NORMAN Property rights were at the heart of an appeal Tuesday night regarding the replacement of windows in the Chautauqua Historic District. During the Norman City Council meeting, the rights of property owners living in the designated historic district collided with rights of another property owner wanting to make improvements to his Norman home located at 549 S. Lahoma Ave.
Council members voted unanimously to reject the appeal. The decision of the Historic District Commission will stand.
Kevin Easley replaced five windows without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness as required by city law. Upon review, the Historic District Commission approved two of the windows but said three others would need to be replaced.
Passionate sentiments were expressed on both sides of the issue.
“This economy has tanked, but our neighorhood hasn’t,” historic district resident Karen Thurston said.
Easley said he purchased the property from the homeowner and did not understand that by “replacing old, drafty windows, many of which were deteriorated … that we were doing something wrong.”
But the window replacement violated Historic District Guidelines established over the course of two years after 45 public hearings. Windows are considered historical significant elements of a home.
“We felt like it was important to make it more energy efficient,” Easley said.
Main points of contention were a plate glass window and an atrium window
Easley said there are other plate glass windows in the neighborhood but those other plate glass windows pre-dated the adoption of the window guidelines and enforcement was not retroactive, Historic Preservation Officer susan Atkinson said.
“What was really offensive to me and to my family, my wife in particular who was overseeing the project, was a letter saying they were ‘destroying the charm of the neighborhood,’” Easley said.
Easley showed a picture of two deteriorating homes located directly across the street from his property.
“I just simply wanted some energy efficient windows that would open and be safe,” he said. “This is the back of the home. Two of the windows in questions can’t be seen by anyone. We’re confused by why we’re being singled out for enforcement.”
Jim Gassaway, one of original residents who fought to establish the historic district and served as the first chair of the Historic Commission, said he has watched the houses across the street from Easley’s property deteriorate over the last 20 years.
But Gassaway said the whole neighborhood was deteriorating prior to the historic designation. Before the designation, Gassaway said there were no children living on the street. Now, the neighborhood has been revitalized and families with children fill the neighborhood.
Gassaway said the law is “black and white.” The historic designation is a zoning law and the Historic District Commission is a decision-making body.
Easley proposed a compromise, saying he would replace the plate glass window visible from Boyd Street. But he wanted to keep the atrium window in the back of the home.
“My wife feels so strongly about that bay window that we’ll probably go to the Supreme Court over it,” Easley said.
“We have to follow the laws that are in front of us,” Council member Tom Kovach said, a sentiment echoed by each council member.
Neighbors in the historic district said it was worth following the rules and paying the price to protect their home values and the cultural richness of the neighborhood. The city required an 80 percent majority of property owners to support the historic district when it was created in1995.
“It has been puzzling to me that when we replaced the deck, we had neighbors looking over the fence to see what we were doing. It wasn’t exactly the welcome wagon,” Easley said. “Nevertheless, we want to get along with our neighbors. I didn’t realize that replacing our windows would rise to this level of interest.”