Historic Preservation Disagreements Pile Up: Spend Money on a Consultant? Offer Tax Incentives?
The City Commission this week touched off what is likely to be a contentious debate over how — or even if — property owners should be encouraged to place historical assets on a local register to help protect them from demolition
May 29, 2026
By Beth Kassab
Preservationists pleaded with City Commissioners this week over what is likely to be only the first disagreement as Winter Park endeavors to save more houses from the bulldozer: Whether the Historic Preservation Board should be able to spend money on a consultant as it works to make recommendations tasked by the commission.
The request was simple: Hire an expert to help evaluate what’s been lost, what’s still worth saving and how to go about keeping more old homes off the rubble pile.
But preservation debates in the city have a long tradition of drawing entrenched camps in which one side argues private property rights trump all else and that public dollars shouldn’t be used on private assets while another side says each teardown irreversibly erases a piece of the charm, eclectic architecture and history that makes Winter Park so unique and desirable.
The latest round of preservation talks are complicated by the backdrop of the Florida Legislature’s special session next week that could result in a proposal to significantly decrease property taxes collected by local governments such as Winter Park to pay for needs such as police, fire rescue, parks, roads and more.
“I don’t think history can just live on a plaque or marker, it has to be seen and observed,” said Commissioner Elizabeth Ingram, who said during the discussion at Wednesday’s commission meeting that she supported hiring an expert to focus on the task of forming a historic preservation strategy for the city. “I don’t believe the Historic Preservation Board can do this on their own … they could put out a call for guidance and start planning for creating this position for historic preservation.”
Ingram noted that other cities have designated historic preservation officers with specialized expertise that members of the volunteer advisory board may not have.
Mayor Sheila DeCiccio almost immediately threw water on that idea.
“But how are we going to pay for a person, Commissioner Ingram? Where do we get the money?” DeCiccio asked.
Earlier in the meeting the mayor said the property tax reform being pushed by Gov. Ron DeSantis could mean, “We’re not going to have any more taxes … I don’t know how we are going to keep the roads going … keep City Hall going?”
Betsy Owens, executive director of Friends of Casa Feliz, countered that local governments make funding choices all the time when something matters.
“We find room in the city budget for a lot of things we value,” she said. “We spent $200,000 today to undo a mistake that was made on the golf course … Heaven help us if we can’t find a few thousand dollars to hire a respected consultant to guide us through this process and help us out of this quandary.”
Earlier this month the city shut down the Winter Park Nine after the wrong chemical was applied to the course, killing off the grass. On Wednesday the commission approved a $197,000 course maintenance contract for four months — or nearly $50,000 per month. City Manager Randy Knight said the purpose was to test whether staff should farm out golf course maintenance or keep it in house.
Owens’ group is currently trying to find a private buyer for Merrywood, a large estate on Lake Osceola designed by architect James Gamble Rogers II that is one of three of the architect’s works facing likely demolition this year.
The longtime owners are selling the property and the contracted buyer is seeking special permission to split the lot in two so that the Merrywood portion can be sold off again and a new home can be constructed on a new lot next to it.
Without a buyer willing to restore Merrywood, it appears destined for the bulldozer whether or not the Planning & Zoning Board approves the lot split request at a hearing scheduled for next Tuesday at 5 p.m. And, so far, no buyer has emerged, Owens said.
People who showed up to speak on the matter at Wednesday’s meeting lamented the potential loss.
Carolyn Gould, who has lived in the city 70 years, said she recalls riding her bike down Palmer Avenue past Merrywood and the wonder it inspired even from the driveway gate.
“When it’s bulldozed it’s gone,” she said. “You need to walk through those rooms and look through those windows … the moldings and appointments are just one-of-a-kind … I’m on fire about this for some reason. We have to get busy and do something.”
Daryl Carter, who purchased and renovated a Gamble Rogers house on Palmer Avenue in recent years, said most people who looked at the home considered tearing it down.
“We did not,” he said. “Our house doesn’t have a historic designation. We did what we did voluntarily … we love beauty, but we’re also private property owners and believe in private property rights. I hope this board will take that into consideration and not take private property rights from owners.”
While some cities designate properties as historic without an owner’s consent, no one is suggesting such a policy change in Winter Park.
The discussion is more about how to offer additional incentives to urge more people to seek historic designation if their property qualifies. The city has the ability in its code already to provide tax exemptions to historic properties, though no one appears to be taking advantage of that as of now, said Planning & Zoning Director Allison McGillis. The city also offers a 50 percent matching grant for renovation work that qualifies, up to $18,000, she said.
The local historic register and designated historic districts do not outright prohibit demolition in Winter Park. But the request must be approved by the Historic Preservation Board. The board does not have control over interior renovations — only major changes to the facade of the structure.
Those who designate their homes often receive special permission for variances during a renovation that wouldn’t be allowed in a non-historic structure and they are also allowed to add accessory dwelling units (such as a small rental or mother-in-law suite) to their properties.
“We have the easiest to skirt around ordinance in the entire state of Florida,” said Aimee Spencer, a former member of the Historic Preservation Board who lives in a 102-year-old house. “Even Quincy, Florida out does us in their preservation standards,” she noted of the Panhandle town of fewer than 8,000 people.
She said Winter Park needs better rules and also education against misinformation circulating about historic homes such as how they are ineligible for financing or insurance.
“I have a typical mortgage and homeowners insurance with State Farm,” she said. “It’s not a problem to insure or finance.”
Kelsey Wolfe, who serves on the preservation board, noted the board is all volunteers with related skills and a passion, but not necessarily the professional expertise needed to prepare a comprehensive strategy to shift the direction from tear downs to preservation.
“We’ve spent countless hours making changes to the ordinance already and we are waiting on a survey that hasn’t been done in 20 years and we brainstorm every meeting and work session about the very thing you’re officially charging us with,” Wolfe said. “The vast majority of our ideas and requests don’t get implemented because we don’t have the help or the budget.”
She noted that the McGillis, the staff person devoted to the Historic Preservation Board also oversees all of Planning & Zoning for the entire city.
The commission remained unmoved, however, and voted 4-0 to charge the advisory board with formulating recommendations without, at least for the time being, any additional resources.
WinterParkVoiceEditor@gmail.com
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect Winter Park’s current property tax exemption and matching grant program for historic properties that qualify.
I am disappointed that my contrarian view presented to the Commission on Wednesday is not included in this reportage
I believe that the debate is focusing on the wrong elements. ‘Saving’ properties just because they are ‘old’ is not value added to Winter Park – it is wrapping WP in cotton wool and making value judgements that all may not agree with on what is aesthetically appealing and what is not.
Bringing in a consultant who presumes that we want more historic protection, especially if that requires tax dollars is not looking at the bigger picture. What must be sacrificed to fund this? WP does not have unlimited resources – and is likely to have even greater constraints in the future.
I am all in favor of a review of regulations, but I would like to see a broader discussion.
– what are we trying to preserve?
– And at what cost to my tax burden?
Let’s see that review group include some contrarians rather than be restricted to individuals already committed to preservation per se.
Even the most preservation-minded individuals (at least those not simply clinging to nostalgia) are realistic and not trying to keep every part of Winter Park bubble-wrapped.
But we can’t continue to market ourselves as a “historic city” and benefit from heritage tourism (all that really sets us apart) if every house and office building eventually becomes a white-box McMansion built after 2020.
The voters who were surveyed and said they most value Winter Park’s “charm” and “small-town feel” need to decide what those terms actually mean to them. Once that answer is clear, the city should act accordingly.
Beth, in the interest of editorial integrity, you should note that Betsy Owens is a relative of John Gamble Rogers, the architect of the house on Palmer that is the subject of the current curfuffle.
You’re so right! It’s actually James Gamble Rogers.
Pete, surely you jest. This is a political propagands site masquerading as “journalism”.
Are you sure you think that, Pitt? Because you sure do turn to the Voice for your news information and are often one of the first to comment! I do appreciate your enthusiasm.
We’ve reported Betsy’s relation to James Gamble Rogers II in multiple stories. It’s certainly not a secret anyone is trying to hide lol
The Commission is passing the buck to the HPB to act like they’re helping.
The Historic Preservation Board exists to review architectural changes, preservation recommendations, and designation decisions. It is not staffed or trained to conduct surveys, collect data, develop marketing campaigns, or do anything more than suggest potential long-term preservation strategies.
Those are functions typically handled by professional preservation staff. Historic Preservation Officers are hired specifically because they have training and experience in those areas.
It’s also worth remembering that HPB members are volunteers. Asking a volunteer board to take on the responsibilities of a professional staff position isn’t really a substitute for having one.
And if the expectation is that someone with the qualifications to be a municipal Historic Preservation Officer will simply volunteer to be on the board and do that work for free, that seems unlikely.
If the city cares about being “historic” and “charming”, and not just an another sprawling cookie cutter “suburb of orlando”, they need to put it in the budget.
Consultant= WASTE OF MONEY.
A consultant isn’t required to assess the concern. A consultant doesn’t solve/remedy the problem.
A true experienced ” Historic Preservation Executive ” with the experience and credibility in a previous and similar role will be a close to, if not exceeding, a 6 figure salary. Once that person is hired, life get’s tougher for those who live in ” designated ” historic houses. ” More red-tape, more costs and more time delays. It’s not for everyone, but if that’s what the majority of our residents want, I’m not going to be upset about it, but I’m also not going to vote for it either, if we get that opportunity.
Just say no to a ” consultant.” Ridiculous waste of money!
Here’s a suggestion: Ask the current/past owners of the 3 properties that have reignited this issue (and any other qualified property not on the registry) why they chose not to join the registry. Also, ask them what incentives would motivate them to place their home on the registry. What would it take for these owners to consider the registry option?
The answers will save everyone a lot of time.
Not a bad idea. I think we all know what the answer is though: a couple million dollars.
Even if that is just a misconception, that’s a big gamble.
I’m not sure why the cost of golf repairs isn’t being passed on to the greens fees. As a taxpayer who is already paying for the library boondoggle, I’d prefer $200k going to a historic preservation specialist.
Hey Carl swing by the Library right now and look at the 100’s of families enjoying the “ boondoggle.”
I would have a big problem with my tax dollars being given to the wealthy people who can afford these large estate homes, often on lakefront sites not available to us working folks. They hide these homes behind hedges and gates – they aren’t even visible from the street in many cases.
How is this benefiting the public?
Unfortunately, Winter Park has a totally arbitrary process for determination of historic significance. Most properties end up on our local historic register only because the homeowner wanted a variance not otherwise available, and because the Historic Preservation Board has a vested interest in adding home to the register regardless of historic significance.
I recommend we do away with the local law and register, and replace it with support for homeowners wanting to add their property to the National Historic Register. See: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm.
This will assure Winter Park historic properties have credibility.
Tiny, vocal local fiefdoms would be supplanted by actual standards. Never going to happen in WP. 🙂
I find it very interesting that the commissioners and mayor, who campaigned on the history, charm and historic significance of Winter Park now have no plan to save homes that are unique to Winter Park. I do not know what the answer is, but I want to point out that these politicians campaigned on the historic importance of Winter Park and now don’t offer any solutions to bulldozing homes that at the heart of Winter Park’s identity. I certainly understand budgetary concerns, but the vote on Wednesday was very disappointing. Are we to take that the economic significance of the Winter Park golf course takes precedence over preserving historic homes? Is the erection of the recent “Historic Winter Park” gates a better investment in preserving the “historic” nature Winter Park storied homes? What do the gates mean when they talk about the “historic” nature of Winter Park?
I am very happy the Mayor and some Commissioners are now demonstrating some fiscal responsibility after the poor decisions they made about Seven Oaks Park and the Blue Bamboo lease. I’ll give them a pass for the Winter Park Playhouse.
I appreciate the historic homes, abhor the Phil Kean sterile white boxes being built all over town, but I do not want to pay more taxes for the benefit of the wealthy and a 3 second drive-by of Merrywood several times a week. And I live in an 85+ year old home that I fully expect to pay for any and all costs associated for it’s upkeep with no assistance from my taxpaying neighbors.
I think you are missing the point of the WP 9
It’s a public green space available to all WP residents whether or not they play golf.
It’s an attractive space that opens up the city center
But contrast, privately owned historic homes are not open to the public and are often hidden behind fences and trees – so they are not really contributing to the charm of WP.
My vote is for houses to show their value by having some actually the house and maintain it – and no-one wants to buy Merrywood
Let it go!!
Great cities around the world always draw me in. Every time I go to Charleston, the first thing I do is hop in a cab, drive 20 minutes outside the city center, and admire the production homes from national builders. The sameness is breathtaking. Sometimes owners accidentally walk into the wrong house because they all look identical. It’s actually pretty funny.
When I visit St. Augustine, my wife and I love to drive out and sit in front of six-story bland apartment blocks. We’ll set up chairs, sip umbrella drinks, and admire the endless rows of beige stucco and fiber cement panels. There is something deeply moving about architectural repetition.
And when I return home to Winter Park, I feel relief wash over me whenever another 40,000-square-foot house appears or another row of stacked white boxes rises from the earth. The joy in the eyes of neighbors pushing strollers past these monuments to uniformity is palpable.
There’s a reason Park Avenue is a ghost town every Saturday night. Historic character, charm, scale, and individuality are overrated. Nothing inspires the human heart quite like a generic subdivision.
Perhaps one day Winter Park can finally become what every truly memorable city aspires to be: interchangeable with everywhere else.
Building preservation in WP regardless of the inclusion criteria is being used as a stand in for the real problem which this discussion has so far avoided and that nobody with money and power wants to consider.
Preservation isn’t and never will be a solution for a building code that only rewards wide-scale demolition followed by oversized new construction.
Fix the building code.
“…..stacked white boxes rises from the earth”. “Monument to uniformity”. Thank you Mr. Skolfield. The soulless takeover of new home construction is troubling. Homes used to be a reflection of owner personality. Now everyone’s home just looks like the same minimalist big city hotel lobby. Boo.