City tackles demolition by neglect
Lazaro Aleman, ECB Publishing, Inc.
The Monticello City Council on Tuesday evening, April 3, was scheduled to take up draft language that aims to encourage owners of historic properties not to let their structures deteriorate through negligence.
The document, recommended by the Historic Design Review Board (HDRB), addresses demolition by neglect, defined as “the deterioration of a historic property or contributing structure in a designated historic district by virtue of the withholding of ordinary maintenance and repairs, to the extent that the property or structure could be reasonably expected to become 'potentially' unsafe.”
The addition of the word 'potentially' was one of the few revisions that the HDRB made to the document at its quarterly meeting on Monday evening, March 26.
It is essentially the aim of the proposed provision to prevent the deterioration of the exterior features of historic structures from deliberate or inadvertent neglect, including interior deterioration if it impacts on the exterior.
“All such buildings shall be preserved against such decay and deterioration, and shall be free from structural damage through prompt correction of any of the following defects,” states the proposed language, proceeding to list the defects.
These include facades that may fall and cause injury to a person, deteriorated or inadequate foundations, and deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of the exterior walls, roofs or floors.
The provision states that in the event that a historic property or contributing structure in a designated historic district is deemed to be in a process of demolition by neglect, the HDRB will contact the owner or tenant and give notification of the deficiencies that need correcting and request a meeting.
“At such meeting,” states the draft language, “the board shall present ways to improve the condition of the property. If the owner and/or tenant does not meet with the board, or otherwise fails to take action to improve the condition of the property, the board shall notify the code enforcement officer and request that he or she conduct an investigation.”
The draft document does not identify specific structures. The HDRB discussion, however, quickly focused on three potential prime targets, two of which are the long-abandoned two-story columned house on East Washington Street and a cabin-like abandoned structure at Waukeenah and Palmer Mill roads.
The HDRB discussion, in fact, largely focused on the three structures and what the city might be able to do to get the owners of these and like neglected historic properties to restore and preserve them.
Members of the Jefferson County Historic Association, who were present at the meeting, noted that their organization planned to write the Monticello City Council a letter to bring attention to two of the buildings in the hope that something could be done to remedy the situation.
Some on the HDRB proposed that the draft provision be made stronger in terms of enforcement.
“I thought we were going to put teeth into the ordinance instead of just referring it to the code enforcement officer,” said one board member. “I don't see anything in this to that effect.”
The suggestion was also made of the possibility of taking some kind of criminal action against individuals who didn't properly maintain their historic properties.
City Attorney Bruce Leinback, however, advised against such notions.
“My concern,” Leinback said, “is that this right is an advisory board, and because it's an advisory board, I'm not sure that the City Council would give an advisory board the authority to take action by itself.”
Moreover, he said, local government was limited in what it could do legally to force property owners to improve their properties.
“You're going to have a very difficult time with any kind of criminal action,” Leinback said. “You could go after them with a nuisance violation under Florida law, which can be punished with fines and up to 60 days in jail. But you're not going to have anyone jailed for neglecting their home.”
“We're not talking about a house built in the 60s,” said a board member. “We're talking of houses with significant historic values.”
“It doesn't matter,” Lienback said. “All you can proceed with is a criminal nuisance action.”
The house on 665 East Washington serves as a prime example of local government's limitations. The house has long been abandoned and is visibly deteriorating, constituting an eyesore. The city has cleaned up the property at least twice and has placed a lien on the property for the cost of the cleanups and in the hope of compelling the owners to maintain the property or sell it. It can't, however, compel the owners to do either.
And can it can't recoup its cleanup costs via the lien until the owners sell the house, which they don't appear willing to do, or it's sold through a foreclosure. And even then, the mortgage holder and other entities will get first shot at whatever money the sale generated.
“If we had a code enforcement board, there is a statutory process that would impose a series of fines and penalties that would cascade, but the lien holder would still get the first shot,” Leinback said.