Council tables demolition‑review ordinance after members and public question removal of mandatory site signage

The Concord City Council on May 12 tabled an amendment to the demolition review ordinance and referred it back to the Heritage Commission after public testimony and council debate focused on the proposed change to site‑posting requirements.

The ordinance as drafted would eliminate the separate Demolition Review Committee, transfer review responsibilities to the Heritage Commission, formalize public hearing and site‑visit procedures and modify public‑notice language so that posting a public hearing sign at a demolition site would occur “with the permission of the property owner” rather than as an explicit requirement.

Why it matters: the entry and public‑notice requirements determine how nearby residents and the broader community learn about demolition applications. Councilors and public commenters said the earlier ordinance’s mandatory signage was an important transparency tool; supporters of the change urged streamlining and said the Heritage Commission has stronger support and more members to conduct reviews.

Public testimony and council discussion • Richard Jacques, chair of the Heritage Commission and the former Demolition Review Committee, told the council the Demolition Review Committee operates without state statute backing and supported consolidating functions within the Heritage Commission. Jacques said the committee’s signage practice has been “kind of spotty” and that consolidation would make the process more efficient. • Several public commenters and councilors objected to changing the site‑posting language from mandatory to owner‑permitted, noting the prior ordinance required the code administrator to post a sign “on the applicant’s property…displayed for a minimum of 5 days” and that failure to post stopped the 60‑day demolition delay clock until the sign was continuously posted. • Councilor Todd moved to amend the draft by restoring the prior mandatory‑posting language, including the stop‑the‑clock provision if a sign was not posted. Several councilors supported stronger notice; others argued the Heritage Commission consolidation would improve consistency.

Outcome: after debate and a substitute motion by the council president to table the ordinance for further Heritage Commission review, the council voted to table the measure and send it back to the Heritage Commission. The motion to table took precedence and passed by voice vote.

What’s next: the Heritage Commission will revisit the ordinance language, including notification and posting details, and return with recommendations for council consideration. Several councilors urged staff and Heritage to address inconsistent posting practices and clarify enforcement or remedies if signage is not posted.