Council member Barber slammed for allegedly not following city regs in restoring house.
City council member Mike Barber answers his accuser’s question with one of his own.
As someone always under the public spotlight, would he be foolish enough to convert a house in the College Hill Historic District for his law office without seeking approval of the panel that governs the city’s three historic districts?
Ann Stringfield, a leader in the Fisher Park historic district, believes Barber tried to do just that in 2005.
In a comment posted in late August on a blog of a resident of the city’s third historic district, Aycock, Stringfield asks:
“Was it Councilperson Mike Barber who suggested the Historic District program be terminated? If yes, that would be the same Mike Barber who owns property in the College Hill neighborhood and was caught having made multiple significant exterior modifications to his property without getting a Historic District Certificate of Appropriateness...?”
Barber denies he tried to sneak anything past the Greensboro Historic Preservation Commission, which rules on building exteriors and yard changes in the districts. He says he appeared before the commission twice and received necessary certificates for the house built in 1895 at West Market and Tate streets.
Mike Cowhig, a city planner who advises the commission, says problems with Barber’s project arose, but mainly because of complications.
“I think he a didn’t have a clue — and I didn’t either — that when you take a run-down residence and change the use for offices, it opens a real can of worms,’’ Cowhig says.
Extra requirements come into play in districts with “change of use’’ projects. Not only does the preservation commission make demands, but so do zoning and other city departments.
“He ran into some ‘gotchas’ along the way,” Cowhig says. ’
Preservation commissioner David Wharton said he knows of one instance when Barber installed windows without a certificate of appropriateness. Once notified, he applied for an “after the fact” certificate, which the commission approved.
Wharton “eventually got a certificate of appropriateness for everything he did.’’
He says the commission didn’t give Barber VIP treatment. Besides, at the time, he adds, Barber was no longer a county commissioner. As best as Wharton can remember, Barber hadn’t announced for City Council either. Barber was elected last November.
Cowhig says while mistakes and mix-ups resulted, Barber deserves praise for saving a historic house at a most visible place in College Hill. Otherwise, the house might have eventually been threatened with demolition.
Andy Scott, Cowhig’s boss and director of the city's Department of Housing and Community Development, said, “Mike (Barber) is not the strongest supporter of historic districting, but he worked with us on this project.”
Cowhig believes some historic district residents may be upset with Barber for insisting recently during council budget hearings that all city programs be considered for cuts and elimination, including the historic district program.
But Barber says he believes in historic districts. Proof of that, he says, was his decision to buy, save and restore the College Hill house, at a much greater expense that what he would have paid outside the district.
What he dislikes, he says, is the punitive treatment that property owners in districts sometimes endure when they convert an eyesore into something nice. They should be embraced instead.
He also doesn’t like those who want to micro-manage every minute change in districts.
He says he doesn’t know Stringfield, or why she singled him out.
Efforts to reach Stringfield, a former president of the Fisher Park Neighborhood Association, were unsuccessful.
When told that Stringfield, who lives close to First Horizon Park, opposed building the new downtown baseball stadium and complains of game noise, a light went off in Barber’s head. As a county commissioner, he vocally supported the ball park.
“I’m sure she’s no fan of mine,’’ he says, “if she opposed the ball park.’’
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I host Mike Barber's web site. I mention that not only as a little disclosure but also because it means I've had occasion to visit Mike's new office both before its restoration and after. I'll admit to not knowing the intricacies of historical conformity, but that house was raised from the dead. From the street, it certainly seems to fit right in with the rest of the neighborhood and inside, it's lovely. To me, it looks like a successful rehabilitation.
Posted on September 8, 2006 12:00 PM
Mike Barber did good work on his house, and pretty much got caught between a hammer and an anvil with the zoning "change of use" regulations and the historic district guidelines. I'm grateful that he's keeping that property in good repair.
But I disagree with him that the Historic District Commission is "punitive." In my experience, the Commission is willing to go the extra mile to work with property owners who want to work within the ordinance.
And even though some property owners try to circumvent the ordinance by altering the exterior of their buildings without applying for a certificate, I can't remember any case where the Commission or city staff levied the fines which the ordinance allows for. On the contrary, we work with them to get their properties into compliance.
Posted on September 9, 2006 1:50 PM