Historic preservation commission proposes 60-day demolition-review process to encourage restoration alternatives

Fairhope's Historic Preservation Commission presented a draft demolition-review proposal to the City Council proposing a 60-day review period on demolition permits for historically significant properties to encourage preservation alternatives and improve the city's historic record. Amy Molyneux, vice chair of the Fairhope Historic Preservation Commission, told councilors the proposal would "offer a way out of the loop that balances city goals for preservation with individual property owner rights." She said demolition would still be permitted, but the review would give homeowners time to consider alternatives such as renovation, repurposing, relocation, salvage, or retaining a facade. The commission's draft would apply only to properties identified as historically significant on local and state inventories: the Schneider report, Baldwin County Shields and Banners, the Alabama State Register, and National Park Service listings. Molyneux said the commission has coordinated a draft with the building department and emphasized the goal was education and documentation rather than prohibition. City building official Eric (last name not stated) explained the proposed process is similar to current practice when staff check historic registries upon receiving demolition permits but said the formal 60-day review would "give you the opportunity to go through two meeting cycles" so the commission and property owner can discuss preservation options and available incentives such as tax credits. He also confirmed owners would be required to meet with the commission during the review and could proceed with demolition after the 60 days if they choose. Council members and staff said they had discussed timeline iterations and agreed 60 days was a reasonable limit that allowed 1 or 2 commission meetings without unduly burdening property owners. The council indicated it could adopt the proposal by ordinance or fold it into a building code supplement; staff said the ordinance route could make the review effective sooner while incorporation into a code supplement would take longer. Several council members said they supported prompt action and directed staff to draft appropriate ordinance language and an informational FAQ to provide to permit applicants. No formal ordinance was adopted at the meeting; members discussed next steps, including drafting an ordinance or adding the language to the city building code supplement later.