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

[strider]

Preservation SOS has submitted an appeal of the administratively approved COA 13-357 issued to the contractor who demolished this house. PSOS is appealing how the COA was approved rather then the actual demolition at this time. From reading all the ordinances, proper procedures  were not followed in approving this COA.  Unless of course you consider doing whatever Ms Scott, the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance, wants regardless of what the ordinances actually say following proper procedure.  It may be standard operating procedure in this city, but it is far from proper.

An interesting note is that this may very well be the first time an administratively approved COA has ever been officially appealed.  It has the Office of General Council scrambling around trying to figure out how to avoid it. Perhaps they needed to avoid this unnecessary demolition of a historic structure to start with by reigning in an apparently out of control department chief.

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

Joe had a tough time getting standing for this appeal -- just because PSOS asked for the bracing, spoke to save this house and many others, didn't give us (in the city's eyes) the right to appeal this.

But good news.

This lady has standing.  PSOS will be acting as her agent.  Form is filled out and turned in.

The purpose of this appeal is to look at the procedures currently in place to declare an emergency, if they are being followed, and if adequate safeguards, checks and balances are in place.

[Cheshire Cat]

Sending youd Joe a big hug and thank you for your work and determination to help save these homes but more importantly blessings for the weight you take off the shoulders of others who could never mount a challenge with the city.  You guys rock!

[sheclown]

Diane,

Your kind and encouraging words mean a lot, especially coming from you -- someone who has fought for justice in this city for many years.

Joe and I aren't standing alone.  All of PSOS is with us.  Including this spit-fire:



It is uncomfortable arguing with authority (at least for me).  I revert back to that third grader sent to the principal's office.

And yet, if we love our city,  it is our duty to speak out against harmful policies. 

But Diane, you already know this.

Let's vote in elected officials who are worthy to serve us, support and then protect those who stand for city and not for special interests, and take this town where it ought to be.

And until then...let's make some noise.

[mbwright]

The difference is when you were a kid and went to the principal's office, you most likely did something wrong.  In this case, the principal is wrong, as are others in the school district office, possibly including the superintendent.  (to continue with your analogy)  People in authority and power are not always right.

[JaxUnicorn]

The difference is when you were a kid and went to the principal's office, you most likely did something wrong.  In this case, the principal is wrong, as are others in the school district office, possibly including the superintendent.  (to continue with your analogy)  People in authority and power are not always right.

BOO YAH!  +1000!!

[sheclown]

You can see Kim standing strong for 129 East 2nd street by viewing the city council meeting (June 11th)   She speaks at 2:29:00


http://media.coj.net/City_Council/Council%206-11-13.wmv

[sheclown]

129 East 2nd Street is an agenda item today. 

PSOS has not received official word on the appeal process -- fines which need to be paid or additional procedures to follow. 

Strider is heading to the meeting to represent PSOS and this house -- whatever happens this afternoon.

[sheclown]

Leaving the HPC meeting at around 9 pm tonight, I had this one thought.

I have been going to HPC meetings for a while now.  I have listened to a year's worth of discussion about where to put bushes and ATM machines and what material is used for screening -- all of this for ONE project in Riverside -- a non-conforming building in a strip mall.   One full freaking year. 

And yet, a handful of Springfield advocates patiently sit for SIX HOURS and are not allowed to talk about the emergency demolition of a historic building.


Jacksonville...we have a problem.

[dougskiles]

I can't believe they let you sit there that long and didn't allow you to speak.

...and I'm sorry you had to listen to our discussions about where to put the light pole in the sidewalk.

That was my first HPC meeting, and, no disrespect to the faithful servants of the HPC, hopefully my last.  It's just not a good place for a civil engineer to be.

Keep up the good fight, sheclown and strider!

[sheclown]

Joe was allowed to go up front.  He was allowed to ask a question.  He didn't get an answer.  Kim was allowed to go up front.  She was allowed to ask a question (in this case "how much will the appeal cost?")  She didn't get an answer.   She was told she would be emailed with that amount (except we have been emailed with several amounts).

The appeal will be heard end of July. 

@Doug.  I'm sorry it is so difficult for you to put in your light pole.  Come to Springfield.  Bring your projects.  We will stand on the sidewalk and hold candles for your customers.

I love the historic planners.  I admire the people on the commission.  This isn't about them.  This is about a broken system and whacked policies which waste so much time on minutia that there is little left for the HUGE preservation problems.

[JaxUnicorn]

I was only allowed to speak because I walked up there right after Joe was finished and the chair didn't realize she had not closed the public hearing that we were not supposed to be having...And Gloria is right - I did not get an answer to the cost.  They also stated that the fees had recently been increased and because of this they could not quote the amount off the top of their head. (I received an email from Joel on June 5, 2013 with an attachment that said the COA for a demolition was $370.00.  I believe Joe was provided a cost of $610.00.)

I did some Ordinance searching last night.  The ordinance says a demolition COA costs $250.00 and that those fees can be increased annually but in no case shall the fee exceed the actual cost to the city of providing the service. I cannot imagine that it costs the city $250 to "review" a demolition COA, not to mention $610!  Anyone know where to obtain the filed fee structure?

I have personally obtained several administratively approved COAs.  Not once have I been charged a fee.  The ordinance states the fees are subject to COAs that require action by the Commission and that the fee to appeal an administratively approved COA is the same as the original COA fee.  Because the City of Jacksonville did not pay a fee, there should be no fee charged for the appeal.  Am I wrong?

Sec. 307.208. Fees established.

There are hereby established below, the indicated fees for the indicated permits, materials of services: The fees contained within this Section are subject to the Annual Review of Fees provision found in Section 106.112, Ordinance Code.

(a) Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application requiring a review and action by the Commission for:

(1)Alterations or additions, 250 square feet or less .....$100
(2)Alterations, additions and new construction greater than 250 square feet .....200
(3)Relocations .....150
(4)Demolitions .....250

(b)Any Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) application requiring a review and action by the Commission that is filed subsequent to the issuance of a notice of violation: Fees doubled after citation.

(Ord. 2004-1003-E, § 5; Ord. 2004-1003-E, § 5; Ord. 2010-216-E, § 4)

Sec. 106.112. Annual review of fees.

The Chief Financial Officer of the City shall conduct a review of the fees imposed by the various departments of the City annually, and submit a report of his findings to the Council.

Upon the completion of each annual review of fees, The Chief Financial Officer shall, for each existing fee found to be less than 85 percent of the actual cost to the City of providing the service relating to such fee, increase the fee by the greater amount of one-third of the difference between the existing fee and actual cost to the City of providing the service or the amount of the increase from the previous year resulting from the preceding calculation, but in no event shall the increase result in a fee greater than the actual cost to the City of providing the service relating to such fee.

Upon completion of each annual review of fees, The Chief Financial Officer is authorized, for each existing fee found to be equal to or more than 85 percent of the actual cost to the City of providing the service relating to said fee, increase the fee amount by up to the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price Index shall mean the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, all items 1982â€"1984 = 100, or successor reports for the preceding calendar year as initially reported by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Chief Financial Officer shall file any change to the fee structure with the Council Secretary and such increased fee shall become effective upon such filing unless and until the Council enacts an ordinance to the contrary.

[m74reeves]

jaxunicorn, i may have that as i went through coa about a year ago (part of which included demolition of a shed and an addition). let me look and see what i can turn up. i paid $0.

[Cheshire Cat]

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.