History Lessons

What the Montgomery County Council should consider before it changes the rules for identifying noteworthy sites

MONTGOMERY County Council member Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) is right in one respect: The current process of historical preservation in the county is not optimal. His proposed fix deserves discussion; it raises important issues about owner notification and the county's backlog of unreviewed historic sites. But in its current form, his proposal before the council tomorrow would create more problems than it would solve.

The measure would place roadblocks in the way of designating sites as historic when their owners object. Currently, to be designated historic, a site must meet one of nine criteria and be approved by a majority of the county Planning Board before coming before the council. In cases where owners object, Mr. Knapp would require that a supermajority (four out of five members) of the board find that a site meets at least three historical criteria in order to be submitted to the council.

This presents two problems. When the county passed its historic preservation ordinance, its Historic Preservation Committee was an unknown quantity. Leaving the decision of whether a site met historic criteria up to the Planning Board, an accountable body, made sense. But the committee, a volunteer group of experts in history, architecture, preservation and urban design, now has a 30-year track record and has earned accolades from national preservation organizations. Surely the committee, not the Planning Board, should determine whether a site meets historical criteria.

The second problem is the addition of two more criteria. Just because an owner opposes designating his or her property as a historic site does not make it less historic. But some of the criteria listed for historic sites are stronger than others. The mandated nine determining criteria range from "site of a significant historical event" to "high artistic value." It is possible, as the National Trust for Historic Preservation pointed out, for a truly historically significant location to meet only one of the criteria. Adding more criteria may, paradoxically, make it easier for somewhat significant architectural sites to win designation, while historic ones are eliminated.

The system of historic preservation has always been liable to abuse by neighbors eager to prevent construction. But what ultimately determines if a site is designated as historic should be whether it is historic, not who owns it.