91视频

Oregon might soon gain greater protections for historic properties.

The Department of Land Conservation and Development will hold hearings on proposed new rules on Friday in St. Helens. DLCD officials will be able to choose to adopt the rules, reject them or continue to study them.

鈥淚t is probably the most important change in a couple of decades,鈥� said Peggy Moretti, executive director of Restore Oregon. 鈥淚t is very measured. These are modest steps.鈥�

The proposal includes four key rules. First, it would mandate a public review for any project proposal to demolish one of the 11,594 properties in Oregon listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Second, it would allow creation of local historic districts with the consent of a simple majority of property owners.

Also, the proposal would clarify that taking an inventory of historic buildings is not a form of designation. That would allow cities to update their inventories without obtaining owners’ consent.

Lastly, the proposal would allow municipalities to apply any protections to properties listed on the national register or in historic districts, but only after a public process.

This would mark the first time that the state would have a uniform policy on how it treats historic properties. Currently, the only guidelines that address historic property use are set forth in the DLCD’s Goal 5 document that governs land use.

鈥淚t’s housed within Oregon’s land use policy,鈥� Moretti said. 鈥淕oal 5 was aimed at natural resources, and historic resources got mushed in there with it.鈥�

For the most part, those policies leave decisions entirely up to local municipalities. That leaves some areas, like Portland, with very strong rules about use of historic properties and other areas with no regulations at all.

鈥淥regon’s current guidelines are ill-defined, and insufficient to provide any meaningful protections at all,鈥� Moretti said. 鈥淚n some areas, the only oversight of a demolition is a demolition delay period of 90 days.鈥�

The proposed rules are the result of more than four months of work by a rule advisory committee set up by the DLCD. The goal was to balance property rights with historic preservation aims.

鈥淭he guidelines we got were to clarify how (a municipality) and state does or does not act,鈥� said Ian Johnson, associate deputy state historic preservation officer. 鈥淲e needed to clarify how those interacted and how an owner could object.鈥�

The State Historic Preservation Office worked in an advisory role to help develop the new rules. One of the big elements is that any proposed demolition of a historic property would be subject to public review.

鈥淚t says that it would have to have a local hearing,鈥� Johnson said. 鈥淎pproval would still be subject to the local government.鈥�

The rules might have the biggest impact on smaller and rural communities. Larger cities and urban areas tend to have programs that oversee use of historic properties. Smaller communities often lack such oversight.

鈥淥ur big question was: How is this going to impact folks?鈥� Johnson said. 鈥淭his can’t be overly burdensome or not useful.鈥�

So far, the most vocal opposition to the rules has come from Deschutes County. Officials there fear that existing protections of historic sites could be lost.

鈥淲e think it’s possible that county could do away with those protections anyway,鈥� said Rob Hallyburton, community services division manager for the DLCD. 鈥淲e don’t think these rules make it any more likely.鈥�

The requirement of a hearing for a municipality to apply protection to a property listed on the national register would be a significant impact, Hallyburton said. Currently, many municipalities automatically extend those protections.

Another change in the proposed rules would be to preserve historic properties’ protections even after transfer of ownership. That would ensure compliance with an Oregon Supreme Court decision.

Overall, the new rules have been well-received, Hallyburton said.

鈥淪o far, we have had about 25 to 30 written comments,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he numbers of letters have been overwhelmingly positive.鈥�

The challenge in developing the proposed rules was finding the proverbial middle ground, but Moretti believes that goal was achieved.

鈥淲e worked to strike the balance between private property rights and public benefit,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 think this does that.鈥�