GREEN MOUSE SAYS: This new electronic sign at St. Mary's did not receive a COA from the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission (hint: it's illegal).

There's on little thing ...

The Green Mouse has received a tip from one of his favorite contributors.

No COA (Certificate of Appropriateness) for the big (and consequently illegal) electronic sign at St. Mary's in the East Spring Street historic district. Lots of businesses and churches have been turned down for electronic signage over the years.

Before we continue, let's pile up a few backing facts. First up: yes, it's inside the boundaries of the East Spring Street Historic District.

Next: yes, the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission issues Certificates of Appropriateness for exterior work inside a designated district.

What is a Certificate of Appropriateness?

A Certificate of Appropriateness authorizes the start of any exterior work on a building in a historic district or historic neighborhood, including:

• Demolition of a structure.
• Moving of a structure.
• New construction, including additions to existing structures.
• Exterior changes affecting the appearance of any building or part of a building visible from the public right of way. The exterior changes include walls, windows, porches, roof, siding, fences, light fixtures, steps, paving and signs as well as additions, reconstruction, alteration, or maintenance involving exterior color changes.

How do I know if I need a Certificate of Appropriateness?

Ask before you proceed with exterior work. Contact the NAHPC Administrator at 812-284-4534. You may also consult the “Historic District Design Guidelines City of New Albany.” Design Guidelines are available by contacting the City Plan Department (3rd floor, City County Building), your neighborhood association, the New Albany-Floyd County Public Library or your district’s representative to the NAHPC.

And, speaking of “Historic District Design Guidelines: City of New Albany,” the sub-section about signs is fairly clear.

It's a tad disappointing that as a beneficiary of Super Tuesday's historic preservation largess distribution (and a questionable one, in my estimation), the church didn't follow COA procedures with the new electronic sign.

It will be doubly disappointing if City Hall, after these puffy days of publicly celebrating its preservation credentials, doesn't enforce the rules. After all, unequal enforcement is in many respects worse than no enforcement at all.

But maybe Deaf Gahan gave St. Mary's a "Get Out of COA Free" card. That'd be par for the course in the Chronicles of New Gahania.

Top blog comment of the month: A COA for the NSP infill? It'd be MIA.

You know, before he changed the seal and all. 

Our post this morning ...

Life is like a street piano. What the Bored of Works gets out of it depends on how they "nay" it.

 drew an insightful comment:

Did the city ask the Preservation Commission for a "Certificate of Appropriateness" before they demolished the tavern at 922 Culbertson?

HPC and NA vs. Bradford Realty: Yep. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Reporter Suddeath tackles the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling, and to me, it all goes back to childhood teachings: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Krafty John thinks otherwise, but that's why we have lawyers for both sides.

Court sides with New Albany historic group; Bradford Realty should have sought approval for siding, according to ruling, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a ruling that had backed Bradford Realty’s claims that the New Albany Historic Preservation Commission didn’t properly notify land owners of zoning restrictions.

With a little help from a friend, here's my take on the Court of Appeals ruling. It favors the Historic Preservation Commission in three ways:

First, Bradford Realty’s “ignorance of the law” defense goes down in flames, and not a moment too soon for me. The ordinance’s notification features are deemed sufficient, and there is no violation of due process.

Second, vinyl siding is affirmed as a “conspicuous change,” one necessitating a Certificate of Appropriateness from the HPC. It bears noting that the intent of a COA is to ensure the use of methods that don’t damage the structure or compromise the district’s character. According to the HPC’s own ordinance, even an “inappropriate” COA could be approved by vote, as in a circumstance where the use of vinyl (or synthetic) siding would protect a decayed building. These forms of siding are not universally disallowed by default; the COA process is intended to determine their potential suitability, on a case by case basis.

Third, the court did not find inverse condemnation; in other words, the ordinance stating the HPC’s requirements can not be considered so stringent that it constitutes the government seizing Bradfrod’s property without compensation.

Here's the ruling itself, in unbridled legalese.