You cannot leave comment in this blogpost unless you are a part of the project panel.
BL2025-742 - Historic Zoning Commission/Historical Commission Legislation
This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Emily Benedict to discuss Ordinance No. BL2025-742, pertaining to the Metropolitan Historical Commission and the Metropolitan Historic Zoning Commission.
From CM Benedict:
Colleagues,
As promised, starting this thread seeking your feedback on BL2025-742 relative to the historic zoning commission.
Having concluded two meetings, latest this morning, with Director Tim Walker, I sent a list of questions to Director Lucy Kempf. The responses will be shared here immediately.
My respect for the community engagement process is genuine, and during our March 4 meeting, I will make a motion for a public hearing on March 18. This is important and your support is requested. I want to hear from people. Genuine feedback is always helpful. If an amendment makes legislation better, then we will explore them.
This legislation has been in the works for a year. It’s important to share some challenges I’ve had over the years.
First, Historic staff coordinated with Litton High School alumni organization prior to requesting a bill for historic landmark designation for the shuttered school. Litton High School, which was a segregated school, closed in 1971 rather than integrating. This history lesson was a revelation to them during our discussion.
This history was compelled to be part of any landmark designation requiring my involvement with the matter. And then, only after consideration of other, more appropriate places were searched.
This snafu was further complicated by staff incorrectly asserting to the alumni association it was already approved. We can do better.
Secondly, a home in a conservation overlay where the homeowner sought permits to build an addition on the back of their house. When historic reviewed the permit, they noticed the house had a un-permitted side porch, clearly one there for years, likely pre-dating the overlay. Historic would only approve the requested permit if the homeowner removed the side addition. During the MHZC meeting, this was discussed by the commissioners, who expressed sympathy to the applicant. However, commissioners sided with staff and even offered as possible recourse this applicant might have regarding the side porch is pursuing possible claims against the seller. This is wasteful, unreasonable, and punitive for aesthetics.
Lastly, when the Inglewood Place Overlay was developed, marketed, and adopted in reliance on, as a way to stop “tall/skinnies.” It was adopted by residents with over 80% approval in 2016. Yet five years later in 2021, with little engagement, 600 impacted property owners were added to the new Consolidated Guidelines in the overlay.
This changed the overlay dramatically. Instead of preventing “tall/skinnies,” reviews now include windows, roof pitch, and siding type. When I took a case to the MHZC, staff analysis described how the application would revert siding guidelines to the *original* overlay. Revealing staff’s involvement in opaque behavior when those guidelines were added, impacting 600 property owners.
Here are a number of press pieces about the ways ordinary Nashvillians are being treated, and demonstrating the need for action. Here are links to some of those articles:
A Sharepoint folder with links to documents discussed below is available at this link: BL2025-742 - Historic Zoning Commission Historical Commission Legislation
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends