Historic commission’s power a charged topic

Tensions flared Tuesday night at a packed Georgetown City Council meeting during a discussion on limiting the power of a city panel to determine what can be built in certain parts of town.

After the hearing ended around midnight, the council approved by a 5-2 vote having the city attorney draft an ordinance that would take away the power of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission to approve or deny certificates of appropriateness for what can be built.

The commission has the power to limit what can be built by approving or denying the certificates in parts of town that are considered historic, including the downtown square. The proposed ordinance would allow the commission to only make recommendations to the City Council, which would make the final decision.

Currently if the commission — comprised of seven council-appointed members — denies a certificate of appropriateness for a building, the decision can be appealed to the City Council, which can overturn it.

The council also voted Tuesday to host a workshop about the issue within the next 90 days. The proposed ordinance has to be approved by the council in two readings during separate meetings before it can be passed.

The public hearing took place Tuesday after Council Member Kevin Pitts proposed the ordinance, saying it takes too long for the historic commission to decide whether or not to issue the certificates. “This process is not timely and based on previous cases has not been predictable or objective,” he said.

He proposed the decision about certificates should be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which could then only make recommendations to the council.

More than 20 people at the public hearing spoke against Pitts’ proposal, with many of them saying that before the historic commission was created downtown Georgetown was “shabby” with boarded-up storefronts.

Tempers flared on the council when Rachael Jonrowe, who voted against the ordinance, began asking Pitts questions, including whether he had talked to any members of the historic commission.

“You are trying to make me an example and I’m not going to sit here and play your game,” Pitts said.

Jonrowe said she didn’t think the proposed ordinance was about “improving the process; I think it’s about something else ... something that hasn’t been acknowledged.” She said the Planning and Zoning panel was weighted too heavily with members with ties to the development community.

Council Member Tommy Gonzalez said he decided to support the ordinance after hearing Jonrowe’s comments. “Someone seems to be accusing someone of something without saying it,” he told Jonrowe. “If the vote doesn’t go your way, there has to be something nefarious about it.”

Council Member John Hesser said he supported drafting the ordinance after he had received letters from people objecting to the historic commission because it hampered what they could do with their homes.

Council Member Valerie Nicholson, who voted in favor of the proposed ordinance, made a motion approved by the council to not send the issue about certificates of appropriateness to the Planning and Zoning Commission but to keep it with the historic commission and only allow it to make recommendations instead of approvals or denials.