The crooked path taken by MCCD to Historic Home Demolition

[strider]

The first time we tried to appeal a demolition COA  was for Paterson Apartments.  We kept hitting that proverbial brick wall. So this time, I wanted to try a different tack.

In looking at the possibility of appealing the demolition decision on 1647 Pearl Street, I first looked at the application for appeals itself.  What one notices immediately is that a COA number is required  so that the city knows what it is you are appealing.  Difficult to do in this case as there never was a COA number assigned.  Odd, I thought, as  the Office of General Council told us via e-mail that we could not appeal the demolition of Paterson Apartments as the time limit on appeals was 21 days and that time period had long past.  When we brought up the fact that a COA was just issued for the demolition contractor we were told that the recently administratively issued COA was not the final action nor the final order, but a courtesy on the part of MCCD.  Basically, we were told there was nothing we could do and so the Paterson Apartments came down.

We do not want the same result this time so I have been doing a bit of research.

When you look at the minutes of the HPC meetings involved, you realize that the agendas have the demolitions brought to the HPC by MCCD listed separately from the other COA applications and that no COA number is associated with the demolition approval request.  So it seems to me that the office of General Council was wrong.  The time limit is not the reason we could not appeal this demolition COA, it is because no COA exists that can be appealed.  Of course, realizing this, I asked myself “How can this be?” and decided to see what the codes says about all this.  I was a bit shocked at what I found out.

Here is the paragraph on what  should happen if a structure is condemned and listed as unsafe:

In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107. Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection. However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action. In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

As you can see, there is a definite requirement that MCCD obtain a COA to abate an unsafe or condemned structure in the exact same way the the public does.  Keep in mind that the codes that concerns the powers of  MCCD give the right to the city to repair structures as well as demolish them, so the act of boarding or covering a hole in a porch still requires a COA. Just like Joe Public.  Bringing to mind the question of how the whole “formal Track” idea came about and got the nod from the Office of General Council, who I thought was supposed to be there to insure the laws were followed.  It seems from this that the demolition requests brought to the HPC by MCCD should have been assigned a COA  just like anyone else, and that they should be under the same requirements, meaning the same burden of proof, the same 21 days to appeal and the same one year limits, just like everyone else. This is not the case, however, and the MCCD demolition requests always seem to get special consideration.  What seems to me to be highly improper and possibly unlawful consideration.

We also can see that the listed criteria for emergency demolitions even allows for MCCD to repair or brace or otherwise stabilize the structure rather than demolish it. Even in the case of a real emergency demolition request. When has that even been done?

This city and the various departments like the Historic Department of the Planning Department and even  the Municipal Code Compliance Department are directed to protect not only the safety of the public but also the historic structures.  At least in Springfield, they have been doing quite the opposite.  MCCD seems to much prefer to totally ignore the correct and lawful way to get a demolition COA so that another historic house can be  taken to the dump.  The OGC somehow how finds a way to give this apparently unlawful way of getting demolition approval accepted and seems to be more concerned with protecting the rights of the MCCD rather than the public.   And then the HPC buys into it all and  even when they say they see no reason for a house to come down, they approve it and do so without the proper procedures being followed.

I feel sorry for those in the Historic Department as I suspect they are being told by MCCD to do or else, the OGC is backing the MCCD and then not that long ago, SPAR Council was also regularly and consistently backing MCCD's play.

Well, take heart, I, for one, am going to see all this corrected.  I know that we, meaning the advocates of the historic homes,  will not stop until the houses improperly approved for demolition are saved. We will not allow another house to be improperly taken from this community. We are here and we will not back down. 

MCCD and OGC, you know this is true.


Here is some of the information from the codes: the full text can be found here - go to  TITLE VII - CONSERVATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION >> Chapter 307 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION http://search.municode.com/html/12174/index.html. 

First, from section 106, all about the commission and what it can and can not do and what it should be basing it's decisions on.

The section is quite long and rather than copy it all here, I have just picked out a few related lines. 

From section 106:

( c )  The City of Jacksonville and each independent agency of the City of Jacksonville or their agents or contractors shall be required to notify the Commission prior to planning and construction of improvement projects within an historic district or affecting a landmark or landmark site including, but not limited to, street improvements or repaving, sidewalks and curbs, drainage, water and sewer projects, street lighting, public utility poles, construction of utilities, building construction or demolition, tree trimming or removal, and other similar public improvements, except emergency actions that must be undertaken to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Just to show that demotions are indeed required to have a COA, except certain emergencies.

(n)
In considering an application for certificate of appropriateness for demolition, the Commission shall consider the applicable Historic District Design Regulations, if any, and the following additional criteria:
(1)
The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure;
(2)
The importance of the building or structure to the ambience of the historic district;
(3)
The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material, detail or unique location;
(4)
Whether the building or structure is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the County or the region;
(5)
Whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and what effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area would be;
(6)
The difficulty or the impossibility of saving the building or structure from collapse;
(7)
Whether the building or structure is capable of earning reasonable economic return on its value;
(
Whether there are other feasible alternatives to demolition;
(9)
Whether the property no longer contributes to an historic district or no longer has significance as an historic, architectural or archaeological landmark; and
(10)
Whether it would be undue economic hardship to deny the property owner the right to demolish the building or structure.
The Commission may request assistance from interested individuals and organizations in seeking an alternative to demolition. The Commission may require applicants to submit such additional information as the Commission deems necessary to be used in making its determination. The Commission shall not deny a request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition without also considering such request as a request for a certificate for relocation.

The above is the part of the code that give instructions to the HPC in how to evaluate the demotion request. It also reaffirms the need to have a COA application for any demotion.

Next we look at the criteria for Hardship. 

(p)In any instance where an undue economic hardship, as defined in this Chapter, is claimed by a property owner, the property owner may submit to the Commission any or all of the following information before the Commission makes a decision on the application for certificate of appropriateness:
(1)
An estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal;
(2)
A report from a licensed engineer, contractor or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation;
(3)
The estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use;
(4)
In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimate from an architect, developer, licensed contractor, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property;
(5)
The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer;
(6)
The annual gross income from the property for the previous two years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period;
(7)
The remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years;
(
All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property;
(9)
Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two years;
(10)
The assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessments;
(11)
The real estate taxes for the previous two years;
(12)
The form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other;
(13)
Any other information considered necessary by the Commission to a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the property owner.
The Commission may require that the property owner furnish such additional information as the Commission believes is relevant to the Commission's determination of any alleged undue economic hardship. No decision of the Commission shall result in undue economic hardship for the property owner. In any case where undue economic hardship is claimed, the Commission shall make three specific findings. First, the Commission shall determine if the owner would be entitled to a certificate of appropriateness without consideration of undue economic hardship. Second, the Commission shall determine whether the owner demonstrated an undue economic hardship. Third, the Commission shall determine the extent, if any, to which the owner or applicant caused or created such economic hardship through any activity, inactivity or neglect. The Commission shall hold a hearing on each matter at the same time; except that, any property owner, may request a separate hearing on each.

I have seen the fines imposed by MCCD  used as at least part of if not the financial hardship, or even just the threat of those fines.  I find it interesting that the city, charged with not imposing economic hardship on a historic house owner is the one doing so.

Next, we just take a look at the section that gives certain powers to the historic department or staff to administratively approve COAs.  We know that demolitions are not on that list.

Sec. 307.107. - Administrative Review and Exceptions.
(a)
The Commission shall designate and update and amend from time to time a list of routine alterations, minor repairs or other work that may receive immediate approval from the Planning and Development Department without a public hearing when an applicant complies with the applicable Historic District Design Regulations.
(b)
A certificate of appropriateness will not be required for any interior alteration that does not affect any exterior fabric or for routine lawn and landscape care or maintenance, excluding changes to existing or introduction of new hardscape.
(c)
Any staff administrative review decision can be appealed to the Commission by the applicant and any person with standing under Section 307.202. The filing of such an appeal shall be made within 21 days of the staff approval date. Such appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be processed and heard as a standard certificate of appropriateness application, including payment of the applicable certificate of appropriateness application fee by the appealing party, and such appeal shall be processed and proceed in the same manner established in section 307.106 for standard Commission-reviewed applications.
(d)
The ordinance designating a landmark or landmark site or historic district may designate additional exceptions to a certificate of appropriateness.
(e)
Any Commission determination on an application for a certificate of appropriateness application shall be binding on an applicant or other interested party absent a demonstration to the Commission of a substantial change in circumstances pertaining to such application

[strider]

Here is the link to the MCCD codes - go to XIV then Chapter 518: http://search.municode.com/html/12174/index.html

I could not find any reference that MCCD does not have to follow the laws involving getting a COA just like Joe Public does.

Also, the code about the HPC - go to TITLE IV - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS >> Chapter 76 - JACKSONVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  http://search.municode.com/html/12174/index.html

[ubben]

From what I understand, Mayor Alvin Brown and his administration did nothing to try and seriously help Carmine's Pie House get into 9th and Main this year. And so it continues to sit derelict: no new jobs, no help to the tax rolls, no help to Main Street. Yet he vigorously campaigned to bolster and protect the urban core. Does anyone know if he's truly interested in Springfield, historic preservation or any of the historic districts? Or was that all just lip service for votes?

[buckethead]

Nothing meaningful to add, but I wanted to let you know that I saw the post.

I echo Stephen's comments.

It's sad that it would be taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill, but those who lead the charge to level the landscape by ignoring (willfully? maliciously?) laws they created need to be held to task.

They are fining the Dutch House guy $250 a day for not having every I dotted and T crossed. I'm guessing that house would be another target.

Is there a concerted effort to drive out property owners within the urban core? (just the wrong type?)

Incidentally, that house on Pearl looks to be in fine shape judging from the photos.

[avs]

I concur with Stephen, Joe,

Sue the living shit out of these assholes and make them replace the fabric that they have destroyed.

If you need neighborhood people to sue them and someone to show housing value decline, the Searles would happily be the first in line.

[strider]

I have to correct myself on a couple of points.  Before I posted the original post, I had done my research on Municode.  A search of what the ordinance 2011-408 had changed on section 307 did not accurately tell me everything that had changed.  Today I looked up the actually ordnance and the following is what Municode did not tell me.

 A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required for issuance of a permit to a contractor who is in possession of an order from the City to proceed with demolition, emergency action or boarding up of an unsafe structure. Any conditions contained in the certificate of appropriateness shall be included as a requirement to any building permit for which the certificate of appropriateness was issued.
*  *  *
 (t)   In any case where the Chief of Building Inspection or the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance determines that there are emergency conditions dangerous to life, health or property affecting a landmark, a landmark site, or a property in an historic district, either Chief may order the remedying of these conditions in accordance with other applicable laws or regulations without the approval of the Commission or issuance of a required certificate of appropriateness.  This Section specifically includes those structures that have been defined to be unsafe pursuant to Section 548.102(a), (3), (12) or (13), Ordinance Code. The Chief of Building Inspection or Chief of Municipal Code Compliance shall promptly notify the of the action being taken.


Sec. 307.113. Construction with other laws and severability. Unsafe Structure Abatement.
(a)    Whenever a provision of this Chapter conflicts with a provision of the Ordinance Code, the provision that is more conducive to protection of public safety, health and welfare shall prevail. Provided, however, iIn the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned pursuant to Chapter 518, Ordinance Code, except emergency action as provided in Section 307.106 (t), and either the property owner or the Municipal Code Compliance Division desires to abate such conditions, they shall first obtain a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to section 307.106 or 307.107.  Demolition activities shall be performed consistent with the approved certificate of appropriateness. notify the Commission at the same time the owner or other responsible party is notified and no demolition of the structure shall commence until the Commission has responded to the division. Such response shall be made within 60 days of such notification by Municipal Code Compliance. If the Commission requests that the structure not be demolished, then the Commission shall advise Municipal Code Compliance as to what actions will be taken to correct the unsafe conditions and when such actions will be taken in order to avoid the necessity of the City proceeding with abatement action. Notwithstanding, if the indicated actions are not taken within the time indicated in the Commission's response, and in the opinion of the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance no such action will be taken within a reasonable time, no further notice shall be required to the Commission prior to Municipal Code Compliance proceeding with abatement. However, such abatement action shall includes demolition of the structure only when the Commission, at the request of the Chief of Municipal Code determines that demolition is appropriate action and that other abatement action is not economically feasible or practical. The Commission shall give a recommendation within 30 days of being requested by the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance. If the Commission fails to give a recommendation within 30 days, the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance shall be allowed to take whatever action he deems appropriate.  A certificate of appropriateness shall not be required prior to commencing demolition or abatement actions concerning any extreme and imminent public safety hazard, as provided for under an order for emergency abatement issued by the Chief of the Municipal Code Compliance Division or the Chief of Building Inspection.  However, a copy of the emergency abatement order shall be submitted with a certificate of appropriateness application prior to either obtaining any necessary permits to conduct the emergency abatement or within seven (7) days of the demolition or other emergency abatement action.  In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric.  Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions. 

The striked out lines were what was changed or removed.  It seems that until the passage of 2011-408,  MCCD did not have to get a COA to demolish a building, but certainly had to get HPC approval.  With 1647 Pearl they did that.  However, when I compare the "formal track" process to what the code says, they did not follow the old code either.  They got OGC to interpret the code in such a way that it was easy to get HPC approval by  a process that had MCCD employees seemingly lying under oath.  Yes, I said it, based on the HPC meeting minutes, the MCCD employees seemed to have lied under oath about the actual condition of the houses  to insure they got what they and we can only assume their chief, actually wanted, permission to tear down another Historic Home.  Perhaps Lied will be considered to strong a word, but what do you call consistent mis-information, exaggeration and untruths but lying? 

Now we are faced with the idea that decisions made under the old code two years ago are still valid and the old code must be followed for these houses.  You do have to ask yourself:  What is Kimberly Scott getting from all this?

[Timkin]

.  You do have to ask yourself:  What is Kimberly Scott getting from all this?

I am indeed asking .. The only thing that makes sense is  $$$$$

[strider]

Another thing to realize about this process.  It was set up so that no one could appeal anything.  Depending on when you talk to the OGC, the only time it could have been appealed was right after the HPC decision.  Then, of course, it has been said, there was nothing to appeal as the appeal process was set up to appeal HPC COA decisions and this was not a COA decision.  In other words, OGC set up a nice system for MCCD to do whatever they or as it turns out, the chief, Kimberly Scott, wanted to do regardless of what the public might want or what was really in the best interest of the city.  When it came to MCCD business, Ms. Scott was pretty much a dictator.  Funding is the only reason these houses did not come down immediately.  We can only assume that her employees standing up in front of the HPC were doing her bidding and following her orders.  The testimony given by MCCD representatives were often pretty much works of fiction and they seldom had the information required by the codes or asked for by the commission.  And they pretty much, with OGC and SPAR Council's help, made a mockery of what the HPC was supposed to stand for.  Of course, members of the HPC were not exactly innocent in all this either.  They were indeed mislead, but a bit of research on their part and they could have learned what MCCD was really doing and learned to say no and meant it.

[Timkin]

Would not surprise me at all if efforts are made to do away with H P C , although it sure would  not be something I favor, but with them out of the way , Demolitions would have practically nothing standing in their way.  We should, instead do away with ( that is to fire , terminate, w/e ) those who demolish just because.  Makes zero sense.