I am opposed to this proposed amendment, because it has substantial effects that I believe have not been properly explained to either the city commission and the public at large. I intended to have provided the City Commission an extensive breakdown of these issues, but I had emergency surgery a few days ago, and am submitting this from my bed at Morton Plant Hospital. This proposed amendment will significantly impact homeowners rights, and delegate control over same to an unelected board, who, unlike the City Commission, will have no accountability to the public. At the very least, the City Commission should host multiple public sessions, to obtain public input regarding the effects of this proposed amendment, before moving forward with same. I have attached a very preliminary presentation outlining my reasons in opposition to this proposed amendment. My apologies if it is rough, I wrote it from my hospital bed. Thank you City Commission for listening. Paul Gionis
I echo fellow resident comments on general concerns regarding opposition to this overreach initiative. Some other points to consider-
1- The initiative seems to be under the control of a select few within the City offices. It does not appear that resident input and voting approval will be part of the process in critical areas of the initiative. If this is the leadership that the City considers appropriate, please have all officials who feel it is productive to exercise unilateral power to identify themselves and their positions in detail so that the community can better evaluate if these individuals are the leaders the community desires going forward.
2- From an economic perspective, any issue which diminishes the rights of property owners results in a transfer of value to the party that now receives such rights. As such, the City has now been ceded some rights by controlling ann aspect of the property. A value transfer would never occur without compensation such as tax relief.
My name is Maureen Lynch and I live at 159 Beltrees and I am opposed to this ordinance.
In reviewing this ordinance change, I see it removes key decisions from the City Commission, shifting most approvals to the HPC.
Why is decision-making power being moved away from elected officials and into an unelected board?
Furthermore, city staff promised better outreach on historic preservation, yet this ordinance lacks any formal homeowner notification requirement. Many residents may unknowingly lose the ability to modify their homes without navigating a costly and complex approval process, if the city manager kicks off a historic district.
How will the city ensure homeowners are fully informed before their properties are subjected to new restrictions?
I oppose the historic preservation ordinance. Deeming a home as historic should be up to the homeowner; this power should not be given to the City Mgr or Commission. As others have expressed, this designation has potential to put a lot of financial strain and bureaucratic hurdles to residents. The City already put limits on what we can do with our properties with the character overlay, I don't see a reason why the City needs to put even more restrictions in what we can do with our homes. It should be the homeowner's decision to designate their home as historic. The homeowner is the one who knows: what they need/want to upgrade in their home, how much they can/want to spend, what upgrades will do to their insurance premiums, etc. This is a homeowner's decision, not the City's decision.
I will not be able to make it to the meeting, but I am very curious what is the motivation behind this designation and what does the City gain by this? Are there tax or financial incentives for the City?
I oppose the Historic Preservation Ordinance! I live at 415 Louden Avenue in a 1952 home. Historic Preservation should be voluntary and the wording on this ordinace is vague and leaves room for enforcement without homeowners consent.
I strongly oppose the direction our city is headed with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Most of the 1920's homes, including ours, were built cheaply, are small, and really don't warrant protection. Forcing residents to submit a Certificate of Approprateness for all home improvements will create a financial hardship to current residents, forcing many to sell. The Dunedin neighborhoods have done nothing but appreciate in value and clearly do not need more regulation, or government intervention. Please keep historic preservation voluntary. If our city council is sincere about preserving the character of Dunedin, they should focus on downtown, the Pinellas Trail, Edgewater drive, other common areas, and limiting high-density housing. Thank you.
I oppose the Historic Preservation Ordinance for several reasons:
The term "Extraordinary Circumstances" is vague, meaning any area could be rezoned as historic without homeowner consent.
How is the city defining “Extraordinary Circumstances,” and why isn’t it included in the ordinance?
This ordinance forces both historic and non-historic homeowners in Historic Districts into costly Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) processes, delaying repairs and limiting hurricane resilience.
How can a homeowner appeal if they are placed into a historic district against their will?
Furthermore, the city continues to state that this designation is voluntary but that has been proven to be false as clearly the City Manager can designate your property as historic WITHOUT your consent.
Dunedin’s history should be preserved through voluntary, community-driven efforts—not government mandates. Reject this ordinance.
My wife and I live on Broadway in Belle Terre. Last year i had personally spent a lot of time attending all the city reviews of the neighborhood overlay adoption. Although some concerns remained, I looked ahead positively with a keen eye towards our council monitoring its future progress on an annual basis. We barely seem to have begin implementing the overlay and this seems to be rolling right over the work effort previously completed. In addition, we have a well rounded historic designation process in place that select homeowners have worked hard to achieve. We oppose.
We live at 261 Aberdeen Street. We oppose this ordinance. It is overreaching and unnecessary. We knew when we purchased this home in 2021 that the value was in the land and location, not the house itself. There is nothing of historical significance about our home, and a historical preservation zone is far more likely to limit the value and significantly reduce the attractiveness of the property to future buyers. The historic designation process is already available for those who want it. There is also already a character overlay in place. This ordinance seems to be inputting the wishes of a few on many.
I live at 210 Garden Circle North. We moved to Dunedin several years ago because it was a diverse community that appeared to be accepting of all. In our neighborhood, the large business owner lives next to his employee...who lives next to a young family....who lives next to the couple retiring in the home one of them was raised in. Many of us have chosen to remodel and have done this while maintaining the original look or feel of our homes others have needed, or chosen to, tear down and start over.Neither choice is wrong, it's just different.We live in an area where upgrades and repairs need to be meet hurricane standards. Many neighbors, based on their economic standing, simply cannot even do needed upgrades let alone bring their homes to current building standards....let alone meet EVEN costlier historic standards.It appears that the City Commission/Leadership is attempting to drive out and discriminate against those who do not have means to comply with the historic designation.
I strongly oppose the Chapter 111 Changes Blackline - Historic Preservation (02745874-13) ordinance due to its vague language and overreach. The undefined term “Extraordinary Circumstances” gives the City Manager or an unspecified "designee" broad power to create historic districts without homeowner consent. Who is the designee? What is the appeal process if a homeowner disagrees?
Preservation should remain voluntary. This ordinance is unnecessary bureaucracy, adding costs and limiting property rights. Dunedin’s culture that we moved here for is at risk. There are already zoning laws in place.
I urge the City to reject this ordinance and instead support transparent, resident-led preservation that respects homeowners' rights while protecting truly historic properties. Let’s not waste resources on regulations that strip away freedoms.
If my understanding is correct, the City has had a plan in place since 2003 for residents to voluntarily apply for historic designation. Apparently this method did not produce the desired results, so the city has decided to make it mandatory and not just for individual homes but entire neighborhoods. The City Manager can file an application and the commissioners vote with no input from the homeowner who will have to deal with the consequences and no clear path for appeal. I believe historic preservation has value and would suggest the City shift their efforts toward a public information campaign, highlighting the advantages of historic preservation, possibly consider offering incentives but let residents decide what is best for them and leave the process voluntary.
My greatest concern in this ordinance is the lack of clear definitions and the vague language that grants broad authority to city manager or the added language of "designee," without clear limitations. One of the most troubling aspects of this ordinance is the inclusion of the term “Extraordinary Circumstances”—which remains completely undefined. This language grants the City Manager the authority to start a historic district application process without homeowners consent. Also the appeal process needs to be clarified if a homeowner does not agree with the rezoning imposed by the City Manager, if a historic district is created in an extraordinary circumstance. How is the City defining “Extraordinary Circumstances,” and why isn’t it included in the ordinance? Who is the designee? A city employee, a consultant? Preservation should remain voluntary, as it is now. The City should reject this ordinance and pursue transparent, resident-led preservation efforts that respect property rights.
I am opposed to another layer of bureaucracy being added when there is clearly no demand for it. Just another underhanded way to usurp due process à la the ridiculous overlay debacle. Please spend your time on needed efforts.
As a loooooong-term property in Dunedin (circa 2001), I vehemently oppose this proposed ordinance change. To agree with what's been stated here already, there is ZEOR need to create an ordinance covering complete neighborhoods, If an individual is interested in having a historic declaration on their home they can do this INDIVIDUALLY. NO ONE should forced to comply with yet another ORDINANCE/LAW. Having a single individual or a small gaggle of residents make significant financial decisions for the masses like this is insane. Any changes like this should be put up for a referendum & vote. Thanks. David Boucher, 228 Grove Circle South, Delightful Dunedin.
There are many concerns being raised city wide with the recent draft of the Chapter 111- Historic Preservation proposed ordinance.
Bottom line, homeowners do not want yet another layer of bureaucratic control over their property in Dunedin.
What historic events/architecture in the proposed districts are you trying to protect with this ordinance?
Having participated in advisory committees on and off for over 40 years here in Dunedin, I am also questioning the change in HPAC to HPC. What does this mean?
Neighbors are feeling suspect with our city leaders and committee members exhibiting subtle pressure on behalf of this ordinance. This is feeling forced and I am not sure it is a good idea for the city to continue to move forward on such a misguided concept. You are creating much angst and debate among the constituents of our usual "live and let live" mentality in Dunedin. Please let this one go and use our cities resources in a more beneficial transparent endeavor.Thank you
There NO need to create an ordinance covering complete neighborhoods,
If an individual is interested in having a historic declaration on their home they can do this INDIVIDUALLY.
NO ONE should forced to comply with yet another ORDINANCE/LAW.
My wife and I are strongly opposed to this ordinance. There are too many reasons to list here but I've included a link to a very good article on this subject. But for all the reasons listed in this article and all the arguments about costs to the homeowner, additional layers of bureaucracy etc. This simply boils down to property rights. There are zoning laws in place already and it seems to me this is really just an end around move for some to have more control over what others do with THEIR property. Limiting how people improve their properties is like saying, how we build and the styles people like today is somehow less important than previous generations. I'm pretty sure if we let people be, 100 years from today some group in Dunedin will be saying how "cute and charming" those old 2025 house were. Let's protect what is truly historic when we can and stop taking away something as precious as property rights. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-dark-side-of-historic-preservation
I am opposed to historic districts. This ordinance gives unfettered power to the City Manager to propose historic district (HD) boundaries (HDB) under extraordinary circumstances, with no citizen input. The original ordinance from July 2023 stated that 50% of structures within proposed HDB must be identified according to the stated guidelines. Any historic district is like an involuntary conservation easement, with no vote by or input from residents within the boundaries. The ordinance provides that ALL properties within the HDB must follow onerous and burdensome rules in order to do any external work, requiring a COA. And once a proposal for an HD is made, all pending permits are stayed until the HDB is either approved or denied, which could take months or years. Keep the historic designation process voluntary! This does not benefit Dunedin residents. It pits neighbors against neighbors, and residents against the City. Residents are losing trust in their city!
I am opposed to this proposed amendment, because it has substantial effects that I believe have not been properly explained to either the city commission and the public at large. I intended to have provided the City Commission an extensive breakdown of these issues, but I had emergency surgery a few days ago, and am submitting this from my bed at Morton Plant Hospital. This proposed amendment will significantly impact homeowners rights, and delegate control over same to an unelected board, who, unlike the City Commission, will have no accountability to the public. At the very least, the City Commission should host multiple public sessions, to obtain public input regarding the effects of this proposed amendment, before moving forward with same. I have attached a very preliminary presentation outlining my reasons in opposition to this proposed amendment. My apologies if it is rough, I wrote it from my hospital bed. Thank you City Commission for listening. Paul Gionis
I echo fellow resident comments on general concerns regarding opposition to this overreach initiative. Some other points to consider-
1- The initiative seems to be under the control of a select few within the City offices. It does not appear that resident input and voting approval will be part of the process in critical areas of the initiative. If this is the leadership that the City considers appropriate, please have all officials who feel it is productive to exercise unilateral power to identify themselves and their positions in detail so that the community can better evaluate if these individuals are the leaders the community desires going forward.
2- From an economic perspective, any issue which diminishes the rights of property owners results in a transfer of value to the party that now receives such rights. As such, the City has now been ceded some rights by controlling ann aspect of the property. A value transfer would never occur without compensation such as tax relief.
My name is Maureen Lynch and I live at 159 Beltrees and I am opposed to this ordinance.
In reviewing this ordinance change, I see it removes key decisions from the City Commission, shifting most approvals to the HPC.
Why is decision-making power being moved away from elected officials and into an unelected board?
Furthermore, city staff promised better outreach on historic preservation, yet this ordinance lacks any formal homeowner notification requirement. Many residents may unknowingly lose the ability to modify their homes without navigating a costly and complex approval process, if the city manager kicks off a historic district.
How will the city ensure homeowners are fully informed before their properties are subjected to new restrictions?
I oppose the historic preservation ordinance. Deeming a home as historic should be up to the homeowner; this power should not be given to the City Mgr or Commission. As others have expressed, this designation has potential to put a lot of financial strain and bureaucratic hurdles to residents. The City already put limits on what we can do with our properties with the character overlay, I don't see a reason why the City needs to put even more restrictions in what we can do with our homes. It should be the homeowner's decision to designate their home as historic. The homeowner is the one who knows: what they need/want to upgrade in their home, how much they can/want to spend, what upgrades will do to their insurance premiums, etc. This is a homeowner's decision, not the City's decision.
I will not be able to make it to the meeting, but I am very curious what is the motivation behind this designation and what does the City gain by this? Are there tax or financial incentives for the City?
I oppose the Historic Preservation Ordinance! I live at 415 Louden Avenue in a 1952 home. Historic Preservation should be voluntary and the wording on this ordinace is vague and leaves room for enforcement without homeowners consent.
I strongly oppose the direction our city is headed with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Most of the 1920's homes, including ours, were built cheaply, are small, and really don't warrant protection. Forcing residents to submit a Certificate of Approprateness for all home improvements will create a financial hardship to current residents, forcing many to sell. The Dunedin neighborhoods have done nothing but appreciate in value and clearly do not need more regulation, or government intervention. Please keep historic preservation voluntary. If our city council is sincere about preserving the character of Dunedin, they should focus on downtown, the Pinellas Trail, Edgewater drive, other common areas, and limiting high-density housing. Thank you.
I oppose the Historic Preservation Ordinance for several reasons:
The term "Extraordinary Circumstances" is vague, meaning any area could be rezoned as historic without homeowner consent.
How is the city defining “Extraordinary Circumstances,” and why isn’t it included in the ordinance?
This ordinance forces both historic and non-historic homeowners in Historic Districts into costly Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) processes, delaying repairs and limiting hurricane resilience.
How can a homeowner appeal if they are placed into a historic district against their will?
Furthermore, the city continues to state that this designation is voluntary but that has been proven to be false as clearly the City Manager can designate your property as historic WITHOUT your consent.
Dunedin’s history should be preserved through voluntary, community-driven efforts—not government mandates. Reject this ordinance.
Hello,
My wife and I live on Broadway in Belle Terre. Last year i had personally spent a lot of time attending all the city reviews of the neighborhood overlay adoption. Although some concerns remained, I looked ahead positively with a keen eye towards our council monitoring its future progress on an annual basis. We barely seem to have begin implementing the overlay and this seems to be rolling right over the work effort previously completed. In addition, we have a well rounded historic designation process in place that select homeowners have worked hard to achieve. We oppose.
We live at 261 Aberdeen Street. We oppose this ordinance. It is overreaching and unnecessary. We knew when we purchased this home in 2021 that the value was in the land and location, not the house itself. There is nothing of historical significance about our home, and a historical preservation zone is far more likely to limit the value and significantly reduce the attractiveness of the property to future buyers. The historic designation process is already available for those who want it. There is also already a character overlay in place. This ordinance seems to be inputting the wishes of a few on many.
I live at 210 Garden Circle North. We moved to Dunedin several years ago because it was a diverse community that appeared to be accepting of all. In our neighborhood, the large business owner lives next to his employee...who lives next to a young family....who lives next to the couple retiring in the home one of them was raised in. Many of us have chosen to remodel and have done this while maintaining the original look or feel of our homes others have needed, or chosen to, tear down and start over.Neither choice is wrong, it's just different.We live in an area where upgrades and repairs need to be meet hurricane standards. Many neighbors, based on their economic standing, simply cannot even do needed upgrades let alone bring their homes to current building standards....let alone meet EVEN costlier historic standards.It appears that the City Commission/Leadership is attempting to drive out and discriminate against those who do not have means to comply with the historic designation.
I strongly oppose the Chapter 111 Changes Blackline - Historic Preservation (02745874-13) ordinance due to its vague language and overreach. The undefined term “Extraordinary Circumstances” gives the City Manager or an unspecified "designee" broad power to create historic districts without homeowner consent. Who is the designee? What is the appeal process if a homeowner disagrees?
Preservation should remain voluntary. This ordinance is unnecessary bureaucracy, adding costs and limiting property rights. Dunedin’s culture that we moved here for is at risk. There are already zoning laws in place.
I urge the City to reject this ordinance and instead support transparent, resident-led preservation that respects homeowners' rights while protecting truly historic properties. Let’s not waste resources on regulations that strip away freedoms.
If my understanding is correct, the City has had a plan in place since 2003 for residents to voluntarily apply for historic designation. Apparently this method did not produce the desired results, so the city has decided to make it mandatory and not just for individual homes but entire neighborhoods. The City Manager can file an application and the commissioners vote with no input from the homeowner who will have to deal with the consequences and no clear path for appeal. I believe historic preservation has value and would suggest the City shift their efforts toward a public information campaign, highlighting the advantages of historic preservation, possibly consider offering incentives but let residents decide what is best for them and leave the process voluntary.
My greatest concern in this ordinance is the lack of clear definitions and the vague language that grants broad authority to city manager or the added language of "designee," without clear limitations. One of the most troubling aspects of this ordinance is the inclusion of the term “Extraordinary Circumstances”—which remains completely undefined. This language grants the City Manager the authority to start a historic district application process without homeowners consent. Also the appeal process needs to be clarified if a homeowner does not agree with the rezoning imposed by the City Manager, if a historic district is created in an extraordinary circumstance. How is the City defining “Extraordinary Circumstances,” and why isn’t it included in the ordinance? Who is the designee? A city employee, a consultant? Preservation should remain voluntary, as it is now. The City should reject this ordinance and pursue transparent, resident-led preservation efforts that respect property rights.
I am opposed to another layer of bureaucracy being added when there is clearly no demand for it. Just another underhanded way to usurp due process à la the ridiculous overlay debacle. Please spend your time on needed efforts.
As a loooooong-term property in Dunedin (circa 2001), I vehemently oppose this proposed ordinance change. To agree with what's been stated here already, there is ZEOR need to create an ordinance covering complete neighborhoods, If an individual is interested in having a historic declaration on their home they can do this INDIVIDUALLY. NO ONE should forced to comply with yet another ORDINANCE/LAW. Having a single individual or a small gaggle of residents make significant financial decisions for the masses like this is insane. Any changes like this should be put up for a referendum & vote. Thanks. David Boucher, 228 Grove Circle South, Delightful Dunedin.
There are many concerns being raised city wide with the recent draft of the Chapter 111- Historic Preservation proposed ordinance.
Bottom line, homeowners do not want yet another layer of bureaucratic control over their property in Dunedin.
What historic events/architecture in the proposed districts are you trying to protect with this ordinance?
Having participated in advisory committees on and off for over 40 years here in Dunedin, I am also questioning the change in HPAC to HPC. What does this mean?
Neighbors are feeling suspect with our city leaders and committee members exhibiting subtle pressure on behalf of this ordinance. This is feeling forced and I am not sure it is a good idea for the city to continue to move forward on such a misguided concept. You are creating much angst and debate among the constituents of our usual "live and let live" mentality in Dunedin. Please let this one go and use our cities resources in a more beneficial transparent endeavor.Thank you
There NO need to create an ordinance covering complete neighborhoods,
If an individual is interested in having a historic declaration on their home they can do this INDIVIDUALLY.
NO ONE should forced to comply with yet another ORDINANCE/LAW.
My wife and I are strongly opposed to this ordinance. There are too many reasons to list here but I've included a link to a very good article on this subject. But for all the reasons listed in this article and all the arguments about costs to the homeowner, additional layers of bureaucracy etc. This simply boils down to property rights. There are zoning laws in place already and it seems to me this is really just an end around move for some to have more control over what others do with THEIR property. Limiting how people improve their properties is like saying, how we build and the styles people like today is somehow less important than previous generations. I'm pretty sure if we let people be, 100 years from today some group in Dunedin will be saying how "cute and charming" those old 2025 house were. Let's protect what is truly historic when we can and stop taking away something as precious as property rights. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-dark-side-of-historic-preservation
I am opposed to historic districts. This ordinance gives unfettered power to the City Manager to propose historic district (HD) boundaries (HDB) under extraordinary circumstances, with no citizen input. The original ordinance from July 2023 stated that 50% of structures within proposed HDB must be identified according to the stated guidelines. Any historic district is like an involuntary conservation easement, with no vote by or input from residents within the boundaries. The ordinance provides that ALL properties within the HDB must follow onerous and burdensome rules in order to do any external work, requiring a COA. And once a proposal for an HD is made, all pending permits are stayed until the HDB is either approved or denied, which could take months or years. Keep the historic designation process voluntary! This does not benefit Dunedin residents. It pits neighbors against neighbors, and residents against the City. Residents are losing trust in their city!