Entering the National Historic District

For the last year or so, there has been much discussion in Oysterville about rules and regulations and the law. We residents have been in the process of reviewing and updating our Oysterville Design Guidelines as well as Pacific County Ordinance #162 which provides legal oversight for our National Historic District. The County is working on its Comprehensive Zoning Plan and now is our opportunity to update, fine tune, and generally overhaul our particular portion of it – or at least to have input into the process.

It’s not easy. It has fallen to the Oysterville Design Review Board (ODRB) and its current chairperson to co-ordinate the process and to insure opportunities for all residents of the Historic District to be involved. But, as is usually the case, some of the most vociferous critics of the ODRB over the years have been conspicuous by their absence at meetings. And, also as is typical, some of the most enthusiastic participants in the revision process are among our newest residents in town, yet have the least background regarding the management of the Historic District.

From Plan…

Participation in this review process has seemed to ebb and flow. Sometimes the meetings are well attended; sometimes not so much. Discussions have run the gamut from thoughtful and helpful to heated and unpleasant. Some committee members have ‘resigned’ through frustration or disagreement. Through it all, the ODRB has persevered and maintained a professional demeanor. I commend them all.

As one of the few residents who remember back into ‘the dark ages’ of the late seventies when the first Guidelines and Oysterville Ordinance were developed, I find myself increasingly concerned with “intent” rather than with the “letter of the law.” It seems to me that we are losing sight of the “why” of things and are becoming much more concerned with the “how.” But often the original intent and reasoning is unstated, and it’s left to the aging memories of only a few of us to try to clarify.

…To Reality!

Which is best: to state only the rule? Or to also state its intent? We used to have this argument back in the days I was involved in collective bargaining for teachers – both in California and here. And, at meetings of various Boards on which I have sat there are often discussions about how much to state in meeting minutes. One major criterion seems to be that, should there ever be a lawsuit, only the letter of the law can be adjudicated.

That makes perfect sense to me, but in the day-to-day management of things, it is very helpful to know the whys of those rules. And, after all, we are dealing with a document called “Guidelines.”  It stands to reason that the more extensive the documentation about the reasoning behind a rule or regulation, the clearer the guidance and the better the resulting policy will be understood and interpreted as time goes by. (Currently the Oysterville Restoration Foundation Board keeps their minutes brief and to the point with only those motions that pass mentioned. However, we also keep on file extensive background notes reflecting our discussion and thinking – a great way to satisfy both approaches.)

In the matter of reviewing, revising and even following the Design Guidelines in Oysterville, we seem to have come to a Great Divide on those matters. There are those who feel that keeping Oysterville’s ambiance is a matter of clearly stating the do’s and don’ts so that we all can and will follow the letter of the law. And there are those who feel that the Guidelines merely help us understand how to do what we want to do anyway – protect the character of National Historic District. And so the beat goes on.