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.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/129e2nd.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/129e2nd.jpg.html)
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.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/12932nd.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/12932nd.jpg.html)
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.
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!
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:
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/6b76355f-235e-4b65-b438-b483dee9c52d.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/6b76355f-235e-4b65-b438-b483dee9c52d.jpg.html)
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.
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.
Quote from: mbwright on June 17, 2013, 08:36:40 AM
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!!
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
QuoteSec. 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)
QuoteSec. 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.
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.
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.
QuoteCOJ.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.
1.)
Identify which structures should be considered to be contributing structuresWell, we still have a contributing structure dilemma. See the "missing" steeple thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,15296.0.html
2.)
Develop specific guidelines for the alteration, construction, relocation or removal of designated property; pretty much done -- on the books
3.)
Promulgate standards for architectural review which are consistent with standards for rehabilitation established by the United States Secretary of the Interior; don't know what "promulgate" means -- but they do spend a great deal of time on standards for architectural review
4.)
Approve or deny applications for certificate of appropriateness for alteration, construction, demolition, relocation or removal of landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts;Seems to be the bulk of their duties
5.)
Initiate plans for the preservation and rehabilitation of individual historic buildings;problem here:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18752.0.html
6.)
Undertake public information programs including the preparation of publications and the placing of historic markers;not a biggie -- doesn't come up much except lately in Springfield.
7.)
Conduct public hearings to consider historic preservation issues, the designation of landmarks, landmark sites, and historic districts, see # 5 above
8.)
applications for certificate of appropriateness 95% of their time is spent on this.
9.)
nominations to the National Register of Historic Places; Seems like more of this lately. Joel is on a roll.
10.)
and Administer Chapter 307, Ordinance Code.QuoteThe City Council declares as a matter of public policy that the preservation, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of landmarks, landmark sites and historic districts is a public necessity because they have a special historic, architectural, archaeological, aesthetic or cultural interest and value and thus serve as visible reminders of the history and heritage of this City, state and nation. The City Council finds that this Chapter benefits the residents and property owners of Jacksonville and declares as a matter of public policy that this Chapter is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, welfare and economic well-being of the people.
ooops -- not working too well for us.
I stated before that I love the historic planners and admire the commissioners. That stands. What I don't like is the disproportionate amount of limited energy spent on the minor details while a neighborhood is being wiped out.
I challenge them to refocus their precious energy, and do it soon.
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2013, 07:05:39 PM
I stated before that I love the historic planners and admire the commissioners. That stands. What I don't like is the disproportionate amount of limited energy spent on the minor details while a neighborhood is being wiped out.
I challenge them to refocus their precious energy, and do it soon.
I very much agree!
PSOS will be paying the $610.00 to file an appeal. This will be heard during July's meeting.
Quote from: sheclown on July 04, 2013, 07:23:33 AM
PSOS will be paying the $610.00 to file an appeal. This will be heard during July's meeting.
Sheclown, do we know whether the owner of the property will be in attendance? I hope she is....
Yes
PERFECT!!
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/129e2ndstreetCOA.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/129e2ndstreetCOA.jpg.html)
The appeal is being heard this afternoon at HPC meeting. We'll be there and let you know what happens.
Quote from: sheclown on July 24, 2013, 08:03:40 AM
The appeal is being heard this afternoon at HPC meeting. We'll be there and let you know what happens.
So, if recent events are any indication, we should expect it to be demolished tonight? ;)
The house was already demolished as an emergency as solely determined by Kimberly Scott, MCC department chief. We are appealing the COA to try to prevent this from happening again. But I would not be surprised if some other house comes down because we are questioning Scott's authority. Heck, Scott took down 253 East 2nd St with NSP funds as an emergency and the city was supporting the purchase and the restoration of it with NSP funds. Unless someone stand up to her, she will take whatever she wants.
Our appeal was denied. It was denied because the intent of the law, according to them, is to never, ever question the decisions of Kimberly Scott and that the word "application" means something totally different when it applies to Municipal Code Compliance "applications" than it does everywhere else in the world.
Basically, we learned tonight that while the Historic Preservation Commission can bully a 78 year black woman who has done an amazing job restoring her true Victorian house over the color of the roof she would like to use, they can not grow a set long enough to stand up to Municipal Code Compliance's Chief.
God help Springfield Historic District because apparently the HPC won't.
The commission could have shown some leadership, they could have stood for preservation tonight.
They did not.
Nor are they likely to any time in the future.
If the Historic Preservation Commission won't protect the historic fabric of this city, who will?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/joespeaksbeforeHPC.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/joespeaksbeforeHPC.jpg.html)
Joe addresses the commissioners http://www.youtube.com/v/Ab0E8duvuMs?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
This is not good news. Gloria, do you have any idea when the commission is due to elect new members? It certainly appears they could use a new perspective on preservation.
I think mayor is appointing someone from Mandarin
Quote from: sheclown on July 24, 2013, 09:50:46 PM
I think mayor is appointing someone from Mandarin
Interesting. I wonder who and what their experience is with Historic structures and properties.
Quote from: sheclown on July 24, 2013, 09:01:54 PM
The commission could have shown some leadership, they could have stood for preservation tonight.
They did not.
Nor are they likely to any time in the future.
If the Historic Preservation Commission won't protect the historic fabric of this city, who will?
It SHOULD be SPAR and the Jacksonville Historical Society. PRIVATE entities have to be the ones to demand preservation. I know RAP is not universally loved on this forum, but they do a good job preventing demolitions in their neck of the woods.
Springfield needs the same type of
clout-carrying organization to carry the preservation water. How many times has Kimberly Scott battled RAP? My guess would be next to never, because she knows the foe she would face.
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.
The answer in the meantime, is to get someone in Washington that represents the National Historic Register to get involved and/or bring a lawsuit against the city.
She doesn't battle RAP because there's no need to, riverside isn't perceivedly blighted. She's enough of an idiot to take on the same city council who writes her paychecks, calling them liars in public meetings, trust me RAP wouldn't bother her at all. COJ internally decided Springfield is a blighted area and MCCD focuses a disproportionately high level of its attention and resources there. They don't have that many code officers to cover the entire city, especially one this size, yet there are usually multiple roaming Springfield daily. A lot of it is due to SPAR's bogus get-back-at-people-you-don't-like code complaints, but the city thinks Springfield can be cleaned up by demolition, and so there you go. They'll have one nice big vacant lot here shortly, at the rate this is going.
QuoteThere 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.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 24, 2013, 11:40:47 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 24, 2013, 09:50:46 PM
I think mayor is appointing someone from Mandarin
Interesting. I wonder who and what their experience is with Historic structures and properties.
Cheshire Cat, the appointee's name is Barry Underwood, and he is currently up for confirmation under 2013-438.
According to Mr. Underwood's resume, he holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in Building Construction Management from UNF and is the current Director of Development for Florida Baptist Children's Home. His full resume can be found here: http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2013-0438/Original%20Text/2013-438.pdf (http://cityclts.coj.net/docs/2013-0438/Original%20Text/2013-438.pdf)
I spoke at this past City Council meeting asking that the Council consider confirming a representative from the Springfield Historic District as there is currently no Springfield representation on JHPC. I do not know Mr. Underwood at all. What I
do know is that he does not live anywhere near a historic district, and while his construction management background may be extensive, it in no way provides any experience in historic preservation.
From the results of the meeting last night.
No one within the city can nor will question the decision of Kimberly Scott calling the demolition of a historic house an emergency. If there was any checks and balance to prevent the abuse of that power within the section 307 ordinances, it got shot down last night. Mr Teal basically said, the Historicc Preservation Commission (HPC) can not question the decision the Chief of Municipal Code Compliance in regards to the demolition. I guess I have an issue with the Office of General Counsel saying that the commission created to protect the historic structures within Jacksonville can not even question the demolition of a historic house. One wonders what they are there for then if not to truly protect the historic structures and question what is or is not done with them.
The interpretation of the ordinances involving emergency demotions was the only thing they could rule on. It all centered on the meaning of "application". Did the phrase "submit a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application" have the same meaning in regards to the public asking for a demolition as when the Municipal Code Compliance (MCC) asks for one? And did that meaning change when the demolition was called an emergency by Ms Scott?
We said that it did not change. That submitting a COA application was always the same. If the intent of the ordinance was to enable the commission or staff to simply give a COA to MCC upon request, then it would not have said they had to submit an application. Even if the application is submitted after the demolition has occurred, as it is when Ms Scott declares it an emergency, it is still required to be reviewed. That would be the only checks and balances on whether the demolition was truly warranted. However, as it was stated earlier, the OGC has decided that the HPC can not question that demolition.
Mr Teal and Staff argued that while an application may involve a long list of information and proof for the average citizen and even for a "regular" demolition by MCC, it is only a single piece of paper for an emergency demolition. It is their choice do do this, as the list we normal taxpayers have to follow for a COA application are simply guidelines and policy. The HPC agreed with that assessment. That MCC did not have to submit anything other than a sing;e page application with a letter and that staff nor the commission were going to ever actually review an emergency demolition COA.
It is under that basis that they denied our appeal. The Commission members could have stood up and said, we do not believe that MCC should be able to demolish historic houses, even as an emergency, without someone insuring that it was being done for the right reasons. They could have done what they are charged by ordinance to do and insure the protection of the historic fabric of the city. All they had to do was defined "application" to mean the same for emergency demolitions as it means for everyone else. Instead, they told Ms Scott, nope, you never have to justify your decision to demolish a historic house again. Though it is still in the ordinance that MCC must bring a "regular" demolition to the HPC for review, as of last night, why would she ever do that? All she has to do is to write a letter to some demolition contractor stating he can take the house as an emergency and it is done.
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.
What does this mean in the future? Let's look at this from Ms Scott's position. She has $ 400,000.00 available from NSP3 to demolish and "clear" houses within a certain area, including Historic Springfield. She has already taken two houses most likely with those funds, as emergencies. She just got the "all clear" from the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION that it is OK to take as an emergency, without anyone questioning her, ANY historic house she so chooses. Again, no one will question her decision. Not the OGC, not the HPC and not the Historic Planning Department. They have made her the god of demolitions.
There will be more house lost soon.
The end result will be that this gets settled in civil court. There have been lawsuits over this type of issue before and the OGC stated in financial documents that the liability was over $ 200,000.00 each incident. I guess the city would rather settle those lawsuits and pay out our tax dollars to allow Ms Scott to easily demolish historic houses than keep those libraries open.
If the historic planning commission would have agreed to review the documentation as a matter of course, then the engineering reports and supporting documentation would have been easier for the community to review.
Tried a public request lately?
Shut out of the process.
very sad and discouraging.
Quote from: strider on July 25, 2013, 08:26:21 AM
The end result will be that this gets settled in civil court. There have been lawsuits over this type of issue before and the OGC stated in financial documents that the liability was over $ 200,000.00 each incident. I guess the city would rather settle those lawsuits and pay out our tax dollars to allow Ms Scott to easily demolish historic houses than keep those libraries open.
Who brings the suit? Sounds like this is the only way to slow the demolitions.
It is our understanding that the owners of the houses would be the ones to bring suit. The reasons will be various, but the suits will not address the real issue we are talking about but rather the costs incurred may convince the city to change it's ways. Sad that it will not be common sense and what is right that drives the changes needed but the loss of money.
Wasn't the historic designation of Springfield at risk at one time? Could SPAR, or a group of residents sue on the the potential loss of designation?
Just trying to think up alternatives.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2013, 08:35:58 AM
Who are the commission members and what position on the commission do they hold?
Jennifer Mansfield, Chairman (attorney, lives in Riverside)
John Allmand, Vice-Chairman (architect, President of Murray Hill Preservation Association)
Cora Hackley, Secretary
David B. Case, member (architect)
J. Richard Moore, Jr., member (attorney, past President of San Marco Preservation Society 2007-2008)
Angela Schifanella, member (architect, lives in Avoldale)
Notice NO REPRESENTATION from Springfield whatsoever.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2013, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Bridges on July 25, 2013, 09:26:00 AM
Wasn't the historic designation of Springfield at risk at one time? Could SPAR, or a group of residents sue on the the potential loss of designation?
Just trying to think up alternatives.
That would be difficult considering that SPAR, (including its current president) was mostly behind the current situation. At one point, the former Executive Director, Louise DeSpain was actually threatening and bullying Joel McEachin for not approving demolitions fast enough.
SPAR could plausibly join such a lawsuit as supporters, but they can't sue to stop something that they demanded to happen.
Preservation SOS could do it without having their own demands being tossed back in their faces.
This! Sadly true.
In my opinion, HPC got hung up on the actual demolition of the property instead of the appeal itself.
Please know that even though PSOS does NOT agree with the demolition of this structure, the appeal was submitted to challenge the administratively approved COA, not the demolition of the structure.
Verbiage of original COA:
QuoteAppeal of Administratively approved COA 13-357. Preservation SOS is putting forth the following.
That Mr. McEachin, as Historic Preservation Department head, did not follow proper procedures when approving COA 13-357.
That neither the Ordinance codes nor the policy "Matrix" changes the requirements for the approval of a Demolition COA.
That the paperwork submitted by Municipal Code Compliance was both in error and was not to the published standards set by the ordinances nor published information available from Staff.
That for the protection of the Historic Districts, as required by ordinance, city departments should be held to an even higher standard than the average citizen and not a lessor one.
That as Staff made this error in approving COA 13-357, we are requiring that the approval by Mr. McEachin be withdrawn and the COA Application for the Emergency Demolition of 129 East 2nd Street be sent to the HPC for proper review, as is Staff's right as stated in the "Matrix".
Per the Certificate of Appropriateness Application Checklist, below are the requirements for demolition:
- Written & signed statement on letterhead from licensed contractor, registered engineer or architect regarding condition.
* NOT submitted with COA. - Written statement on economic viability of rehabilitation to the "Existing Building Code" (differs from current building code)
* NOT submitted with COA. - Other relevant statements of existing condition
* The only documentation provided with the COA application were as follows:
- A copy of the Emergency Proceed - Right of Entry letter (not signed by Kim Scott herself; someone else signed it)
- A copy of the unsigned Addendum to Proceed Order.
- Statement on proposed re-use of property
* NOT submitted with COA. - Photos of structure: interior & exterior
* NOT submitted with COA. - Meet with staff in field to review condition
* NOT submitted with COA - I would think this would not apply on a structure that was already demolished. - Other
* Nothing further submitted with COA.
Ordinance Section 307.113 states the following (this section dictates that MCCD must submit an application; it does not state it MUST be approved):
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2013, 10:03:35 AM
QuoteJennifer 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. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 25, 2013, 10:48:22 AM
I keep coming back to the purpose of this commission:
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on June 27, 2013, 02:15:53 PM
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.
QuoteCOJ.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.
Quote from: sheclown on July 25, 2013, 07:11:06 AM
QuoteThere 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).
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.
Not so cheap at $610.00. What a shame.
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.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 25, 2013, 06:01:07 PM
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
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.
Quote from: sheclown on July 25, 2013, 06:03:52 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 25, 2013, 06:01:07 PM
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?
Quote from: JaxUnicorn on July 25, 2013, 10:00:00 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 25, 2013, 06:03:52 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on July 25, 2013, 06:01:07 PM
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
At the end of the meeting during which this appeal had been heard, the HPC (Historic Preservation Commission) discussed a request from Councilman Lumb for ideas on some legislation he would like to have written. It involves primarily doing something about the issues MCC's (Municipal Code Compliance) rolling fines create. It is also something that is much needed. The HPC also mentioned the fact that both Councilman Jones and Councilwoman Boyer are also looking into related issues involving the demolitions and the issues surrounding MCC. However, we found a couple of comments very disturbing:
This one from Jason Teal: (I can't get the image over here myself but this is a quote)
Quote5 You Know, looking at what does it take to qualify for an emergency, you know, whether or not there's requirement for that. Looking at creating an exception from the appeals process for after the fact emergency COAs; in other words, you can't appeal those. You know, that would solve the problem that we had today.
I personally just want to beat my head against a wall when I read this. First, there are requirements already in the ordinances to help make those determinations of whether something is a true emergency or not. Like any ordinance, one does have to actually try to follow the law for it to have an effect on the outcome. Then, our appeal of this COA, an appeal by concerned citizens trying to make the city and the HPC simply use what is in the ordinance already to act as a checks and balance system to insure MCC is not abusing the emergency powers, was nothing but a "problem" to him. So much so that he wants to take the right to appeal that kind of COA away from those concerned citizens. Perhaps the Historic Districts deserves better legal representation than Mr Teal can provide.
Jennifer Mansfield, Chairwoman of the HPC, who basically acted as if she was a puppet for Mr. Teal during the appeal hearing and actually criticized us because the Owner of the lost house took too much of their time (ten minutes), did come back with the following.
T
Quotehe Chairwoman: (Again, I can't get the image over here myself but this is a quote)
Well, I don't think there's any anxiousness to – on this commission's part to take over the whole code enforcement thing, But I think that the appeal tonight demonstrates at least a portion of the system is broken and not operating as the citizens of the city expect it to operate, and I think rightfully expect it to operate.
And so if there's a way to structure that, maybe it's a -- like the existing magistrate but a panel – kind of a code Enforcement panel, where it's someone from Code Enforcement, it's someone from the Commission, and maybe a third party, neutral, or, you know, to jointly share those decision making – so that it's not one department vying for the power of the other department or perceived as such because it's really not my interest, I know – and I don;t – I wouldn't say that any of my commissioners have that interest either, but I do think that all of us want to resolve this issue that's been ongoing for years now and has come to a head tonight with this appeal.
And the fact is, is that the laws' the law, and that was our decision earlier tonight, and probably needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.
While I am very glad that she recognizes that there was and is a problem, I find it a bit disturbing that the HPC is afraid of Ms Scott. That it is important that the commission does not step on any toes in other departments and that some new board be created to handle the issue. The way I read the ordinances, in regards to Historic Districts and Landmarks, the buck is supposed to stop at this commission. And yet it seems to me that Ms Mansfield wants to pass that buck along. I can understand the Planning Department and the Office of General Counsel being afraid of Ms Scott and not wanting to rock that boat. They fear for their jobs. But what does this commission have to lose? An unpaid position? Mr. Teal's job is to mitigate possible liabilities. The Commission's job is to protect the Historic Structures. The reason the HPC exists and that job is not simply left with the Planning Department is the simple fact that the Commission should only have to worry about doing their stated job and not what Mr Teal worries about. That as an unpaid, citizen commission, it should be above the petty politics and free from the possible graft that can exist. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be working out too well for this particular commission.
Then her last statement:
And the fact is that the law's the law, and that was our decision earlier tonight, and it probably needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.The law could have been at least partially fixed by simply recognizing that the law does not give the right to either the HPC, the Office of general council nor the MCC to just decided to interpret the same definition differently for the public as it does a city department. That is exactly what happened. Mr Teal redefined the meaning of submitting an demolition COA application from what it is for you and I, heck, even for what it is for a"regular" non-emergency demolition for MCC, to something else when Ms Scott decides to say a particular house is an emergency. And while we are talking about this subject, Mr. Teal during the actual appeal had implied that there was a method under 518 to appeal this demolition and perhaps it should have been handled that way, not through the HPC. I looked up the only possible way to appeal this demolition under 518 and it says:
QuoteIf a petitioner requests a hearing under this Section, the filing of that request shall automatically stay the effect of the vacate order and/or order terminating electrical service and the parties shall be restored to the status quo ante the issuance of the Chief's Order, unless the Chief who entered the Order certifies in writing, under oath that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause an imminent threat to life or safety. In the case of a certificate filed according to the previous sentence, the stay shall be terminated, the order to vacate / order to terminate utilities shall remain in effect, and the parties shall not be restored to the status quo ante. A copy of the Chief's certificate shall be provided to the appealing party by mail on the same day that it is filed with the Special Master.
As you cans see, the Chief, which is any employee the Chief, Ms Scott, gives authority too, can simply ignore that appeal by continuing to say it is an emergency. Which brings us back to the HPC as the only real avenue that a emergency declaration of a structure within the historic district by Ms Scott could ever possibly be questioned. And we know how well that worked out. Fear and greed seems to rule the day and protecting the Historic Structures is not even on the OGC nor the HPC's radar.
The following are the quotes from 307 regarding what must be done with both regular run of the mill demolitions and those pesky little emergency ones we are so upset about. Judge for yourself whether Ms Scott, Mr Teal and Ms Mansfield are right. Or we are.
Sec. 307.106. Approval of changes to landmarks, landmark sites, and property in historic districts; application procedures.
(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;
(8 )
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.
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 insection 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.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 11; Ord. 2003-460-E, § 1; Ord. 2004-482-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-539-E, § 1)
Sec. 307.111. Enforcement; civil remedies.
(b)
In cases where a structure has been either demolished or relocated in violation of this Chapter, or where any building has to be demolished by the City pursuant to the property safety requirements of Chapter 518 and the owner of said building has received two or more notices from the City regarding neglect or failure to comply with Chapter 518 as they pertain to the structure, a civil penalty shall be assessed in an amount equal to 30 percent of the market value of the property and structure(s) prior to its demolition, however this civil penalty shall be no less than $10,000. This civil penalty shall be in addition to and separate from any costs incurred by the City in removal of any structure and otherwise recoverable from the property owner. Additionally and separate from any civil penalty provision in this Section, there shall be no certificate of appropriateness issued for new development on the subject property for a period of one year from the date the City's judgment for civil penalties has become final, unless and only when such certificate of appropriateness is issued to correct and repair a partial demolition.
Sec. 307.113. Unsafe Structure Abatement.
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.
(Ord. 90-706-486, § 3; Ord. 94-337-183, § 17; Ord. No. 2006-847-E, § 1; Ord. 2011-408-E, § 2)
Editor's note—
Ordinance 2007-839-E, § 18, authorized updated department/division names pursuant to reorganization