Coda on the Mosley Decision
From the Queens Tribune
After Major Renovations: Home Still Deemed Historic Enough
By THERESA JUVA
Mountains of dirt, stacks of lumber and piles of pipes surround the Mosley home on 240th Street in Douglaston Hill. The lawn is barren and marked by deep tire tracks; an invisible bird whistles nearby. The construction site is quiet.
A year and a half after Diana and Kevin Mosley sued to have their home removed from the Douglaston Hill historic district and began major renovations on their property, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted last week to re-instate its historic district status, a membership that would regulate future exterior physical changes to the home.
The dispute has also sparked a debate about the personal burden of historic districts, which are created for the public purpose of preserving historically and architecturally-important communities.
When Diana and Kevin Mosley bought the sprawling property in the fall of 2004, they imagined a lush lawn and voluminous home that would eventually be filled with the pitter patter of toddlers’ feet.
The children arrived, along with a tug-of-war with the LPC over the home’s qualifications – specifically its age – that would make it eligible for the historic district.
In December 2004, 31 homes in Douglaston Hill, including the Mosley’s home, became part of a historic district. Because Douglaston Hill contains 19th century and early 20th century neo-Colonial and Queen Anne-style homes that are characteristic of a time period, the LPC viewed it as a good candidate for historic status, an LPC spokesperson said.
Unhappy with the decision, the Mosleys, both lawyers, had sued the LPC by the fall of 2005 for what they said was “arbitrary and capricious” criteria used in the decision to make the home part of the district.
The State Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but allowed the LPC to review the Mosleys’ evidence that the home was older than previous conclusions. The results of that review were announced last week when the LPC ruled that even with renovations and age re-assignment from the mid-1800s to the 1920s, the house still had original parts of the foundation and warranted historic district status.
The Mosleys said they were surprised they were re-instated after the roof, siding and windows were replaced and a side addition to the home was constructed.
“Our position now is that we won this lawsuit in 2005, and they are coming back a year and a half later,” Diana Mosley said outside her home on Friday. “Meanwhile the circumstances changed and house changed.”
But not so, said Lisi de Bourbon, a spokeswoman for the LPC.
She said the Mosleys submitted their renovation plans to the LPC before they filed the lawsuit, so the improvements were approved by the commission using historic district standards.
“Any subsequent work once the current project is over would require approval,” she said. “The work they are doing now can continue.”
Mosley said she is concerned about future work now they are part of the district again, especially since the rules can be ambiguous and require a lengthy consultation with the LPC.
Ordinary home improvements, like replacing a hand railing or repainting, are scrutinized by the LPC, which can dictate a metal railing over a wooden one or one color over another, she said. The time and added expense of meeting the LPC requirements is burdensome for homeowners, Mosley said. In addition, homeowners aren’t informed of the specific regulations, and they are applied differently under each district, she explained.
But some local preservation advocates, like Stuart Hersh of the Douglaston/Little Neck Historical Society, believe the Mosleys are just trying to wiggle out of their obligations. He said they knew of the possible landmarking when they bought the home.
“It was already calendared. It was already on its way,” he said. “The district was very likely to be districted. They think they are above the law.”
Paul Graziano, an independent urban planner from Flushing, said the Mosley case shows the importance of the voting process in landmarking to ensure the majority’s desire is met.
“To me, it was all a homeowner who didn’t want to be told what to do,” he said. “Why should an ultra minority ruin the entire thing?”
Mosley said private citizens shouldn’t have to pay for the public good of providing an attractive home to view from the street.
She said they just want to build a home for their three children without taking on added expenses.
“We envisioned what we wanted,” she said. “We thought this would be the perfect place to do it.”