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

[sheclown]

I think mayor is appointing someone from Mandarin

[Cheshire Cat]

I think mayor is appointing someone from Mandarin

Interesting.  I wonder who and what their experience is with Historic structures and properties.

[vicupstate]

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. 

[ChriswUfGator]

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.

[sheclown]

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.

[JaxUnicorn]

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

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.

[strider]

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.

[sheclown]

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.

[mbwright]

very sad and discouraging.

[Bridges]

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. 

[strider]

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.

[Bridges]

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.

[JaxUnicorn]

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.

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

[JaxUnicorn]

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:

Appeal 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):

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.