spends an Hour talking about Windows and Downspouts
The City Planning Commission Kicks Off 2024
The City of Troy’s Planning Commission held their first meeting of the year on January 10th and spent nearly one hour concerning the rehabilitation projects at 220 West Main Street and 9-11 West Main Street. Analyzing the proceedings, it becomes painfully obvious that personal and arbitrary preferences of seven residents hold a tremendous amount of power over the development process in our downtown community. The commission, lacking members with formal backgrounds in architecture or historic preservation, was tasked with making pivotal decisions on these historic buildings, raising questions about the depth and suitability of their deliberations.
The twenty minute deliberation on the 9-11 West Main Street project highlighted this concern. The issue revolved around the brick infill of four windows where the execution diverged from the original plans. The commission ultimately approved the 3/4-inch inset over the planned 3-inch inset, with all Commission Members except the City’s Chief Bureaucrat, Patrick Titterington, voting against it. The Commission seemed swayed by the applicant's arguments regarding stronger bonding and better weatherproofing along with the fact that was pointed out by Commission Member Wolke that the 3/4-inch inset was not in violation of the historic preservation guidelines.
The Commission then spent a half an hour discussing renovations at 220 West Main Street. The commission faced a proposal involving significant alterations to a historic building. The requested changes, including the removal of a deteriorating second-story porch and the transformation of a double gable into a single gable, demanded a nuanced understanding of historic architecture and preservation principles. However, the commission's lack of professional expertise in these areas was evident in their handling of the issue. Their decision to retain the double gable, driven by a desire to preserve historical integrity, seemed more rooted in aesthetic preference than in a deep understanding of historical preservation. Similarly, the approval to remove the second-story porch and rebuild the first-story porch appeared to lack the informed perspective that a professional architect or preservationist might offer.
Further analysis showed that the applicant and the applicant’s architect found themselves in a very difficult position. On one hand, the applicant found themselves trying to make water drainage improvements at the behest of the city, which had the applicant advocate for a single gable. On the other hand, the applicant needed to appease the aesthetic and arbitrary needs of the Planning Commission, which was obvious that the Commission wanted to retain the double gable feature. The Planning Commission required the applicant to keep the double gable design by a 4-3 vote. The removal of the second floor porch and renovation of the first floor porch was approved by a unanimous vote. The decisions, while potentially pragmatic, seemed to miss an opportunity for a more enlightened approach that could have come from specialized knowledge in historic architecture.
In reality, this 55 minute of the City’s Planning Commission perfectly encapsulates some of the major issues that exist within the Planning Commission. The major responsibilities of a municipal planning commission in Ohio are fairly clear. The commission is tasked with making plans and maps for the entirety or specific portions of the municipal corporation, including any relevant adjacent land. Additionally, the commission has the authority to control the height, design, and location of buildings, and it may frame and adopt zoning plans for the municipal corporation or its parts, focusing on public health, safety, and general welfare.
The bread and butter of the commission’s work is ideally for the rezoning of properties within the community. Ideally, when large parcels are requested to be rezoned, one would expect a full-throated discussion of the city’s infrastructure needs, potential impacts on the community and other issues that come up with the addition of new building lots in the community, yet these discussions rarely last five minutes and the commission always defers having a public hearing to the City Council rather than holding a public hearing themselves. This publication talked about the work of the Planning Commission in 2023.
In essence, the Troy, Ohio Planning Commission's handling of these cases suggests a need for greater professional expertise in architecture and historic preservation. While their intentions to balance historical preservation with practicality are commendable, their decisions could benefit from a deeper level of professional insight. The involvement of architects or preservation specialists could provide a more informed and comprehensive approach to managing the delicate balance between preserving the historical essence of buildings and adapting them for contemporary use.
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter. It is the mission of this publication to better connect you to the decisions being made in the community. Please feel free to share this with your friends and neighbors, if you have found this information helpful. Also, feel free to share your ideas and insights in the comment thread.
I’m impressed that these property owners were trying to do the “right” thing and it appears had hired professionals to assist in their arguments. Perhaps planning commission needs to be able to access professional knowledgeable consultants to assist them, if City leadership is not interested in finding appropriate volunteers for planning commission membership.
Troy “leadership” is nothing but a joke.