Hammond council reverses historic commission and allows exterior painting of downtown building

The Hammond City Council on June 9 reversed a unanimous denial by the city’s Historic District Commission and approved exterior painting of 408–410 West Thomas Street, a midcentury commercial building the applicant described as long vacant.

Chris Edwards, the property owner, said he sought a neutral, earth‑tone beige “to bring the building up to a better visual standard” and to make the property marketable. “I’m not asking to make this a ballroom or disco,” Edwards told the council, saying the proposal was intended to preserve the façade while attracting tenants.

The Historic District coordinator, Heather Debbold, had urged the council to uphold the commission’s unanimous decision. She said the commission applied the city’s design guidelines together with the Secretary of the Interior standards and technical guidance from the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Debbold told the council the commission found that painting previously unpainted masonry and architectural limestone would permanently alter character‑defining materials and could trap moisture, accelerating deterioration.

Historic District Chair Jessica Shyrie defended the commission’s process as standards‑driven rather than arbitrary. “Our decisions are not made arbitrarily. They are guided by adopted standards,” she said during public comment, explaining why the commission concluded the submitted application was inconsistent with the applicable standards.

Council members debated two competing priorities: the legal and preservation implications of painting historic masonry versus the city’s desire to return vacant properties to commerce. Several residents and business supporters testified that the building’s appearance depressed the block and that sympathetic painting could help revive the corridor, while preservation advocates warned that permitting paint on unpainted historic masonry could jeopardize the city’s Certified Local Government status and access to state and federal tax credits or grants.

After discussion the council member who moved to reverse the commission’s decision limited the reversal to the painting requested in Edwards’s application. The motion passed with a recorded majority vote. Council members explicitly limited the approval to the exterior painting as applied for; other elements of Edwards’s certificate of appropriateness application — replacement windows and landscaping — were not approved and must be returned to the commission or the council for separate review.

The practical effect is that the city will issue a certificate allowing the owner to proceed with the paint scheme submitted with the application; any future work that was not part of the approved painting (for example, window replacements or removal of landscaping) must be submitted and approved independently.

What happens next: Edwards may proceed with the exterior paint as approved by the council. The council’s action did not change the city’s adopted design guidelines; it was a case‑by‑case decision to grant relief for the painting portion of this application.

The council vote underscored the tension local officials face between strict preservation standards and efforts to keep downtown properties occupied and productive. The council recorded its vote in the public minutes; the motion to allow painting carried by the required majority.