Augusta preservation board presses owner over deteriorating First Baptist Church at 802 Green Street

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Augusta‑Richmond County commissioners spent more than 30 minutes on Feb. 3 discussing the deteriorating former First Baptist Church at 802 Green Street and how the HPC enforces the city’s preservation ordinance.

HPC vice chair David Barbee told commissioners the HPC voted unanimously to hold a public hearing on the property's condition and presented evidence from code enforcement and local institutions that the building is deteriorating. “We’re in the business of saving historic structures, not demolition by neglect,” Barbee said.

The commission’s discussion focused on whether the HPC followed its ordinance and on the tone of HPC hearings. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, on a local registry and on the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation’s places in peril list, Barbee said. He said the HPC acted under the Augusta historic preservation ordinance, section 4‑4‑452, which allows the HPC to hold hearings when a structure is deteriorating for lack of ordinary maintenance.

Why it matters: Commissioners and historic‑preservation advocates said the city could lose a historically significant downtown structure if the commission does not resolve how the ordinance is applied and how the HPC conducts hearings. Commissioners asked whether HPC procedures and outreach are fair and whether the HPC or the owner is best positioned to preserve the building.

Commissioners and staff described the procedural steps for contested COAs (certificates of appropriateness). Sam Miller, the commission’s legal counsel, described the written appeal process and mediation steps required by the ordinance. “When we receive the notice … we create a mediation committee,” Miller said, adding that mediation costs are borne by the appellant under the ordinance. If mediation fails, the matter may come to the full commission for review under an abuse‑of‑discretion standard, Miller said.

Several commissioners, including Catherine Smith Rice and Tina Slindak, said they attended the HPC hearing in January and were uncomfortable with the tone of questioning toward the property owner. “I felt like he was being interrogated,” Slindak said. Commissioner Rice said she supports preservation but asked the legal department to amend the ordinance so hearings do not feel adversarial.

Director Delaney, staff to the HPC, said a board meeting originally directed in December to research other municipalities’ HPC policies was postponed by the HPC and re‑scheduled for “sometime in 2025”; she said staff has honored motions the HPC has made even when staff’s intent was to present alternatives.

Barbee and other HPC members asked the commission for support in preserving the building and for clarity on process. “All we wanted is a halt protected to keep it from deteriorating further,” Barbee told the commission, saying the HPC’s goal is rehabilitation not demolition.

What was not decided: The commission did not take a final action on the property at this meeting. Commissioners discussed options including ordinance revisions, improved mediation access for low‑income owners and clarification of staff versus board roles. Director Delaney asked for direction on whether the commission wanted staff to propose ordinance changes or to convene a work session.

Next steps: The HPC’s next meeting was announced for the fourth Thursday of the month at 5:30 p.m. in the Easley Room; commissioners requested that staff return with options to make the appeals and mediation process more accessible and to consider ordinance revisions.

Ending: Commissioners and HPC members said they generally agree on the goal of preserving historic structures but differ on procedures and tone. Several commissioners urged the legal department and staff to draft clearer rules and possible ordinance amendments for future consideration.