Shaw House front. Photo taken from HottyToddy.com
As the city moves forward into the 21st century, the historic value many of Oxford’s properties hold is beginning to conflict with the need to house the ever increasing student body of Ole Miss.
At yesterday’s Board of Aldermen meeting, all sides with interest in the future of the Shaw House were present and ready to defend what they saw as the proper future use of the poroperty. Dispute over this has become the most recent example of balancing the two Oxfords, the historic old and new.
Officials are tasked with balancing the history of Oxford’s past with the needs of the present. While this opens the door for debate, the fate of one property is turning into a full out dispute, requiring lawyers from both parties to speak with the Board of Aldermen.
The appeal was to revoke the certificate of appropriateness Brian Development received for their plan to build a 19-unit condominium complex. The certificate is what grants permission to go forward with the plan Brian Development presented for the Shaw House property.
Joyce Freeland represented William and Polina Wheeler, neighbors of the Shaw House property, voiced the wheeler’s concern over how the construction would impact their neighborhood as the current plan would destroy up to 70 trees.
“Everyone adversely affected, if their property is adversely affected, should have equal appeal rights,” said Freeland.
This raises an interesting point. As a historic property that impacts properties surrounding it just by being there, it is subject to public opinion. However, Brian Development Lawyer, George Haymans, presents how state law defines who can and cannot appeal a decision.
“If a property owner…is denied a certificate of appropriateness, the property owner may appeal,” said Haymans.
The reason Haymans brings this is up is that the property owner, the Oliver A. Shaw trust, has no disagreements with the demolition and development of the Shaw House and there was no denial.
Alderman John Morgan agreed that there were questions of legality that needed to be clarified.
“There’s technicalities all over the place,” said Alderman Morgan, “but the biggest question is whether we think it’s legal and should send it back.”
John Shaw, son of Eleanor and Oliver Shaw as well as a trustee of the property, wrote a letter to Mayor Patterson endorsing the Brian Development plan and that without question, he and the other trustees support the development of the Shaw property.
“We are very excited to watch the character of this property develop over the years and are glad it is not like the cookie cutter projects allowed around their family home,” Shaw wrote.
It is evident that the Shaw trust is ready to part ways with the property and allow it to be developed, but the neighbors simply are not.
The lack of an official record for the Historic Preservation Commitee meeting when the certificate was granted created problems for the Board of Aldermen.
City planner Tim Akers and Asst. City Planner Katrina Hourin acted in place of an official record for the meeting as minutes from the Historic Preservation Commitee meeting had not been adopted yet.
Alderman Jay Hughes passed a motion that, as part of due process, the wheelers have a right to appeal as decided by state law and that the Historic Preservation Committee did not comply with city ordinance.
A tweet from Tom Freeland, who also represents the Wheelers, suggests that Brian Development may resubmit a plan with the condominiums intended for rental rather than for sale as the process is defined differently and would require less special exceptions.
Oxford News 