Montgomery planning commission approves demolition retroactively pending permit submission

The City of Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission voted Jan. 7 to approve the demolition of a residential structure in the city’s historic preservation district on the condition that the property owner submit a demolition request and pay the associated fee.

Carinthalee, the city of Montgomery code enforcement and finance administrator, told commissioners the house—identified in her staff report as 900 Kingsland Street and described in county appraisal records as a 2005 residence with 988 square feet including a 546-square-foot attached brick garage—was demolished in December 2024 without Planning and Zoning Commission approval. The meeting’s opening remarks also referenced “900 Caroline Street,” a discrepancy discussed during the hearing; the staff report cited 900 Kingsland Street.

The commission’s decision follows about an hour of discussion among commissioners, staff and the property owner about what enforcement options the commission may exercise and how demolition and building permits are processed.

Why it matters: the property is inside the city’s historic preservation district, established in February 2008, and demolition inside that district normally requires review. Code enforcement presented the case to the commission to determine what penalties or conditions, if any, should apply after the unapproved demolition.

Carinthalee said staff’s report documents the demolition and affirmed it as a violation: "It is a violation and I'm bringing it forward to you to see that it's a violation," she said. She advised the commission that while the ordinance contains provisions for penalties (including a reference in the staff packet to Section 98357), the commission itself does not levy fines; enforcement actions and penalties typically come through the city’s code enforcement and building-permit processes.

The property owner, who identified himself as Chris and said he had served on the committee that established the historic district years earlier, told the commission he removed the structure because it had become an "eyesore" and that neighbors had thanked him for taking it down. He acknowledged he was aware the area is in a historic district but said he believed a demolition permit was not required in his case and that in prior years he had been advised he did not need one.

Commissioners and staff also discussed broader enforcement challenges downtown, including properties that have long shown signs of disrepair and cases where ownership is unclear. Code enforcement said the city needs a Building and Standards Commission and the involvement of the building official, fire inspector and possibly county environmental health to follow formal procedures for declaring dangerous structures and pursuing demolition through ordinance processes.

Several commissioners noted inconsistent public notice and recordkeeping for properties within the historic district, and one commissioner urged staff to notify owners in the district directly and provide a map so property owners understand how the designation affects permitted work.

The formal motion approved by the commission authorized the demolition on the condition that the owner submit a demolition request to the city secretary and pay the applicable fee. The motion was moved and seconded on the record; the chair called for the ayes and the motion passed.

Next steps noted at the meeting included: the owner must submit the demolition request and pay fees to formalize the approval; the building official said demolition-related permits will be made available on the city's website in 2025; and staff said they will work toward organizing a Building and Standards Commission and coordinating with consultants working on downtown ordinances and a strategic plan.