by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
When it comes to local landmarks, it might soon become a rigid case of either being on the City’s registry or not at all — and private property rights are at stake.
Legislation is currently under review by the City Council that would make it easier to alter or demolish structures on private property, even if they potentially qualify as landmarks.
The legislation, which was introduced last month, would allow homeowners to raze those structures not already on the National Register of Historic Places without any further review by the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission. In other words, if no one thought to make something a landmark before it was in jeopardy of being demolished, it would be too late.
Currently, the City’s Planning Department keeps a database comprised of thousands of developments that may be eligible. If a corresponding landowner wants to do anything to those developments, that’s when things can get complicated.
“Complicated and costly,” said Council member Sharon Copeland, co-sponsor of the bill. “If a landowner, even a family, wants to demolish something on their property that may qualify as landmark they have to go before the commission and make a case.
“To me it’s a complete violation of property rights.”
Copeland and Council member Art Shad are among those who recently witnessed what can happen when the rules become overly stringent in their districts. Copeland represents Mandarin. Shad represents areas including San Marco.
“For my situation it got way out of control,” Shad said. “We ran into incredible resistance over one woman’s house. You’d think we were trying to run a bulldozer through the square.”
Shad blamed the current designation confusion on two seemingly conflicting rules found in the City’s Ordinance Code.
One permits the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission to suspend demolition of a potential landmark for 45 days. After surveying the structure it can make a “non-binding recommendation” to the Council which ultimately decides whether the structure is made a landmark.
“That’s the more recent of the two rules,” Shad said. “And when we passed it, the older rule remained intact. I think that’s causing a pretty big problem because the Commission is combining them.”
The older rule, found in chapter 320-407 of the City’s Ordinance Code, allows the JHPC an additional 60 days for a more thorough review of the structure in question. During that time, public notices and quasi-judicial hearings take place.
After the 60 days, a much more stern recommendation is forwarded to the Council.
Making a smaller structure a landmark all but guarantees it will never come down.
“It’s not that I have a problem with either rule on its own,” Shad said, “but together they have the potential to make a seemingly simple request, a request made by one homeowner, become incredibly messy.
“And to make matters worse, many of the people who would be affected by this have no idea. When the list of homes that may qualify was compiled by the City a few years ago, it was never properly advertised.”
Linda McMorrow, a real estate agent with Prudential Network Reality, said present restrictions on historic structures may eventually make would-be buyers wary of signing on the dotted line.
“It could definitely be a problem, especially if they didn’t know they couldn’t tear it down before they bought it,” McMorrow said. “If people weren’t even grandfathered in, then I could see them having problems selling their homes if, for instance, they had become functionally obsolete. That would be a shame.
“I’ve never had a problem with someone wanting to tear down an older home, but I do know that it can be expensive to properly restore it. Not everyone has that kind of money.”
Copeland agreed, saying “I would want to know exactly what I can and cannot do with my property.
“That’s my main issue,” she continued. “I’m not opposed to the Commission looking at properties, but I don’t think a decision should rest completely in their hands. In certain parts of town everything under the sun has the potential to be landmark.
“What kind of message are we sending when we restrict the rights of the same people who put us in office and pay property taxes? I just don’t think it’s right.”