Natchitoches City Council members on Aug. 24 modified a decision by the Historic District Commission regarding a mural in the city’s historic district. The council approved a $1,350 fine for failing to obtain the required permit, with the $50-per-day penalty beginning July 29, but reversed the commission’s order to remove the mural, allowing the artwork to remain in its current form and location. The decision came amid discussion about the importance of following the city’s permitting process and the lack of specific regulations governing murals in the current historic district ordinance.
The following statement was read by City Council member Eddie Harrington during the meeting:
First, I want to start by thanking the members of our Historic District Commission. They are 100% volunteers who put their time and effort into the Historic District because they care about preserving and protecting it.
I believe they were put in a difficult position here, and I believe they did the right thing by making a decision and allowing this matter to ultimately come before.
As I’m going to discuss, when you really get into our ordinances and try to apply them to murals, they’re extremely vague. In fact, they don’t specifically address murals at all.
What the Commission had was something placed on a building without a permit. They had to make a decision based on the ordinance that we have.
And I want to make that clear at the beginning because I don’t view what we’re doing tonight as the City Council being against the Historic District Commission. And if we ultimately reach a different conclusion on part of their decision, that doesn’t mean I think they did anything wrong.
None of us sitting up here created this ordinance. We inherited it. But we are the legislative body now responsible for it, and when we find that an ordinance is vague, incomplete, or doesn’t adequately address something, it’s our responsibility to clarify it, interpret it where appropriate, or change it.
And our ordinance also gives us a very specific responsibility when a decision of the Historic District Commission is appealed to us. It says that this Council, and I quote, “shall have the right to reverse, change or modify any decision of the Historic Commission.”
The Commission made its decision. The Taylors appealed it. And now it’s our responsibility to look at the ordinance, look at the standards that our ordinance tells us to follow, hear everybody, and make our own decision.
So that’s what I’ve tried to do.
And the first question I asked was: What exactly is this?
To me, it’s a mural. It’s artwork.
I don’t believe it’s a sign under the definition contained in our ordinance.
Our ordinance defines a sign as including symbols and similar displays “used for advertising purposes,” such as those used to designate an individual, a firm, a profession, a business, and so forth.
That’s not what this is.
This mural isn’t advertising a business. It isn’t advertising a product or service. It isn’t identifying a profession or a company. It’s artwork depicting Natchitoches and scenes associated with our community.
So I don’t believe the provisions of our ordinance regulating signs apply to this mural.
Now, that doesn’t end the discussion.
Because when you move away from the sign provisions and look at what does require a permit, our ordinance requires a permit for an alteration or addition to an existing structure.
And I believe this qualifies as an alteration.
So I want to be very clear about this: I believe the Taylors should have applied for a permit before putting it up.
I don’t think there’s any question about that.
But there are two different questions.
The first is: Should they have obtained a permit before installing it? Yes.
The second is: If they had applied for that permit, what standards would we use to determine whether this particular mural should be approved?
Well, our ordinance doesn’t give us specific mural standards. Instead, our ordinance says that the Historic District Commission “shall follow” the guidelines established by the United States Department of the Interior.
So I contacted the Department of the Interior.
I spoke with someone concerning historic landmark districts and specifically asked about murals.
I was informed that they do not specifically regulate or prohibit murals. I was also told that murals themselves generally have very little to no negative effect on a historic designation. What matters much more from a historic-preservation standpoint is the destruction, loss, or severe alteration of historic buildings and the historic materials and features that give those buildings their significance.
I was directed to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which are codified in 36 CFR Part 67.
And when you actually read those standards, their purpose is straightforward. They’re intended to preserve the historic significance of a property by protecting the historic materials and features that make that property significant.
Standard 9 is particularly relevant because it specifically addresses exterior alterations.
It says that exterior alterations should not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.
This mural doesn’t do that.
It says that new work should be differentiated from the old.
This clearly is.
Nobody is going to look at this mural and think that it was part of the original historic construction of this building.
Standard 10 states that new work should be done in a way that protects the essential form and integrity of the historic property.
Again, I think that’s important here.
This mural is attached in such a way that it can be removed. If somebody takes this mural down five years from now, ten years from now, or fifty years from now, the essential form and integrity of the historic building remain.
So after looking at the actual standards that our own ordinance tells us to follow, I simply cannot find anything that says a mural such as this is prohibited.
And murals in historic districts are certainly not unusual.
When I spoke with the Department of the Interior, Charleston, SC and Savannah, Georgia were mentioned as examples of historic areas where murals exist.
I then started looking at other historic districts around the country, and there are plenty of communities that allow murals but regulate them.
Anniston, Alabama, for example, has very detailed historic-district guidelines specifically addressing murals and public art. They regulate things like location, protection of historic materials, attachment methods, and other preservation concerns. They even provide pictures and examples.
Lancaster, New York has specific mural guidelines as well.
Some places regulate size. Some regulate which side of a building a mural can be on. Some protect historic brick and masonry. Some prevent murals from covering important architectural features.
So I absolutely believe we need to address murals in our ordinance going forward, and we have an ordinance later on this agenda that has to do with us moving forward on amending these ordinances.
If we want to restrict their size, let’s establish a size restriction.
If we want to regulate where they can be located, let’s do that.
If we want to protect historic brick or masonry, let’s put that in the ordinance.
If we want specific rules concerning how murals can be attached to historic buildings, let’s establish those rules.
Then everybody knows what the rules are.
The property owners know.
The Historic District Commission knows.
And if something is appealed, the City Council knows.
But those specific mural regulations don’t exist in our ordinance today.
With all that said, the Historic District Commission has already considered this particular mural.
Even though a permit application was not formally filed beforehand, this particular mural nevertheless came before the Commission. The Commission considered it and made a decision concerning it.
The motion that was made by the Commission, and I quote “My motion is that the Taylors be asked to remove the sign within 60 days. If the sign is not removed within 60 days that they be fined the minimum amount authorized by the code of fifty dollars per day until it’s removed. If the sign is not removed within 60 days that the city attorney take action to have it removed through the judicial system.”
That decision has now been appealed to us.
And again, our ordinance expressly says that this Council “shall have the right to reverse, change or modify any decision of the Historic Commission.”
So I don’t believe our only options tonight are either to affirm their entire decision or send these people back to the beginning of the process.
We’ve seen the mural.
We know what it looks like.
We know where it is.
We know how it’s attached.
The Historic District Commission has considered it. They’ve made a decision. The Taylors have appealed that decision. Both sides have had an opportunity to be heard.
And now the ordinance gives us the responsibility to make a decision.
I don’t see the benefit of telling the Taylors, “Go file an application for this exact same mural, go back before the same Commission, have another hearing, get another decision, and then, if you disagree with that decision, appeal it right back to us.”
We’re already here.
And again, I want to make something very clear.
I’m not saying they were right to put this mural up without obtaining a permit.
They should have gotten a permit.
And nothing I’m proposing tonight should be interpreted to mean that somebody can leave here, go put a mural or some other alteration on a building in the Historic District tomorrow, and then come ask forgiveness afterward.
In fact, I believe there should be a consequence for failing to follow the permitting process, and that’s one portion of the Commission’s decision that I believe we should affirm.
But that’s separate from the question of whether the mural itself should be removed.
Failing to obtain the permit beforehand doesn’t necessarily mean that an alteration that otherwise satisfies the substantive standards we’re required to apply must be torn down.
And based upon the ordinance as it exists today, based upon the Department of the Interior standards that our ordinance specifically directs us to follow, and based upon the facts concerning this particular mural, I do not find a substantive basis under our current ordinance requiring this mural to be removed.
The ordinance itself provides for this appeal. And the fact that it expressly gives this Council the authority to reverse, change, or modify a Commission decision necessarily means there will be occasions when this Council reaches a different conclusion.
That isn’t the Council against the Commission.
I believe the real problem here is that our ordinance has not kept up with an issue that is now in front of us.
And that’s our responsibility to fix.