City considers establishing historic preservation commission

Three historic areas in Milford that may fall under the review of a new Historic Preservation Commission

At a recent workshop, City Planner Rob Pierce provided Milford City Council with an update on creating an historic preservation ordinance for the city. Pierce provided a brief overview of a presentation before council in March as there are now several new council people who may not have seen the previous presentation.

“Back in 2018 one of the goals of our Comprehensive Plan was to consider looking into a historic preservation ordinance. We also had the same objective in our 2008 Comprehensive Plan. We also have it in our 2023 Strategic Plan that city council had adopted,” Pierce said. “And again, one of the strategies that was specifically listed out in that 2023 document was to consider implementing a historic preservation ordinance to protect buildings from destruction or insensitive rehabilitation. So based on some of that direction from prior councils, even back to 2008, staff has started to kind of review the process of looking in the language that would enact a historic preservation ordinance.”

Pierce also explained that the results of a National Citizen Survey which was used in creating the strategic plan. In that survey, 45 percent of those who responded strongly support an historic preservation ordinance, 40 percent somewhat support it while only nine percent somewhat oppose and six percent strongly oppose such ordinances. This indicates that 85 percent of Milford residents support adding historic preservation to the city code.  Pierce provided a map of areas that are designated as historic districts.

“The Planning Commission held their first workshop on April 14, at which time I introduced the task that we were asking the Planning Commission to kind of review and try to establish some language for preservation ordinance,” Pierce said. “We utilized the second workshop in May to review some draft language. And along with the third workshop, we continued our review of draft language and some of the Secretary of Interior standards, which would be used to do the historic reviews.”

As the Planning Commission began setting up parameters that would go into the code, it became apparent that this would require significant training, Pierce said.

“The planning department would have to be trained on the workings of the Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation in order to develop the regulations that would surround a historic preservation ordinance, and if City Council were to move forward to adopt the ordinance, we would then again have to train the people that are appointed to actually enforce those rules,” Pierce said. “We were kind of faced with, do we want to proceed with that path, but we kind of discussed the adoption of maybe setting up an ordinance amendment that would establish the Historic District Commission with no regulatory authority initially, and then task that group of individuals that are appointed by city council to train them and develop what we want that historic ordinance to be, and that way, we only have to do it once, as opposed to training multiple bodies on it. And it also gives the historic districts some ownership, as opposed to the Planning Commission establishing the rules and regulations and turning it over to somebody else to enforce. I think if you set up the body and allow them to take the time to develop the regulations or what it is, they may appreciate that a little bit more and take more ownership of it. So that was my initial thought.”

Councilwoman Nadia Zychal asked if the boundaries of the historic districts were set in stone or could they be expanded. Pierce stated that they could set up parameters in the ordinance which is something the new commission would be tasked to do.  Councilman Michael Stewart asked what the benefit was in the city establishing historic districts.

“It would enact some regulations that would establish some parameters of what you can do with structures, and there could be a wide range of how that is set up. So, if you wanted to make it restrictive, it leads to us kind of determining what the outside of the buildings look like, things you can visually see from the street, which preserves a historic character of the general area. It doesn’t allow somebody to do something that’s not in character with keepings of that area,” Pierce said. “But you could also set something up that’s on the other end, that’s a little bit less restrictive, that really, you’re mainly concerned with somebody coming in and tearing down a whole row of historic homes to construct a new building that doesn’t really match the small town character of Milford. Milford has been fortunate over the years that that really hasn’t happened a whole lot. We have lost some historic structures, mostly to neglect or fires or other natural incidents that have taken them out. But the benefit would be it would put something in place, or a mechanism in place that would allow City Council, the authority, to keep the historic character of the community for certain structures within those areas.”

Pierce continued explaining that he felt the downtown Milford area, Victorian area and Vineyard Shipyard area should be preserved as historic districts. Those were three that are already registered on the National Registry of Historic Places with the federal government. That means property owners can apply for federal and state tax credits, but with no regulatory component in the town, they may be limited in what funds they can receive. Adding this ordinance opens the property owner up to more financial benefits for preservation rather than demolition.

“Right now, there’s nothing that keeps people from doing things that maybe some folks wouldn’t want to see done to those buildings. And again, there’s a lot of latitude, and however that gets set up that could be very detailed or restrictive, or just bare bones,” Pierce said. “If you’re going to tear it down, for example, we have to have a public hearing, and we have to demonstrate that every attempt was made to save the building.”

Councilman Jason James supported the formation of a commission that would include those who have training in historic preservation. He also felt the city could provide some incentives to property owners to encourage preservation over demolition. Pierce explained that forming the commission would require public hearings and a review by the Planning Commission, but they would likely be more of an advisory board than decision-making board.

“So, do these regulations require that someone in the historic district register with the state?” Councilwoman Katrina Wilson said. “And the reason why I asked that because many, many years ago, our church, it was registered, and we wanted to tear the church down. And we had a really hard time getting that to happen. The state came in. All these people came and stopped us in our tracks from doing what we wanted to do with this building that was uninhabitable.”

Pierce stated that he was unsure why that happened, and Councilwoman Wilson stated that she felt having these regulations might make it easier on those who owned historic properties, especially if there were incentives to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition.

“I strongly encourage that we put this in play as soon as possible, because I think it’s unfortunate in this first state of the nation, I have seen some major cultural treasures disappear through neglect like that building in Little Heaven, as an example. There was one in Dover, that’s an example. There was something else that was knocked down for a Royal Farms of all things,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said. “In our own town, an historic home was demolished by the city because it was neglected for so long, and the sooner we get rolling and get everybody else on board to be able to implement some enforcement mechanisms, the better I think it will be for the entire community to preserve our historic and architectural and cultural heritage. That’s a huge, huge benefit to everybody that lives here. It engenders a sense of place and sense of pride. And once that is gone, it’s got it’s gone forever. You can’t replace these things with something from Home Depot. You can’t recreate it. You don’t want Disney World. This is Milford. It needs to stay Milford.”

Pierce told council that he would bring more information about the formation of the commission at a future meeting. Because this was a workshop, no vote was taken on the measure.