There is more than meets the eye in a one-sentence ballot proposal about the Clarkston Historic District Commission.

The language on the ballot reads: “Should the city charter be amended by adding a new Chapter XVI to apply requirements to the Historic District Commission (HDC), more clearly specify the commission’s authority and procedures, and provide controls for commission expenditures and enforcement actions?”

The proposal, which was authored by Clarkston residents Richard and Susan Bisio, is actually a four-page, 5,300 word, 13-section “chapter” that would become a permanent addition to the city charter is approved.

“We think there should be clearer specifications and limits on what the Clarkston Historic District Commission can regulate and how it can spend citizens’ tax dollars,” Bisio wrote about the proposal on her personal blog. “Citizens for a Sensible Historic District Commission is petitioning for a charter amendment that would do that.”

City Council member Peg Roth gave a more simple explanation behind the proposal.

“Basically it says that the HDC needs to curb their way of dealing with people and they need to be more considerate,” she said.

Commission member Lisa Patercsak sees it differently.

“It would turn the control of the … commission to the city council,” said Patercsak. “They want the city council to have control over the historic district and all of the authorities over any actions in the district instead of the commission which has been in place for over 50 years.”

The commission is composed of five Clarkston volunteers who review applications and approve or deny exterior changes to structures to safeguard local heritage. The district includes over 100 structures in the half- square-mile city of Clarkston.

The commission is currently governed by the state Local Historic Districts Act (LHDA) that also applies to 82 other historic districts.

According to George Elworth, assistant attorney general of the state operations division, the proposed amendment conflicts with the LHDA and violates state law.

“A review of the terms of the proposed Chapter XVI discloses that they are in conflict with the provisions of the Local Historic District Act in that they seek to rewrite the city’s current historic district ordinance,” Elworth wrote in a letter to city attorney Thomas Ryan and city Clerk Cathrine Ashley on July 30.

He added, “the ballot language is not accurate because it does not disclose that the proposed amendment is contrary to the Local Historic Districts Act.”

Ryan said that even though Elworth pointed out issues both in the language on the ballot and the body of the Chapter XVI amendment, there is no requirement to remove the proposal from the ballot or clarify the language. The response from the Attorney General’s office is only an opinion.

“Even though the governor and/or the attorney general believes it is not lawful, it still has to go on the ballot to be voted on by voters and gets sorted out after that if it passes,” said Ryan. “It still has to go to the voters.”

Among the list of how the commission would be altered, according to the amendment:

Providing budgetary oversight of the commission by the city council; Introducing requirements to become a commission member; Giving council final approval of commission policies and procedures; Giving the council authority over all commission matters; Require restoration or modification only with the approval of the city council; The commission cannot not consult with the city attorney, planning firm, building department, engineering firm or assessment contractor without city approval;

Other than Depot Park, there is no open space in the historic district the commission may regulate. Chapter XVI supersedes and repeals provisions of the Historic District Ordinance (currently in the city charter) that conflict with or are inconsistent with the proposed additional chapter.

Susan Bisio explained the motive behind the ballot initiative.

“Our proposal was prompted by the HDC’s April request to the council for the ability to issue civil infractions and fine people up to $5,000 for purported rule violations,” she said in an email to the Oakland Press. “This was enough of an impetus to tackle a problem that’s been discussed for years in the community and to offer our Clarkston neighbors the opportunity to vote on putting more city council control over the HDC.”

At a Sept. 23 special meeting, council member Ted Quisenberry voiced his opinion on the proposal as a resident in the historic district.

“I am emphatically against the proposal. I confirm my unwavering support for the Historic District Commission,” Quisenberry said from the podium and not the board table. “I would welcome any citizen in that community that has a problem with any issue they have with the historic district, planning, zoning, anything, bring it forth, present it to us and we can take action.”

“Even if it is not specifically written in this very lengthy charter amendment, it will destroy the historic district. What you see out there now will no longer exist,” Clarkston resident Cara Catallo said at the meeting.

For the full text of the Chapter XVI amendment: https://mail.google.com/-mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=d682dda108&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1809467943362426703&th=191c8581ec92f74f&view=att&disp=inline