The Historic District Commission issue in this work session is that Gaithersburg, unlike just about any other local government with a historic preservation ordinance, has two separate bodies that must consider changes to historic properties. The first of these is the Historic District Commission, or HDC. This is the body that has the actual authority to make the final decisions, and having one of these is generally a requirement of having a historic district. There are two unusual aspects to Gaithersburg’s HDC. First is that its members have always been the Mayor and the members of the City Council, and the Mayor is always voted in as the Chairman of the HDC. There is nothing in the City’s historic preservation ordinance that requires this, it just has always been done this way; the Commission members are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council, and they just always appoint themselves. Meetings of the HDC are always held during recesses of meetings of the Mayor and Council, and no one has to move from one chair to another. The second unusual thing is that the HDC does not do much of the work of a traditional HDC; for example they do not hold public hearings on most historic preservation issues. The initial, and typically only, public hearing on modifications to historic structures is handled by the other body called for in the City’s preservation ordinance.
This second body is the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, or HPAC. This group is also appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council, but the members have always been citizens with an interest and expertise in historic preservation. Among other responsibilities, the HPAC holds public hearings on Historic Area Work Permits and makes recommendations to the HDC. Typically, the HDC agrees with the HPAC, but there have been controversial cases wherein the HDC has rejected the HPAC’s recommendation. In most other communities this group of citizens would sit as the HDC and would have the power to make the actual decisions, serving a role similar to that of the Planning Commission.
A cynic might conclude that things are set up the way they are to maintain some political control over the process of historic preservation in Gaithersburg. The Maryland Association of Historic District Commisions recently reviewed Gaithersburg’s process – in fact this work session is in response to this review – and made a series of recommendations; the fourth of these was:
4. MAHDC is concerned that there appears to be an inherent conflict of interest here. Council Members and the Mayor have a stake in seeing the advancement of projects which they may have initiated in their role as government officials. Can they rule impartially on such cases? Gaithersburg should ask its City Attorney to review this provision. The HDC may want to consider limiting its ability to overrule HPAC findings in cases that involve City actions.
City staff’s response to this was:
A4. This issue has been reviewed by the City Attorney. No changes are recommended.
If you have an interest in historic preservation in Gaithersburg, the background materials for this work session are recommended reading; public input will be accepted at the meeting on Monday night.
From the City’s website:
Agenda - Work Session: Shady Grove Hospital, Historic District Commission, 3/30/2009 Posted 3/24/2009
City of Gaithersburg
WORK SESSION
Mayor and City CouncilMonday, March 30, 2009
7:30 P.M.
Full Meeting Package (pdf format 7.7M)
- Briefing from Shady Grove Adventist Hospital (future operations and facility planning)
Background Material (pdf format)
- Discussion of Membership of the Historic District Commission
Background Material (pdf format)- Maryland Association of Historic District Commission (MAHDC) Site Visit Report and Staff Recommendations
Background Material (pdf format)