INVESTIGATION: City wants to Bulldoze property they spent your taxdollars to save!

292 McGregor is different among the mostly Brick Queen Anne style homes on the block. But it may be the 'poster child" for what is wrong with city government.

A nearby neighbor to the house , Wes, who is a recent historic preservation graduate who is restoring the historic John Peaslee house just down the street notes:

"Though it doesn't have the amazing towers that many on the street do, it far and away has some of the nicest surfaces and details(paneled bays, patterned shingles, Queen Anne Sash, triple stepped windows, etc.) of any house in the entire neighborhood. With all of the decorative shingle work, and the nice exterior paneling, I don't think people in the neighborhood understand the importance of this particular property (a few neighbors have been heard to say, "knock it down*")." So here we go again, a fine historic home with very few defects getting posted for demo again.

The indifference may be the reason the city could actually get away with it. The architecturally rich area is going through a transition back to the once upscale neighborhood it was. But it is a neighborhood in transition.

John Shiflet, noted Victorian Architecture expert, and Historic Preservationist who is the moderator of the online VICARR (Victorian Architectural Review) a group composed of mostly architects, Historic Restoration consultants, Historic Preservationists and people who are restoring significant Victorian Homes, was in Cincinnati this summer touring several areas of Cincinnati, including this particular neighborhood. In his opinion:

“292 McGregor, although not in pristine condition, nonetheless is an unaltered excellent example of the fine homes built along McGregor Avenue during the 1880's into the 1890's. It is absolutely a contributing structure for any potential historic district and its loss would have a significant impact. This is not a working class neighborhood-most of the homeowners were prominent local businesspeople and professionals. The Queen Anne style house nearby Mcgregor was originally the home of John Peaslee, prominent educator and the youngest superintendent of Cincinnati schools ever. Across the street from 292 McGregor is the home of a prominent local lawyer who was involved with the Duckworth Club and democratic politics in the early 1900's.. Many of the faded but grand homes along McGregor have been altered with substitute siding and windows; however, based on my long years of involvement with historic preservation, the degree of integrity is sufficient to create a local national register historic district . In any event this house is too architecturally significant to abandon to the bulldozer.”


The REAL indifference however seems to be the City of Cincinnati with YOUR tax dollars. The city BOUGHT this house in 2000 in an effort to save it. As with many good intentioned ideas the city didn’t maintain it and in 2004 the home was featured as “blight of the week on city beat:
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-8529-292-mcgregor-ave.html

In 2007 according to city records, the city council authorized the city manager, Milton R. Dohoney, to sell the property to Teresa Debman without competitive bidding for ONE DOLLAR! However there was a restrictive clause in the sale agreement that continues forward with the deed.

Conveyance of the property shall be subject to the right of the city to re-enter the property.

The owner was given 18 months to make the repairs and in the event she did not the city could re-enter the property and demand return of it refunding her one dollar purchase price. There was never a follow up by the city manager to see if the property was rehabed.

According to the city records Ms Debman indicted she intended to restore the property and operate it as a daycare. However, according to residents in the neighborhood she has done NO WORK to the property since she acquired it.

Now the city building inspections managed by Ed Cunningham, has the property set for a nuisance hearing which would result in its demolition. What is highly suspicious about this is that the city inspections would be using Community Development Block Grant funding (CDBG) which would require this property, which the city apparently deemed historic enough in 2000 to buy, to have what is known as a SECTION 106 historic review. Under Federal HUD guidelines for CDBG funding the city is PHOHIBITED from using Federal monies for demolition of a house older than 50 years that could be eligible for Historic Registry eligibility, without this formal review taking place. It appears that city planning, on receipt of this house for the nuisance list simply “rubber stamped’ this house has having no significant architectural value or not eligible for historic registry status. I an find NO RECORD of city planning and the historic Conservation board holding any public hearings, or request for public comment on 292 McGregor!

I was recently cc’d on an email from Margo Warmiski at Cincinnati Preservation Association to one of the residents trying to organize area residents to save the property in which she indicated the following:

"But here’s the larger issue. When the City’s inventory update of Mt. Auburn was done in 2002, a district was recommended along Highland Ave. but didn’t include McGregor because of integrity issues with some of the buildings. I think this boundary should be reevaluated and a larger area considered for nomination. We need the Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s take on whether or not this area would be eligible as a district."

Residents , in an effort to save the house from demolition are now completing a historic survey form and forwarding to the State of Ohio Preservation Office for emergency review in an effort to stop possible demolition.

So lets recap:

We have neighborhood with significant historic restoration and preservation efforts ongoing. The houses in the immediate area were all once owned by prominent people in Cincinnati history. The McGregor Park Neighborhood could probably qualify on its own asa National Historic District. Property values are going UP not down. The city council clearly thought the property was worth saving in 2000 when they authorized the use of your tax dollars to purchase it at taxsale from the county. They spent years trying to market it for sale. They sold it for a dollar and have the ability to take it back right now and resell it to someone who really will fix it up.

City Inspections, on the other hand, wants to declare it a nuisance and spend 10-15,000 of your Federal tax dollars to bulldoze it, which “may” at this point, be illegal since they appear to not have followed the federal guidelines under section 106 review.

So one part of the “GOOD OLE BOY" city government doesn’t know what the other part of the 'GOOD OLE BOY' city government did in the first place and wants to now waste your federal tax dollars (possibly illegally) to bulldoze a house that the majority of EXPERTS agree is historic and worthy of saving. The City Council, on the other hand , have been left in the dark!

Sound confusing? Not really. What needs to happen is that our city council should stop this!

They have the ability RIGHT NOW to take back the property, which they can and simply sell it to someone who has the means to restore it and prevent city inspections from wasting 15 grand in demolition.

More Importantly they need to INVESTIGATE this boondoggle, so it doesn't happen again and ask some serious questions of Milton Dohoney city manger and Edward Cunningham who supervises building inspections. about the way their agencies are run

1.) Why did the city manager not follow up on the progress of this property.

2.) When on 6/16/2008: when the property was turned in for high weeds and the record notes:

Please send a litter officer to contact the owners about the tall weeds/grass on the privately owned property at 292 McGregor Ave ., "This property was deeded to a private owner approximately two years ago. Please remove the property address from your list as a city owner property."/Tall grass/ weeds .

WHY did that NOT trigger a review by the city manager?

3.) Why is it that city inspection on 6/12/2008 ordered it condemned and did not bother to check out the fact the city sold it and the city manager could get it back?

4.) Who in City Planning or Historic Conservation, "rubber stamped" this property stating it was not eligible as potentially historic and sent it on?

5) Why is Building and Inspection services using federal CDBG funds for demo without following the federally mandated guidelines for section 106 review of potentially eligible historic properties over 50 years old, and have they, in the past, in violation of federal law, actually demolished property that should have been eligible under section 106? Might city inspections have opened the city up to potential lawsiuts to compensate property owners whose homes were demoed illegally? More importantly could 'circumventing' section 106 guidlines cause the city to have to repay those federal monies, face a federal audit and potentially cause the loss of the 1.1 million in Federal CDBG finds, the city wants for demolition in 2010?

Members of the new city council? You have some SERIOUS questions that need to be answered AND you need to do it BEFORE some State or Federal agency comes knocking at your door with a subpoena!

The Loophole in the VBML Ordinance that could cost the city millions of dollars!

The VBML , Vacant Building Maintenance License was hailed originally as a great idea. It would go after the 'worst of the worst' property owners who refused to do anything to their properties. It would help 'shake those properties loose' and get them into good ownership, it would protect first responders by identifying those potentially dangerous and unstable properties. Everyone, except the slumlords, had high hopes for what was viewed as 'groundbreaking' local legislation that would turn Cincinnati's embattled Urban Neighborhoods around.

That was then, but the reality, years later, paints a very different picture of just how "groundbreaking" this ordinance was. The VBML has become a tangled mess, hundreds of properties and not just the 'worst of the worst' but properties that never should have been on the list to start with. Overworked inspectors who "got fed up" with property owners who were working too slowly on repairs to suit them, simply dropped a VBML on them as it meant less work for them. Rather than have to make the repeated inspections and follow ups, by throwing a VBML on a property they only had to maybe follow up once a year when it was up for renewal. The VBML, or more likely, the lack of payment for it made it easier to move the property to nuisance hearing and ultimately demolition thereby solving the overworked inspectors problem once and for all and lightening his caseload.

The subprime mortgage crisis and the overuse of the VBML has actually created more paperwork for the city. The VBML list is huge now, it has become a 'revenue stream' for the city, a "quasi underground tax', as well as a revenue stream for city inspections. Like most ideas with good intentions, it has grown into a huge albatross that many now say has destroyed parts of neighborhoods like Price Hill, Fairmount and OTR. What was designed to protect historic properties and get them back on a path to recovery has become a fastrack to demolition. It has been a "boom" for handfull of demolition contractors in this city, and the city plans on spending over 1.1 million dollars in Federal taxdollars supplied by the CDBG (Communty Development Block Grant fund) to bulldoze hundreds of properties in 2010. To many Historic Preservationists and Urban Community leaders it looks like Cincinnati may become the next Detroit.

Many argue that it has become a dis-incentive to restoration efforts. Few people would buy a property with a VBML against it, one of the reasons much of neighborhoods like OTR have never turned around. Because the city rarely takes civil action for non-payment, properties are often resold and new owners are "blindsided" months or years later by a letter from the city ordering them to pay a liscense fee, obtain costly liability insurance and spend thousands in unessecary permits to go through an inspection process to get the property "off' the list. Often these property owners who bought their historic "dream home" or poorer individuals who just wanted a place to live have just given up and 'walked away", and the property sits for years or far more likely winds up being declared a nuisance and demoed or dumped on the market and sold to an out of state LLC slumlord who milks the propety as rental as long as they can keep the city at bay, continuing the decline of the neighborhood and often bringing crime to neighborhoods that rarely saw it.

Many point to the people who used to be doing restoration in areas like OTR, Price Hill and other Urban neighborhoods who have gone accross the river to Newport and Covington. Their older historic neighborhoods are beginnning to come alive, while the city government continues with a relentless push to make Cincinnati the next Detroit with major Urban demolitions.

Some neighborhood leaders, and some city employees, who originally pushed for the VBML will admit privately that the VBML has cost the city millions in reinvestment and hastened the decay of urban neighborhoods. Oh, there have been attempts to fix it, with a 'waiver program' a program many view as just more hoops to jump through and one more costly step a prospective buyer would go through, IF, they even knew a VBML order was against the property in the first place.

We were "blindsided' with a VBML order some 5 months after we bought our house, out of the blue a letter form the city ordering us to do things. There had been no hearings, no Due Process, just a bunch of paperwork with "vague orders' reffering us to 'bringing the building up to code".
We were told by Ed Cunningham at the city that we could apply for a waiver program, a complicated , and in our view time consuming, costly process that would essentially slow down our restoration to a crawl. To us, this looked like a violation of Due Process, and by applying for waiver we would, in effect, be 'consenting' to the original VBML order which upon research looked like nothing more that an overworked inspector in 2005 taking the easy way out by slapping a VBML on a property whose only fault at the time was a broken window, a kicked in door and people who had just inherited a house after a family members death, and were struggling to figure out what to do with it. Our house, like most on the list, should NEVER have had an VBML order in the first place.

We elected to do, what most people do, we ignored it, continued work and obviously the city inspector was pleased, at least, based on the inspectors notes , we were OK. It was only after my rather vocal criticism of the city demoilition policty and possible abuse of the CDBG process and 106 review last month in my blog, that our property suddenly got "reviewed' by inspections and once again the city is trying to slap us with a VBML or fines or even jail time if we don't pay it.

Were we easily intimidated, we would probably just pay it, but because I have a very strong sense of "right and wrong' it has forced me to read the VBML again, several time in fact. It is what I found, that at least in our circumstance, and for that matter ANYONE else who bought a house that had a VBML on it at some point. There is an "ommision' in the VBML ordinance language that renders VBML enforcement, at least as is applies to any property that was sold or transferred , illegal by city inspections.

You see the ordinance, as written, and in its current state having been amended a couple of times, has no "continuity clause". A "continuity clause" is language in an ordinance, or liscencing requirement, that specifically spells out the right of the ordinance or in this case the VBML liscense to remain "in effect" after the sale or transfer of a property. For city inspection to have the authority to enforce a VBML requirement after a property has been sold against the new buyer, the ordinance would have to have language something like this:

A VBML (Vacant Building Maintence Liscense) shall remain in effect and continue as ordered upon the sale or transfer of a property to a new owner.

The ordinance DOES NOT HAVE that kind of language, and it is that language that would give city inspections that authority to pursue a previously issued VBML against a subsequent property owner without due process.

To all the local law firms who have been fighting the City of Cincinnati on constitutional grounds, hidden and illegal tax grounds, or abuse of power arguments, regarding the VBML. If your client bought a property, that once had a VBML on it, the city inspection department does not have the authority, under the law, as written or currently amended, to continue enforcement of a VBML requirement after a property has been sold or transffered. YOU SHOULD REALLY READ THE ORDINANCE!

Now the city will no doubt try to argue this BUT Courts typically hold that an ordinance must be specific, not overly broad in its nature or scope, and specifically spell out the policy and proceedure. Our VBML ordinance simply does not cover what happens to a VBML if the property is sold or transfered and for that matter does not even contain any language in the actual liscense or renewal section of the code about how the city provides a refund to the previous owner when a property with a paid VBML Liscense is sold "mid term". Technically the seller is entitled to a pro rated refund of the fee. So any of you out there that were able to unload a VBML property when there were still months left on your VBML liscense fee? You might want to call Edward Cunningham over at city inspections and ask where your refund is?

So what does this REALLY this mean? Well the city won't just roll over play dead and actually ADMIT the ordinance is wrong. What will likely have to happen is a property owner points this out to judge, say at the Common Pleas Court Level that the city has no authority to continue a VBML requirement if the property changed hands and the judge reads the ordinance and sees it isn't there, the VBML is done ,at least for those who bought a property that had a VBML order previously against it. Those of you who owned the property when the ordinace started and have not ever changed hands are still stuck with the VBML requirement as written. Oh I guarantee you that the city will appeal but courts are pretty good about ruling about the limitations of an ordinance, If the city council were smart they would save the city hundreds of thousands in legal fees and order the city manager to not proceed with an appeal. A higher court will likely reach the same conclusion. There is a ton of case law on this issue.

So what would that mean you ask? Well Mr Cunningham at city inspections has a big problem. They would have to restart the process on EVERY property that changed hands and they could not restart at the VBML level. First someone would have to actually complain. The city inspector would first have to issue the new owner a repair order and that owner would have to fail to comply with that order and the city would them have to have a pre prosecution hearing and then on to VBML. In other words the new owner has to have the same DUR PROCESS that the prior owner had.

In fact, it likely means the city would have to refund the VBML fees to anyone bought a property, who paid for the VBML liscense to date (perhaps with interest since city obtained the monies outside the scope of the ordinance) We are talking about over a million dollars maybe in refunds? More if some smart attorney decides to go to court to put together a class action and seek punitive damages from a Federal Court.

I have no doubt that the council will quickly move to amend the VBML ordinance and insert a continuity clause, and language to deal with the VBML refund issue when a property is sold, BUT, they can't make it retroactive, so it would only be valid going forward and they still may need to find some way to make a VBML FEE show up on a title search as this ordinance may still violate consumer proptection laws as they apply to home purchases. Ultimately the city may have to file a civil action on every delinquent VBML going forward in order to have it recorded as valid lien. But that is something for city legal, the city council and manager to work out.

What does this mean for Urban Neighborhoods like OTR , Fairmount, Price Hill and others? Well it means a second chance. It means that maybe people will be willing in invest in historic properties, it means that that 91 page list of keep vacant, condemned and VBML list may just get a lot shorter. People who would have put their restoration dollars accross the river in Newport or Covinmgton probably will now take a second look at Cincinnati. It may mean more construction jobs, the 'blight=bulldozer" mentality of the city manager may requre some retooling. Urban neighborhoods may have a fighting chance.

Who knows maybe the council will REALLY look at this ordinance, realize what an albatross it is to Urban neighborhoods scrap the whole thing. Maybe come up with something new, something more thought out. We may very well see.

So I know the big question in your mind? Does city inspections know about this?

Sure they do, I sent an email to Ed Cunningham on Tuesday with the following question:

SHOW ME the VBML 'continuity clause"? In other words where is the language in the ordinance that says: That the VBML shall remain in force upon transfer or sale of the property?

I have looked and looked and I can't seem to find it. Would you perhaps have the city attorney point it out to me?

For SOME reason? He didn't reply? Didn't get an email from the city attorney either?

Oh I am sure after a bunch of meetings with the legal department they will come up with some response, but I've already run the ordinance by some of the best legal minds I know ( and I happen to know quite a few) and they all agree it is a "oops moment" for City of Cincinnati Inspections, and the city manager.

If you would like to read the VBML ordinance it's under Chapter1101-77 of the Municipal code, or you can do a search on VBML , you can read the code at:
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/council/pages/-3667-/

Is City Inspections trying to Silence me on City Demo policy,CDBG Funds and 106 Review? You decide.

Many of my regular readers may recall that last month I began a series of articles on the City of Cincinnati Demolition Policy, almost immediately after this series began, our local neighborhood inspector Mike Fhen “had a revelation” and bumped us up to a pre prosecution hearing, set for November 24th regarding a VBML the city issued to a prior owner in 2005. This hearing is at 9:30 , 4th floor at 705 Central Avenue, One Centennial Plaza, Cincinnati Ohio 45202

What was astounding about this is that as President of the Knox Hill Neighborhood Association, I routinely email and speak to Mike Fhen on problem properties in our neighborhood, in fact it was my research into a out of state, California LLC that finally provided the city with a good address to serve a problem property owner on my block after almost a year of city inspections spinning their wheels.

So is this just a Coincidence? Maybe, except the only records this inspector had made regarding our property which is in the public record indicates no issue: B200901371

3/18/2009 : Owner continues to restore front of building

3/30/2009: Working

It was only on 10/23/09 Right after I began my series on City Demo policy the following note appeared:

10/23/09: Working on repairs no permits, no VBML, or Wavier application recommend PPH

Quickly approved by his supervisor Mr Sean Minihan ( whom I have never had a conversation with). To put this action in perspective. Given the numerous emails I have sent to Mike Fhen, regarding problem properties in the neighborhood, one would assume that if this inspector had an issue he would have simply picked up a phone and called me or dropped me an email. Do I blame Mike Fhen, absolutely not! I think Mike Fhen is a good guy, with huge caseload and based on my communication with him I do not believe he is the kind of guy who would just "dump" a pre pros on me, especially since there is NO indication in any notes that he had an issue. For the record, I do not "blame' Mike Fhen.

The condition of the property when we bought it.

The condition now.

Apparently according to city inspections, representing the City of Cincinnati: We are just another “problem property owner?” Those of you who live next to a problem property KNOWS what a problem property looks like, this is not a problem property and is not a non-compliant one.

OR MAYBE, just maybe, have I ruffled some feathers in City Government? Is the "good ole boy" network in city government upset that I would dare question how they administer Federal Funds? Your Federal tax dollars? Maybe it was that request to the city planner on wanting notification about when properties were sent to her department from city inspections that are in my neighborhood, BEFORE they are reviewed and sent to the State Historic where they are reviewed under section 106 requirement for properties that may be eligible for Historic designation?

Or perhaps, it's the fact I find it interesting that the City Manager appoints the Historic Conservation Board that "should' if the Section 106 process review worked the way it should at local level, be issuing a recommendation regarding potential historic properties AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, for movement to nuisance hearing and possible demo using CDBG funding WHICH 'could' be construed as a conflict of interest since the city manager is ultimately responsible for administration of those funds and he appoints the board who should be making that recommendation? Perhaps CERTAIN PEOPLE in the city are worried if I ask TOO MANY questions that the 1.1 Million dollars the city wants to spend on demolition next year could be held up or yanked or at the very LEAST, the city might be facing a Federal Audit from HUD regarding their policy and procedures for dealing with demolition and 106 review?

I don't know, but I find the timing VERY interesting?

Especially given the fact that not one property around us has had ANY improvement since we bought our house in November 2008, one has to wonder, how our home, being restored to the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines for Historic restoration is a “problem property” yet none of the other homes around us present an issue? In fact, ours is the first property to be Painted in 10 years in the neighborhood. Is our City inspection department wearing "blinders"? Are they REALLY doing their job? You decide.

This is the property next door to us, JUST 3 inches away I might add, it has falling asbestos siding on the east wall Holes in the south wall , no gutter or downspouts(pictured here). By the way, this property does have rental permit and is rented out for 650.00 a month! The grass was not cut at all this year.

The property behind us, has visible holes in the roof, a collapsing chimney, falling gutters windows ready to fall out because they haven’t been caulked in 20 years and a dangerous front porch, Oh and its been vacant since 2004! Neighbors have had to cut the grass because the city can't seem to get out there. Funny they couldn't See the 6 foot weeds, or obvious code violations, when they were demolishing the house next to it August and several people from city inspections were on site?

Across the street from us stands a house vacant since 2002 and turned into the city in 2005 as open vacant, the grass has been cut by concerned neighbors. Note the flashing that flaps in the wind and the condition of the roof.It's open "Again" yet no VBML has been issued?

There even is a house down the street that had a serious fire months ago, yet the city hasn't even demoed it, even though it REALLY HAS structural problem, is open and represents a clear safety danger to neighborhood children who might venture into it. This would be a productive use of emergency demolition funds if anyone at the city reads this.

I could go on and on. I have a file, as president of the Knox hill Neighborhood Association, on dozens of houses in our neighborhood that look just like the ones you see above. AND I keep very good records and copies of all emails sent to city officials.

It is obvious to me, what is going on. Is it to you?

As taxpayer perhaps you are concerned? You should be, and you should ask yourself WHY the city wants to drive people away, people like us, who are willing to come into neighborhoods that the city certainly has written off, buy property that no one else wants to buy(except maybe a slumlord) and are willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in turning a neighborhood around. It is ironic, that I have given tours to members of several community organizations, people from Cincinnati Preservation Association, and block club leaders who seem to use our house as a prime example of what GOOD development should look like and how our efforts not only through our own historic restoration, but as community leaders who set up a neighborhood organization and crime watch will ultimately turn the neighborhood around, raise property values back and make this area a productive contributor to the county and city property tax roles.

Would city officials like to see these homes bulldozed? Eliminated from the tax roles so your taxes will rise and you will find yourself voting on more and more levies every election because our tax base is shrinking? Would the city RATHER spent a1.1 million Dollars on Demo next year rather than spend that money on stabilization?

Is our 1871 Second Empire Cottage and eyesore? A problem property? OR, are city officials worried about people moving into Cincinnati from out of state? Who come from cities where city governments follow proper procedure, do their job in an efficient manner and the "good ole boy" government no longer exists? I do not know. I will let you decide. So if you have a problem property next door or in your neighborhood ask yourself how you would feel if that property looked like OUR property and if want to, ask you own city inspector why your problem property doesn't look like our house. Feel free to do so.

IN FACT, if you are basically outraged by this, please feel free to communicate your outrage to inspection supervisor Mr. SEAN MINIHAM sean.minihan@cincinnati-oh.gov or Mr. ED CUNNINHAM edward.cunningham@cincinnati-oh.gov phone 513-352-1909 , or your illustrious city manger MILTON DOHONEY citymanager@cincinnati-oh.gov or call at 513-352-3243. Remember to reference case number B200901371 and if you could cc me on your email at victiques@hotmail.com since your communication to city officials should be placed in the case record, it it "magically" doesn't appear I will have a copy. We want to keep everyone at city inspections "honest".

You might want to call you favorite city councilman and ask them why city inspections is trying to drive people AWAY from investing in Cincinnati? Perhaps the city council need to review city policy?Maybe the council needs to start asking some hard questions about just how monies are spent in this city? I certainly have an opinion about that, don't you?

Those of you who know me, know one thing about me, NOT answering my questions, just makes me dig deeper! Try to put pressure on me to shut up? Doesn't work!

I've stood up for historic preservation and neighborhoods before, I've dealt with issues concerning CDBG funds, demo policies, even the Americans with Disabilities Act. Along the way some of those people, who were misusing their power, no longer have their job, some had had to testify before grand juries, some have had to face State and Federal audits. I have always maintained that government works for us as taxpayers and as their employer we have the right to ask questions.

I am a historic Preservationist. I appreciate historic architecture, I appreciate neighborhoods, I see the potential in Cincinnati and I recognize that city government has to change the way they do business. We as taxpayers have the right to expect better.

What we have done with our own property demonstrates our resolve to make not only our neighborhood but Cincinnati a better place to live. You should ask yourself? ARE OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DOING THE SAME?

To the "Good ole Boy" network? I am NOT that easily intimidated!

Tomorrow: The loophole in the VBML ordinance that could cost the city millions of dollars!

Knox Hill Project : Weekly Update Part 2

In addition to all the things mentioned yesterday we had the usual yard work leaves,leaves,leaves! It looks like maybe next weekend we will be done with the leaf raking! The mums we planted are still blooming and I planted yet another round of Bulbs. Now up to several hundred bulbs in the ground,I can hardly wait until spring when things start coming up.

If your house is like most old houses it has been through several lighting changes. Our house built in 1871 of course had oil lamps originally. That was followed by the installation of gas lighting, which of course meant running gas pipes throughout the house and that was closely followed by electrical, that new fangled "knob and tube". Probably your house is like mine and at some point your "fuse box' was replaced with breakers and more contemporary grounded romex electrical wiring was put in. However electricians can be a little lazy and although your house may appear to be rewired when you look in the basement, you may still have a run or two here and there that is old wiring. Such was the case with our overhead light in the parlor and dining room. Our house when we bought it still had the original 1920's era lights which were attached to the metal pipe that had originally run the gas to the old gasoliers. Now we have all new wiring run from our breakers to our switch but from the switch to the light? that was 80-90 yrs old. If you started out with gas lights chances are the electrician who did the install of the knob and tube made your life much easier. You do not need to tear out your original plaster ceiling to replace this piece of wiring.

Go to the room above the room with the old wiring. Go to the center of the room and look at your floor. In order to run gas lines the installer typically would remove planks in the floor to run your gas lines. These pipes were notched into the floor.

Go to the center of the room and look for the removable floor pieces. Take a small screwdriver or prybar and carefully lift the flooring. It will usually be held into position with a small nail. Lift up that board and you will find the gas pipe AND the knob and tube wiring.

You can use a sawsall to remove the old gas pipe, Our house no longer has gas service ( total electric) but you should check to see all old lines are first disconnected from the gas supply in the basement, If in doubt you can contact your local utility or a heating/cooling contractor. Even so I recommend that you unscrew the end cap in the gas line several days prior to doing this JUST to be on the safe side so you are absolutely sure nothing but air is in an old pipe. I like to take a air compressor and blow air through the old pipes just to make sure.

Once you remove the pipe it is easy to get to the old knob and tube. REMEMBER any place that a electrical wire runs through a joist you should put a Nail protector ( it is a small piece of metal) over the wire. This protects the wiring should anyone ever put a nail in the floor. You can buy them at your local home supply store , they only cost about a quarter a piece and they are cheap protection for your wiring and are required by code in most municipalities.

Once you run the wiring down the wall to your switch you simply reconnect it according to the manufacturers instructions and you should install a new light fixture box in your ceiling. You now have a properly grounded light fixture . If you are not 'wiring savvy" you can call an electrician to do this repair BUT you can save yourself a ton of money by 0pening up the floor , and removing the old gas lines. Remember electricians charge labor by the minute and any prep work you do means time saved in the long run!

In fact I recommend if you have any questions about the condition of your wiring call an electrician, most offer a flat fee inspection. They will come out inspect your box and wiring and can tell you if things are up to code. If you are spending a ton of money restoring an old house why would you not make sure your wiring is up to snuff?

More Restoration on the next weekly update.

Knox Hill Cottage Project : Weekly update Part 1

Things are moving right along and because of the complexity and details of a couple of these projects and the fact that many of you are facing the same restoration issues, this will be a

two part update so I can focus on "How To" repairs.

One big project is the "restructuring" of the basement stairs. As many of you may recall these stairs were added later to replace an outside staircase. The stairs are too steep and the treads too shallow to be safe so we are changing the way they run. Under our main stairs the wood floor was run under them which is a part of today's how to post. So we removed the flooring under that part of the stairs where the basement stairs will eventually run.

Inevitably in the restoration of an old house you will need to do a floor repair or replacement. Usually a register is being relocate or sometimes a repair was made incorrectly. In our case we once had a huge cold air return in the front parlor. This was later 'boxed in' when a gas fired boiler system and radiators were added. Replacing and repairing sections of old floors is often problematic as old growth flooring is different size than new stuff and some millwork places did their own size of flooring. So what do you do? Well look for flooring in hidden places. Usually under stairs (like we did) sometimes in a closet or an attic. By using old wood,your floors should match upon sanding. Now in our case we will eventually put down a completely new square edge oak inlay on our floors but we need to get the rooms livable soon so we will initially use the old flooring so we need to get them into "presentable' shape.

Just pulling up patch and nailing down new flooring may not "fix' your problem. When you need to do a replacement as we did, NOW now is the time to fix any problems UNDER the floor which in this case were called for. In our case ( and the case in many old stone foundation floors at some point), someone decided to "insulate" by cramming stones between the floor joists and adding a

mortar/stucco filler to "seal' the edges of the house. This was common practice in the late 1800's early 1900 before insulation became widely used. The problem with this is all that stone transfers cold into the basement and can "wick" moisture into the joists causing damage. We were lucky due to the fact our house sits well above grade that wasn't a problem, BUT, a radiator with a small leak over the years had weakened a joist and repairs were called for. Our foundation is 24 inches thick. We pulled out the added stone/mortar put between the joists and using a foam insulation we got back into any hidden cavities or and cracks where wood trim met the wooden sills.

We had one joist with some damage due to the leaking radiator and we added a new joist repair next too it which was done my taking new material and using a good bonding construction adhesive, screws and lag bolts to bond the two together. We made this sister piece long enough to reach into the pocket in the foundation and out to good wood in the joist. We also filled any large holes in the wood with albatron, a wood epoxy material great for repairs. It is expensive but its a "permanent repair"and well worth the cost. http://www.abatron.com/cms/

While we had this area open we also added insulation in the pocket between the joists and foundation to further prevent air infiltration. Of course eventually EVERY pocket that was stuffed with added stones and mortar will have to be cleaned out caulked and insulated but since we could easily get to this corner now was the time.

Install of the recycled flooring is pretty easy . IF,we were not eventually putting down a new hardwood floor over this one I would have gone further into the room, cut boards out at farther joists so to stagger the joists. In this case it doesn't matter because of the eventual new floor.

Tomorrow's installment: replacing knob and tube in overhead lighting applications without tearing out your plaster.

Preservation Day Trips: Piatte Castles

This will be an occasional series on Historic places of note that will make a good day trip for Old House lovers or Historic Preservationists.

Ohio has its own Biltmore! Well, while not as big as Vanderbilt's Biltmore, the Piatte Castles are certainly two of the finest examples of the grand elegance of the "Gilded Age' of Victoriana. Located in West Liberty Ohio at 10051 Twp. Rd. 47, the castles are in the middle part of the state closer to the western side. Complete information and directions are at their website: http://www.piattcastles.org/index.htm There are upcoming event this month and in December so check their website for more information.

In the 1820's, Judge Benjamin M. and Elizabeth Barnett Piatt moved their family from Cincinnati to Logan County.Two of their children, Abram Sanders and Donn later built their own homes, Mac-A-Cheek and Mac-O-Chee in the country-side they knew as youths. These unique structures have become a private, family-owned museum that interprets over 200 years of history of the Ohio land and Ohio people.
What makes a visit worth the trip are the incredible high style interiors and stenciling done by artist Oliver Frey. Both Piatt families were lovers of art and it is believed that Abram’s son Charles met the skillful Swiss-born artist Oliver Frey in Mentone, France where Charles was in the diplomatic service. Oliver Frey came to Ohio to stencil seventeen rooms in Donn and Ella’s home Mac-O-Chee. When finished, he painted the ceilings of several rooms in Abram and Eleanor home, Mac-A-Cheek. While Frey and his group of artisans traveled all over Ohio, these are perhaps the finest surviving examples of his art. The museum foundation has an ongoing restoration of the stenciled rooms but it is most interesting to see them in their current unrestored condition. Do you know of a Historic "day trip getaway? If so send me the information at victiques@gmail.com and we may feature it here.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! To our house!

One year ago TODAY, we officially began the Odyssey of the Knox Hill Cottage. We closed on the house in what I can describe as a "grueling process". Freddie Mac wanted every piece of paper faxed on legal sized paper!

We began looking early in 2008 for a house in Cincinnati. along the way we had three false starts. One on McMicken that we lost out on thanks to our first realtor who couldn't manage to get offers in on time, A half townhouse on Dayton Street that we loved but didn't want to share with a dysfunctional section 8 tenant right next door, and a mixed-use Commercial building on Colerain that we put an offer on but got beat out on.

In fact the Knox Hill cottage almost didn't happen. The house popped up on the MLS and It was on my "to see' list ( I always wanted a Second Empire house) then quickly went pending. So we decided to look at a property on Neave in lower Price Hill, a mixed use retail/residential structure. Just before we were ready to come down to look at it. Knox Hill went off pending status so we added it back to our "to see" list.

The Neave property in lower Price Hill was well, "The deal' from an old house person perspective. An Italianate brick mixed use with some great features for 7 grand. It was a total mess of course and if I was sure I could get the vacant lot next door it might have been my dream house, reminding me of my days in Charleston SC and the federal style house I once lived in, I could see it with a grand walled courtyard. BUT, the neighborhood was literally a warzone, full of crackheads, hookers and drug dealers. Had I been 20 years younger I actually might have moved there. In fact on our way to the Knox Hill Cottage I remarked to Greg that if I was willing to empty out my retirement account, buy the entire neighborhood, I could create a little "Georgetown enclave" of high end houses. Sanity, and my love of my 401K, prevailed.

We approached Knox Hill from Beekman, and for those of you who are not familiar, it's like climbing a mountain. It reminded me of my days living in San Francisco. Here we were in a major city and we were headed into what appeared to be a wilderness, up, up,up a hill that seemed to go on forever. Into a valley then back up another hill. I have never calculated our exact elevation but it has to be substantial. We finally emerged into a neighborhood of mostly 1860-70s era home and on the corner of Knox and McBrayer sat the Knox Hill cottage., well it sat there but you couldn't hardly see it from the street. The lot was covered with trees and Honeysuckle.
I am sure Cathy Frank our realtor thought we were crazy, after all NOBODY,except slumlords, buys a house in Fairmount, plus this house had been stripped of its plumbing, furnace, even the claw foot tub! But we saw a once grand Second Empire cottage, an "old Victorian dowager", down on her luck, wanting desperately to go to the cotillion but lacking the means to pull herself up, put her makeup back on and make her grand entrance back to proper society.

And then there was our neighbor Mark who appeared out of nowhere ( a hippie era looking guy wearing what looked like a "cat in the hat", hat) wanting to know who we were and just what we were doing poking around that house. For those of you who have ever restored a house and tried to bring back a neighborhood the ONE THING you want is a nosy concerned neighbor. The neighborhood, unlike lower Price Hill was remarkably quiet, it was like being in the middle of nowhere yet as we gazed down the hill from the end of McBrayer,through the trees, we could see the city in the distance.

Greg and I looked at each other and knew we had to buy this house, it, "as they say' spoke to us. They were asking 6000.00 for it, less than I've paid for a good Victorian chair. We offered 4250.00 for it and as it turned out they paid the back taxes and it actually wound up costing us 3725.00 out of pocket.

The last year has been interesting to say the least, just a few months after we closed we got a notice from the city "ORDERING" us to pay a 900 VBML fee because they had declared the house unfit for human habitation (because of a broken window in 2005) and must be kept vacant. I quickly read the city municipal code (Ii may the only person in Cincinnati to actually read the damn thing) and I determined the VBML law wasn't worth the paper it was written on and I told the city if they wanted 900 bucks take me to court and I would be more than happy to file a federal lawsuit against the city for violation of about a dozen consumer and real estate laws and I might just go ahead and do a class action while I was at it, I was way too busy restoring the house to be bothered with them and their "stupid little VBML" law.

In the end they figured out that 1.) While I may be a crazy Historic Preservationist, I was also a retired attorney with years of practice in the Federal Appellate court and I would wind up costing the city millions of dollars, and 2.) I was actually crazy enough to throw a hundred grand at this house. A house that no one wanted, in a neighborhood no one wanted and certainly a neighborhood the city had long ago written off. I still remember the email from the city inspector when I told him our plans and he replied "you are spending money in THAT neighborhood"? No one other than slumlords actually bought in that neighborhood much less did a period restoration of a cottage to Federal Historic Preservation standards.

In the last year it has been one good thing after another. We started a neighborhood association, others came in and started restoring too. The house had been a treasure trove of discoveries, from the old photos provided by the heirs of the owner(Antone Nagele) from the late 1800's to the original stenciling we found under layers of paint. We have great neighbors and have made many great friends.

While we could have dropped two mill on a house in Indian Hills we decided on a small cottage on a Hill. Maybe we are crazy but I bet by the time we celebrate the 5th anniversary of this house, the neighborhood is on the National registry, we have restored a couple of other houses on the block, prices have gone through the roof and everyone is talking about how Knox Hill is the next Mt Adams, people will think we are crazy, "crazy like a fox"! To all the naysayers, I have done this before ask people what Meridian Park, Chatham Arch or Holy Cross in Indianapolis "used" to look like before I came along.

And the Knox Hill Cottage, that tired old Victorian dowager will once again take her rightfull place back in "High Victorian Society" where she so rightly belongs!

Historic Demolitions: City Preservation Planning "rubber stamping" demos, under section 106?

Two VERY IMPORTNANT things you should know.

The City of Cincinnati has thousands of properties ( 91 pages of properties) on its keep vacant or condemn list:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps38187.pdf

The city in its 2010 budget wants to spend $1,149,000. in CDBG to DEMOLISH houses in Cincinnati. OVER MILLION DOLLARS of your federal tax dollars!

When you look at your paycheck and you wonder what your Federal tax Dollars are being used for, here is your answer. The big question is, "is the city spending this money in a responsible manner?" By comparison only 249,000 is being spend on what is known as "capital" which would be non demo uses , such as repair.

In order for the City of Cincinnati to use CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) monies there is a process requirement called 106 review. It requires that before a property can be set for a"Nuisance Hearing" to determine if it should be demolished (using CDBG funds) it must first be reviewed by the City Historic Conservation to determine if the property in question has redeeming Historic value and might be eligible for listing on the National Registry as historic.

If the property is determined to have redeeming historic value, in other words it might be eligible for listing on the historic registry then it is ineligible for CDBG funds without a review under section 106 in which public input would be required. Note this must take place BEFORE the actual nuisance hearing. If the property was determined to have historic significance or value then federal dollars may not be used for demolition unless it can be determined that demolition is the only option.

So the question is? Are proper protocols being followed? Is the city planner and the Historic Commission "really reviewing' these properties and determining that they have No Historic value and are ineligible to be considered for listing on the National Registry? Or are they being "rubber stamped" and sent on? You decide.

1611 Waverly is located in the South Fairmount Neighborhood, in fact it is just outside our Knox Hill Neighborhood Boundaries , yet is part of our own "overlay plan" of adjacent areas we monitor. It is our intention to pursue Historic Registy status for our neighborhood in 2010 and in fact several property owner will seek individual national registry status for their homes.

1611 Waverly is what is known as a Single Italianate Brick Detached Townhouse. This particular example has certain "high style" features not typically found on all Brick Townhouses. For example there is elaborate limestone detailing over the window hoods and there is a nicely detailed top cornice held up with 5 brackets with raised panel detail between them. The house also appears to have 'most' of its original 2 over 2 windows that could be restored. According to the Auditors site this property was built in 1865!

As a historic restoration Consultant with over 20 years experience in historic restoration work, in my professional opinion this house is worthy of restoration. As someone who has owned several landmarked properties, written Historic registry nomination for properties and neighborhoods, served on the Board of Directors for several historic registered neighborhoods, in my professional opinion this property is eligible for listing on the National Registry based on the fact that it is a essentially intact example of Italianate Townhouse Architecture with high style features. While I have not taken the time to research the ownership of this property since it was built, given its location, and the fact that most of the homes in this area were built as weekend cottages for wealthy industrialists I have no doubt, were we to research the history of this home that some person or persons "significant" in early Cincinnati likely owned this home.

I have looked at this particular house, based on my professional experience, being familiar with historic structures, I can find NO reason why this property would be unsafe , I find NO significant impediments structurally that would prevent it's restoration.

I might add that this is not 'just' my opinion. I forwarded photographs of this home to several historic preservation experts from across the country, who all came to the same conclusion that I did, this house is worthy of listing on the national or local historic registry.

I also contacted several colleagues of mine who are Historic Preservation officers and planners in several cities. I asked them if:

1.) They felt the property was eligible for registry listing?

2.) If they would recommend a section 106 review and public comment as to its value? In both cases ALL the Preservation Officers I contacted said that YES the property in question was eligible and that a 106 review would be appropriate and REQUIRED.

It is interesting to note that some of the Preservation Officers and planners I spoke to were astounded that a city would EVEN consider demolition for such a property and in no case would they personally recommend that a city "waste' federal dollars demolishing a house that clearly should be restored.

1611 Waverly may be the "poster child" for historic endangered properties" but it is just the TIP of the iceberg, upon review of recent decision from nuisance hearing there are DOZENS of properties declared nuisances in 2009, that are clearly eligible for Historic listing,and should clearly have a Section 106 review. So either local government is not doing its job OR the State is being lax on thier part.

So if you are concerned about the Historic Architecture in Cincinnati. If you are tired of your tax dollars being wasted and squandered by a city government with NO CLUE about the value of historic properties what can you do?

COMPLAIN, Complain LOUDLY, contact your city officials: Contact Caroline Kellam, senior city planner for Cincinnati at caroline.kellam@cincinnati-oh.gov (513) 352-4842 . Contact the Historic Conservation Board members who, by the way, are appointed by the CITY MANAGER, Milton Dohoney at citymanager@cincinnati-oh.gov or call at 513-352-3243 . You can contact Ed Cunningham, the division manager of property maintenance edward.cunningham@cincinnati-oh.gov phone 513-352-1909 .

You may have questions like? "How do you document that a property is likely ineligible for listing and notify the state as such"? Do you notify affected nearby property owners and neighborhood groups that a property in their area is being considered for demo and registry eligibility is under review"? " What professional qualifications, or certifications do city building inspectors have at determining 'structural issues?" "Is there a competitive bidding process for demo contractors on demo jobs under 25,000.00"?"

If you have questions at the state level about how Cincinnati spends it CDBG funds (your federal tax dollars) and complies with state requirements you can direct your concerns to the Ohio Preservation Office Ohio Historic Preservation Office 567 East Hudson Street,Columbus, OH 43211-1030 Resource Protection and Review staff at (614) 298-2000.

And if after all the above is done and you still have questions you can contact HUD who administers the CDBG funding at the federal level: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410Telephone: (202) 708-1112

Just Remember, there are 91 pages of vacant and condemned properties and the city wants to spend over ONE MILLION DOLLARS of your federal tax dollars on demolition, leaving vacant lots that will contribute nothing to the county taxbase.

If you want Cincinnati to become Detroit then do nothing, If you want to save this city then get involved!

Do we need a "Preservation Early Warning System"?

The Enquirers Steve Kemme reported on the impending loss of the Dr Charles Mets house , a noted archaeologist. http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20091102/NEWS01/911030321/Archaeologist+s+house+to+be+razed


The house itself is not an architectural masterpiece, its a rather non-descript house but in terns of historical significance, it is important to the history of Ohio and its loss will forever remove a part of Ohio history.


My own experience with my own house revealed that our house was once owned by Antone Nagele who was a well known stone mason no doubt responsible for providing stonework to a number of significant buildings. In short , many houses have story or history that is part of what made Cincinnati the city it is. Had we not come along when we did there would probably be vacant lot by now. I suspect every house in my neighborhood has a story to tell.

As we all know our "bulldoze happy" city council and city administration is perfectly OK with collecting all the Federal Dollars they can and spending those monies on "blight". In other words bulldozing Cincinnati. Despite numerous attempts at education to city officials about, the city about the value of historic architecture and heritage tourism as a economic development tool, they just do not get it.

So how do we "get ahead of the problem" so we are not at the last minute trying to save a house from the bulldozer?

Well we have to start being proactive at the local neighborhood level and we need some co-ordination, perhaps by CPA or some other group or entity to do it. Preservation groups across the country create an annual "most endangered' list. That is good thing as it serves to draw attention to the issue , however often by the time we are at that point it is too late.

What we need is "Preservation Triage" we need to identify at the local neighborhood level, those houses , that if some intervention doesn't happen soon, will likely be lost to the city bulldozer. Now where do we start? Well the VBML list is a good place. We need to look at those properties on the VBML and see if owners are willing to list their houses for sale? Many people faced with the high cost of a VBML would, if they thought that there was any interest, put the property up for sale. They often believe the property 'just isn't worth anything" and are content to just give up and let the city have its way, meaning nuisance hearing and eventual demolition.

We could also "try" to push the city to create a "diversion program' for those facing a VBML Give them the option to list the house for sale, They would have to sign an agreement to disclose the pending issues as part of the diversion program, agree to disclose those with a realtor as a condition of sale. The city could create a city run "endangered properties website" maybe through the Historic Preservation office or even CPA or some other entity to advertise the house for sale. The extra 90-120 Days could often result in a house being sold to someone with the means to save it.

We know VBML orders a pretty much ignored anyway, why not try this diversion program as a 'less adversarial' method of bringing property into compliance. Neighborhood groups who have their own endangered property websites could be linked to this page and this could be marketed to local realtors working with clients who are working with "old house' buyers.

Neighborhood groups need to follow and keep aware of the foreclosures in their neighborhoods. If a property is in 'pre foreclosure or foreclosure and is open. It is FAR better tom contact city inspections, get it secured, than have the house trashed, making it that much harder to eventually restore it. Neighborhood groups need to be proactive and cut the grass on those properties (we all know the city wont do it).

Lastly we need better organization and we need to let the city know, in an organized,tangible fashion, that we mean business. I would propose we consider a petition drive to seek a moratorium on demolitions (except in emergency cases of real eminent danger) for 6 month period to bring all the sides back to the table to study the issue.

If that doesn't work? We, bypass the city council and city manger, and request Federal or State level Audits of just how those monies are being spent by the city on "blight abatement". Are Section 106 obligations of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in [36 CFR PART 800.2 (d) (1&2)] & [36 CFR PART 800.2 (f) (3)] followed?

For those of you not familiar with what section 106 is, as part of the use of Community Development Block Grant Monies for demolition or rehabilitation, the city is required under federal law to have certain notifications as relates to section 106:

Ohio Historic Preservation Office for the Administration of Programs Using HUD Allocated Funds with Delegated Review Responsibilities Authorized Under 24 CFR Part 58

In the event the grantee plans any ground disturbance as part of a rehabilitation, new construction, site improvement, or other undertaking, the grantee will consult with the SHPO to determine whether the undertaking will affect an archaeological property eligible for or listed in the National Register. This shall not be interpreted to include a limited subset of ground-disturbing activities that are exempt from review, as described in Stipulation II.B.2.

Isn't Demolition is ground disturbance? Could a broad interpretation be that demolition of old houses may result in archaeological disturbance?

Now there is an exemption for buildings less that 50 years old under the exempt activities clause, that reads as follows:

If the grantee determines that an undertaking only involves buildings that are less than fifty years old, or if the undertaking includes only exempt activities (as defined by Stipulations II. B., II. C., and II. D), then the undertaking shall be deemed exempt from further review. Such undertakings will require no review under the terms of this agreement because these activities will generally not affect historic properties

This stipulation may include the demolition of buildings less than fifty years old, so long as the building has not previously been determined to be eligible for listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

The grantee will keep documentation of this decision to exempt specific undertakings in its files and compile a complete list of exempt undertakings annually, as required in Stipulation VIII.

The big question in my mind is the city properly notifying SHPO relative to properties older than 50 years which would include almost all the properties on they typical demo list?

Does the city send notification to the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer), is that the ONLY obligation the city has? Does the SHPO have the authority to yank monies if the property is deemed over 50 years old and potentially historic? Do neighborhood groups have voice in this process? If so then perhaps we can use it to stop demolition of properties over 50 years old.

We need to start asking questions: especially after today's election.

Knox Hill Project: Weekly Update

This weekend we were working on a multiple projects. An old house restoration is like a

symphony when you start humming along with restoration. Many individual components coming together to form something magnificent, bit it takes some conducting!

One important project was complete documentation of the period stenciling in the front parlor. We took several hi-resolution photos of the stencils for archival purposes. Our next step was to carefully trace the stencil pattern. I like to use drafting paper rather than tracing paper. It is slightly heavier and as long as the design has good contrast you can trace it with no problem. The first step was to find the "best' area of the stenciled border for tracing. You want to avoid areas that have cracks or missing details. I use a blue painters tape to tape the paper into location and trace the outline of the stencil.

You want to do a "repeatable section" in other words you do not want your stencil so large that it would be unwieldy yet at the same time you want to do more than just one image section at time. I generally find a 2-3 repeated image section to be most workable. As you can see with the lower section. This would be good sized stencil easy to work with.

The upper section was slightly lighter and took a little more time to trace. but We wound up with good section. As these stencils will be eventually reproduced for sale and in multiple sizes, we will color in the image and these will be scanned into the computer, using digital software we will 'clean up" the image, yet still keep some of the slight 'inconsistencies of the original to maintain the historic effect. This image will then be sent out and laser cut on stencil material. We plan on offering the smaller image in three different sizes so it can be used as a border , a chair rail or accent. The larger top stencil will be offered in two sizes. The original border size and a larger "frieze size" for homes with taller ceilings that have more distance between the hanging rail and perhaps a crown molding. Stay tuned for the release of the "Knox Hill Cottage" stencil line soon. As is our policy, a portion of the proceeds will be donated to local historic preservation efforts.

In our belief that "nothing should go to waste" when the house behind us was getting ready to come down we salvaged the original wainscot that was in the staircase and upper hall of that home. This is "old growth wood' and you simply cannot find wood like this anymore with the graining. Our house didn't have wainscot in our stair hall but we felt this would have been an appropriate for the house. Aside from the practicality of wainscot in a high traffic area the wood is beautiful and when we finally get the paint off of it, get it stained and refinished it will add to the overall grandeur of our rather modest stair hall.

Installing this called for some minor demolition of plaster as you want the wainscot at the same height as the plaster above. If you applied it over the plaster it would sit too "proud" of the wall and the staircase itself. So we first had to demo the lower sections of plaster. This was done carefully so as to keep dust to minimum.

The wood itself goes up quickly, and eventually there will be a small trim at the bottom where it meets the stairs and a larger piece at the top to make the transition to the plaster. When its all done you will never know it was not always there. Of course we will cover the stripping and refinishing when we get to that phase of the project. Long time readers may recall our staircase is missing its railing as when they added the basement stairs that took out the railing and added a solid bead board wall in its place. The only place we had some remnants of spindles and railing is upstairs. These were "cobbled together ( or maybe they came from another house)? But in any even we began removal of them. We will be building an entirely new railing baluster arrangement for this stair. We carefully removed them so as not to damage them. We will hold on to them for use in future projects.

If all that wasn't enough we began wall insulation install in the kitchen.Projects, projects everywhere AND we raked a ton of leaves as Fall is upon us in fill force. A special note One Year Ago this last weekend we placed the offer on this house! Although it seems like little has happened at times when I look back and compare photos , considering we have only worked weekend and then only a few hours a day. The transformation has been remarkable. Later this week I will do a "then and now" post to compare what we started with to where we are now.