Appealing the Approval of COA 13-357 - the demolition of 129 East 2nd Street

[Cheshire Cat]

Jennifer Mansfield, the chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, (and RAP activist) presided over decisions by the current commission to allow Code Enforcement to continue arbitrary demolitions of historic properties in Designated Historic Districts. Is Historic Preservation effectively over?

It's not over but it needs a serious wake up call.  Attention needs to remain focused on Kimberly Scott as well as investigation into her handing out of demolition contracts and how the demo process using federal funds is being abused.  The city better wake up and understand that the violation and outright disregard for the lawful use of those funds with the correct back up documentation can cause the city to find all of it's federal funding shut down right quick.   

The Historic Commission needs to get their heads on straight or step down and make way for those who understand the nuances of what it means to preserve historic fabric.  Their distractions from real preservation to discuss ATM placement on a property is a pretty clear indicator that their judgment is at the very least compromised.  Perhaps someone should look into who is "friendly" on the commission to Kim Scott. 

[Cheshire Cat]

I keep coming back to the purpose of this commission:

Gloria, I am going to post here the parameters for actions taken by the Historic Preservation Board.  It appears they might just be involved in the discussion of minutia of things like landscaping, shrubbery, ATM placement and the like that is outside of the areas of focus the board was created to address.  This might be a good time for this to be brought to their attention.  A board like this is intended to address the core issues of changes to the historic structures themselves not all the fluff and particulars that can and apparently does distract attention from more serious matters.

COJ.net
     Committee Name:    Historic Preservation Commission, Jacksonville
     Legislative Authority:    Chpt 76, Ord. Code
     Total Members:    7
     Committee Duties:    Mayor makes 7 appointments. Conduct an ongoing survey and inventory of historic buildings, areas, and archaeological sites in the City of Jacksonville and to plan for their preservation; Identify potential landmarks and potential landmark sites and to make recommendations to the City Council as to whether such should be officially designated. Recommend that the City Council designate specified areas as historic districts and to identify which structures should be considered to be contributing structures; Develop specific guidelines for the alteration, construction, relocation or removal of designated property; Promulgate standards for architectural review which are consistent with standards for rehabilitation established by the United States Secretary of the Interior; Approve or deny applications for certificate of appropriateness for alteration, construction, demolition, relocation or removal of landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts; Initiate plans for the preservation and rehabilitation of individual historic buildings; Undertake public information programs including the preparation of publications and the placing of historic markers; Conduct public hearings to consider historic preservation issues, the designation of landmarks, landmark sites, and historic districts, applications for certificate of appropriateness and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places; and Administer Chapter 307, Ordinance Code.

Seems the commission needs to come back to this as well Stephen.  They have lost sight of what the commission is supposed to be doing as opposed to what they seem to be doing.

[vicupstate]

There are too many competing interests in city government to rely on the city to do it.  A private organization and it's grassroots supporters are the answer.  Also, city staffers and politicians change over time, so the level of commitment can't be relied upon continuously.

It is the only job of the city staffers and the commissioners -- to protect the historic fabric of the city.

In theory, you are right.  But as you are seeing, the city is subject to all kinds of 'influences'.  Some influences are internal and some are external, some are powerful, some are not.  A bureaucrat can only do so much and not endanger their personal livelihood.  They may have the best of intentions but they still have a 'boss'  that they answer to.

That is why a PRIVATE organization is required to be the protector. 

The reason Charleston is one of the most, if not THE most, preserved city in the country (of significant size) isn't just because the city itself  has protected everything.  Sure, the city has laws on the books, but last level of protection is not the city, but the Historic Charleston Foundation and the Preservation Society of Charleston.

These two organizations have plenty of influence, money and a substantial paid staffs (that answer to preservationists, not city staff/officials) to see that preservation is the FIRST choice in any decision.  They don't have to listen to the city's attorneys, they have their own.  They don't accept the city engineer's opinion, they have their own. 

They can and very often have, brought litigation, including cases that have gone to the state Supreme Court.  I know of multiple cases that stayed in litigation for nearly a decade each, before resolution.  They are never the actual property owner, either.

Their input is sought and expected on EVERY application that is made affecting a property inside the 'Old and Historic' district, including new construction. 

Preservation laws on the books since the 1930's, and these organizations, are why Charleston is so well preserved and why historic demolitions are very rare.   The result of which has been that a once sleepy southern port city has achieved international recognition, a booming tourism industry, a booming economy in general, the highest per capita income in the state (and above the national average ) and a rock solid tax base(triple A credit).         

[sheclown]

Jennifer Mansfield has done more for condemned structures than any other commissioner since I have been paying attention.  It is directly a result of her actions that 1325 Laura remains today and is in the process of being mothballed.

That being said, last night was pure misery.  Several of us sat through two meetings (a total of 14 hours), paid $610, and when it was our turn -- had to hear her admonish a homeowner for speaking more than 10 minutes on the destruction of her house.   Her comments to the rest of the commission (as chair) were totally uninspired and while she could have shown true leadership, IMHO, she most definitely did not.

It was heartbreaking.

And so we sit there, we hear the conversations, ad nauseum, regarding the knee wall of non-contributing structures at 5 points, and wonder....what's the point.

There is a great divide between Riverside/Avondale and Springfield. 

No one speaks for the houses, anymore.  Especially the ugly ones.  And the energy for preservation that Jennifer brought with her to the commission -- that bright light which gave those of us in the trenches, hope -- is fading from the where we sit -- cheap seats.

The securing of 1325 Laura was a long time ago.

[Cheshire Cat]

Not so cheap at $610.00.  What a shame.

[Debbie Thompson]

I felt like she was frustrated too, but had no choice. It was very clear to me she had been strongly coached, because she asked Jason Teal what they could decide upon. They were not allowed to say whether or not the demo was appropriate. Just if procedures had been followed.  It's time to get 307 strengthened again so it protects houses like it was designed to do to begin with. They keep going back and watering it down.

Joe made a good argument that an application should be an application no matter who files it. MCCD can demolish your house and, UNBELIEVABLY, does not even have to justify it.

[sheclown]

I felt like she was frustrated too, but had no choice. It was very clear to me she had been strongly coached, because she asked Jason Teal what they could decide upon. They were not allowed to say whether or not the demo was appropriate. Just if procedures had been followed.

Joe made a good argument that an application should be an application no matter who files it. MCCD can demolish your house and, UNBELIEVABLY, does not even have to justify it.

of course she had a choice

and she is an attorney

she didn't need Jason coaching her

[sheclown]

Not so cheap at $610.00.  What a shame.

good point

[cindy394]

two things struck me, firstly an historic commission that is approving tear downs in Springfield- that has not one member who is a part of that community!  That should disqualify them, its really outrageous and smacks of elitism.

Secondly this question is a very good one:
"Why, we ask, do we have hours and hours of meetings over a roof color or some new construction or the facade of a commercial building and yet get criticized for allowing an owner of a demolished building speak for all of ten to twelve minutes?  The Chairman of the commission also told us last night that the HPC was not the correct place to question the demolition of a historic structure. If the HPC isn't, who is? At this point, we are questioning why we even have a HPC."

Why indeed.

[JaxUnicorn]

I felt like she was frustrated too, but had no choice. It was very clear to me she had been strongly coached, because she asked Jason Teal what they could decide upon. They were not allowed to say whether or not the demo was appropriate. Just if procedures had been followed.

Joe made a good argument that an application should be an application no matter who files it. MCCD can demolish your house and, UNBELIEVABLY, does not even have to justify it.

of course she had a choice

and she is an attorney

she didn't need Jason coaching her

Of course she had a choice.  Everyone has a choice.  She chose to ask Jason Teal how they could rule because she did not have the guts to make this unpopular decision.  She can now say that the city attorney provided the guidance for the decision.  Ridiculous!

And while I'm ranting......Jason Teal's role in those meetings is to advise the Commission when they have questions, similarly to the attorneys present at City Council meetings.  In other words, he should only speak when spoken to.  His involvement in these meetings is overbearing and inappropriate.  If a Commissioner asks him a direct question, he should of course answer.  Unfortunately he participates in these meetings as if he is one of the Commissioners, involved in discussion, offering his often unsolicited opinions and directing the Commission in what appears to be a biased direction.  At June's meeting Jason dismissed us by saying it is not the intent of the law but the law itself that mattered and at the July meeting started talking about the intent of the law.  Funny how he chooses which way to go based on the subject matter at hand. 

Again I state that although PSOS whole-heartedly disagrees with the demolition, we and Beverly Brooks were NOT appealing the demolition itself.  The appeal was to ask HPC to overturn the ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED COA.  The ordinance states that Code Enforcement is required to submit an application for a demolition COA.  The ordinance does NOT state that this COA is to automatically approved.  A demolition COA application requires specific documents to be provided to be a complete application.  Why is it that staff did not require the same documentation of the City that they would require of a private citizen??

And hmmmm......regarding the fee.  The appeal process is really designed to allow an owner the ability to challenge the decision of staff/HPC when they are told NO.  And when that happens the applicant is required to pay a fee to have their case heard in front of HPC. 

Lets think about it.   How often do you see an owner who was told, "Yes, you CAN do what you've asked" appeal that decision??   You haven't because this is the first time that an administratively approved COA has ever been appealed.   In order to appeal a decision of HPC, the appellate is required to pay the same fee that was originally paid.  THERE IS NO FEE REQUIRED FOR STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE A COA. 

So why was Beverly Brooks/PSOS required to pay the demolition fee of $610 when there was no fee charged originally AND we were not appealing the demolition itself?

[Cheshire Cat]

I felt like she was frustrated too, but had no choice. It was very clear to me she had been strongly coached, because she asked Jason Teal what they could decide upon. They were not allowed to say whether or not the demo was appropriate. Just if procedures had been followed.

Joe made a good argument that an application should be an application no matter who files it. MCCD can demolish your house and, UNBELIEVABLY, does not even have to justify it.

of course she had a choice

and she is an attorney

she didn't need Jason coaching her

Of course she had a choice.  Everyone has a choice.  She chose to ask Jason Teal how they could rule because she did not have the guts to make this unpopular decision.  She can now say that the city attorney provided the guidance for the decision.  Ridiculous!

And while I'm ranting......Jason Teal's role in those meetings is to advise the Commission when they have questions, similarly to the attorneys present at City Council meetings.  In other words, he should only speak when spoken to.  His involvement in these meetings is overbearing and inappropriate.  If a Commissioner asks him a direct question, he should of course answer.  Unfortunately he participates in these meetings as if he is one of the Commissioners, involved in discussion, offering his often unsolicited opinions and directing the Commission in what appears to be a biased direction.  At June's meeting Jason dismissed us by saying it is not the intent of the law but the law itself that mattered and at the July meeting started talking about the intent of the law.  Funny how he chooses which way to go based on the subject matter at hand. 

Again I state that although PSOS whole-heartedly disagrees with the demolition, we and Beverly Brooks were NOT appealing the demolition itself.  The appeal was to ask HPC to overturn the ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED COA.  The ordinance states that Code Enforcement is required to submit an application for a demolition COA.  The ordinance does NOT state that this COA is to automatically approved.  A demolition COA application requires specific documents to be provided to be a complete application.  Why is it that staff did not require the same documentation of the City that they would require of a private citizen??

And hmmmm......regarding the fee.  The appeal process is really designed to allow an owner the ability to challenge the decision of staff/HPC when they are told NO.  And when that happens the applicant is required to pay a fee to have their case heard in front of HPC. 

Lets think about it.   How often do you see an owner who was told, "Yes, you CAN do what you've asked" appeal that decision??   You haven't because this is the first time that an administratively approved COA has ever been appealed.   In order to appeal a decision of HPC, the appellate is required to pay the same fee that was originally paid.  THERE IS NO FEE REQUIRED FOR STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE A COA. 

So why was Beverly Brooks/PSOS required to pay the demolition fee of $610 when there was no fee charged originally AND we were not appealing the demolition itself?

Demand to see the documentation that requires such a fee.  Don't simply take the word of staff.  If there is no such requirement a complaint needs to be filed and the money returned.  Truly, the entire situation surrounding the collecting of funds for this reason needs to be put to the members of City Council.  What can possible require that amount of money when it comes to an appeal?  The HRC is all volunteers are they not?  This may be one of those "practices" that have gone on for years because folks never challenged the issue.  Now would be a good time to do that.

[m74reeves]

Can't an owner appeal a decision that the HPC makes to the City Council? I'm not sure this matter is dead. The City Council should be able to review decisions made by the HPC and could possibly overturn their "rulings."

Is the City opening itself up to a lawsuit for not following its own policies and guidelines?

[sheclown]

Yes.  At this point, the owner can appeal the HPC decision (not to grant the appeal of the staff administrative decision) to the city council.  Last time I checked the cost was $800

[Cheshire Cat]

That's insane.  Have the owner send correspondence directly to all the council members stating her objections to the the HPC decision along with the assertion that being asked to pay $610.00 and $800.00 just to be able to discuss saving their historic property is frankly obscene.  May be time for a petition asking the council to review these policies, i.e. tactics that prevent the average person from being heard.  This is a policy that seems geared to stop peoples efforts, especially in recovering neighborhoods.  It needs to change right quick.  She should also write to local media outlets stating her situation and the unfair playing field imposed on homeowners and preservationists by the City itself.

[m74reeves]

I agree that these appeal prices are obscene. But they are extremely effective in deterring people from going against staff decisions. I submitted a COA for an addition on the back of my house in Riverside (not seen from street), which was administratively approved IF I changed my siding style from a board and batten to a lap style. I really wanted the board & batten, but I acquiesced given that I would have to pay an appeal fee and wait 'til the next HPC meeting and then there's no guarantee that you will get a ruling in your favor. Although I felt I was right, I was ready to move on so I took the admin approval and the lap siding.

But enough about me. It's apparent that the HPC was not going to approve this appeal. The house is gone. And upholding this appeal would be ugly for the City. The City needs to at least appear that every one is on the same page. If this appeal does anything, it does demonstrate the loopholes in policy and procedure.

And perhaps worst of all, it shows what the terrible travesty that is the HPC. I mean, on this property they ask the MCC to brace the porch and whoops, the entire house is demolished next day. Then they HAVE to retroactively sign the COA for the demolition by the MCC. Would be funny if it's not so sad.