Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation panel proposes 60‑day demolition review; council backs ordinance drafting
Summary
Amy Molyneux, vice chair of the Fairhope Historic Preservation Commission, presented a demolition review proposal that would pause demolition of historically significant structures for 60 days to allow documentation and discussion of preservation alternatives.
Amy Molyneux, vice chair of the Fairhope Historic Preservation Commission, presented a draft demolition review ordinance to the City Council and said the proposal would give the commission a limited review period to educate property owners about preservation alternatives and to document historically significant structures. “Our proposal for demolition review offers a way out of the loop that balances city goals for preservation with individual property owner rights,” Molyneux said.
Molyneux and council members emphasized that demolition review would apply only to historically significant buildings identified by local and state registries, such as the Schneider report, the Baldwin County Shields and Banners list, the Alabama State Register, and National Park Service listings. The commission proposed a 60‑day review period from the filing of the demolition permit to allow for up to two commission meetings with the property owner and for the state historic agency to document the structure when appropriate.
Eric Cortinez of the Building Department said the proposed process is similar to current practice: when his office receives a demolition permit, staff consult existing surveys and registries and provide property owners with information on grants, tax credits, and preservation options. “To be honest, the process is very similar to what we do now,” Cortinez said, and he supported the 60‑day timeframe as providing enough cycles for the commission to meet with owners.
Council members and staff discussed implementation steps. Eric suggested two implementation paths: (1) adopt a standalone ordinance now so the review is effective immediately; or (2) wait to fold the review into a forthcoming city building code supplement. Multiple council members urged adoption now and instructed staff to draft the ordinance for council consideration and to prepare public information materials (FAQs and handouts) for applicants.
Ending: Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance and related informational materials to implement a 60‑day demolition review process limited to historically significant properties; the draft would be returned to council for formal action.
