Dunedin workshop advances proposed historic‑district rules; residents voice concerns about consent and scope

City staff presented a draft update to Dunedin’s historic preservation ordinance and a revised Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) matrix at a March 4 work session, asking the commission whether to advance the draft to the Local Planning Agency for formal review. The presentation proposed three core changes: separate options for landmarking a structure versus a landmark site, creation of local historic districts, and a new COA approval matrix that grants more decision authority to staff and the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (HPAC) in many routine cases.

George King of the Community Development Department introduced the update and said the three changes were intended to give the city flexibility to protect individual buildings while offering a tool to preserve larger areas of historic character. Consultants Blair Knighting and Kimberley Horn explained key provisions: local historic districts would be formed through an application and survey process that identifies contributing and non‑contributing properties; design regulations would guide compatible repairs and new construction; and the COA process would exempt routine repairs from formal review while subjecting demolition or new construction to design review and standards (including Secretary of the Interior standards for new construction and rehabilitation where applicable).

On the question of how a historic district could form, staff proposed two mechanisms: a grassroots petition approach (the draft requires owner consent for properties included) and a narrowly defined option that would allow the city manager to apply under “extraordinary circumstances.” Consultants said the draft language was revised after earlier hearings: it replaces an earlier 60 percent owner threshold with a requirement that property owners in a proposed district sign in favor; the city manager role was limited to extraordinary cases such as abandoned or bank‑owned properties that prevent a contiguous district where owners otherwise seek designation.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Deborah Kynes, chair of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, and several homeowners who already had voluntary landmark designations urged stronger preservation tools to protect neighborhood character and historic sites such as the Dunedin Boat Club parcel. Other residents — including Lorraine Snipper, Ryan Saunders and John Shine — said the ordinance still leaves a loophole that could permit involuntary districting through the city manager clause and objected to permit suspensions that could occur while a district application is processed.

Concerns voiced by speakers included: lack of a clear definition for “extraordinary circumstances,” the potential for permit applications to be suspended during district formation, effects on property deeds and resale, the possibility of deed restrictions being applied in perpetuity, the cost and timeline of compliance after storm damage, and whether property owners could opt out once a district is created. Several commenters asked that the city make materials and emails submitted on the topic fully public and suggested mandatory neighborhood education for any owners considering district status.

Commissioners pressed staff and consultants on several technical points: whether a district must contain multiple parcels or could be a single public site; how contributing versus non‑contributing status is determined in a survey; whether modern materials and resiliency measures (such as elevation after flood damage) could be accommodated in design guidance; and what threshold the commission should require for owner consent. Staff said the ordinance allows modern materials to be used if consistent with guideline intent and noted Charleston and other cities have layered resiliency measures into design guidance.

At the end of the workshop several commissioners said they supported moving the draft to the Local Planning Agency for formal review with additional direction to clarify the “extraordinary circumstances” language and to provide more public education materials. One commissioner said more work is needed before forwarding. The city manager said staff would continue editing language and that the item would be scheduled to the LPA with requested clarifications.

The workshop did not include a formal vote on the ordinance; it was a direction‑setting session. Staff and the consultants will return with clarified draft language, answers to questions raised in public comment (including how permit suspensions would be handled during an application), and additional outreach materials.