Fairhope councilors, preservation commission debate proposed historic-demolition review ordinance

City of Fairhope staff presented a draft ordinance at a council work session that would create a formal review procedure for demolitions of buildings the city identifies as historically significant.

The draft, introduced by Eric Cortinez, calls for applicants who seek to demolish structures that appear on specified historic lists to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission and to delay issuance of a demolition permit while the property’s significance and alternatives to demolition are considered. "This ordinance does not prohibit somebody from being able to tear down a historic building," Cortinez said. "But what it does is it slows the process down to make sure that the owners of these buildings are given the knowledge they need to make a good decision."

The proposed definitions identify historically significant properties as those appearing on any of several lists: the City of Fairhope’s surveys (the staff referenced a 2015 Schneider report), the Baldwin County Shields & Banners voluntary registry, the Alabama Historical Commission listings, the National Register of Historic Places, and material available from the Fairhope Single Tax website. If a demolition application targets a property on any of those lists, the building department would notify the applicant that the application is subject to the historic review procedure; the review delay would "not exceed 60 days," with a meeting required "within 45 days" of application to provide the owner a history of the site and information about preservation incentives and alternatives.

Under the draft, the owner must attend the meeting (or send a representative) and, if the property is deemed historically significant, the commission will notify the building department within five days that the required meeting occurred; the building department could then issue a permit so long as all ordinance requirements are met. The draft also would require documentation of the building before demolition (photographs, which staff said the department already takes), and it expressly exempts structures that pose an imminent threat to life, health or safety.

The ordinance contains several procedural elements councilors probed during the session. Key points discussed include:

- Timing: The draft sets a 45‑day target to schedule a meeting and a cap of 60 days for the overall delay. Councilors and staff debated whether the rule should set an absolute minimum/maximum or allow more flexible floor/ceiling language tied to the commission’s regular meeting schedule. Staff said the "not to exceed 60 days" wording was written to allow two commission meeting cycles if necessary; Cortinez noted the period could be shorter if the commission can meet sooner.

- Meeting format and quorum: Council members asked whether the meeting required a full commission quorum or could be a meeting of two commissioners, a specially called meeting, or a remote meeting by Teams/Zoom. Staff said remote meetings might be possible but would need review for Open Meetings Act compliance, and that in practice two commission members could meet with an owner to provide education.

- Signage and notice: The draft requires the building department to post a sign on properties under review within five days of notice and to keep it displayed for 10 calendar days; staff asked commission members to advise what wording should appear on the sign. Councilors and the commission debated the sign’s content and whether signage might unduly alarm neighbors or prospective buyers.

- Realtor disclosure and buyer awareness: Councilors raised whether the city could or should require realtors to consult the historic registry before a sale or provide stronger buyer-disclosure mechanisms. Staff said the city already posts information on its historic structures web page, that the planning/building department could produce a buyer checklist, and that an educational outreach program for realtors is feasible.

Council discussion repeatedly returned to timing and property rights. One council member summarized concerns by saying, "time is money," arguing that lengthy delays can harm buyers and developers who rely on financing and quick turnaround. Preservation supporters and commission members said the intent is educational rather than punitive: to inform owners about grants, easements and other incentives that can make preservation feasible.

Public comment at the end of the meeting included residents who questioned the draft’s potential limits on property rights. Donald Deguts, who identified himself as a Fairhope resident, told councilors he opposed restrictions and cautioned that a 60‑day delay could complicate financing and development timetables. "I think it's a burden that we were promised would not be placed upon prospective buyers," Deguts said, and he urged the council to pursue education without the proposed delays.

Council members asked staff to return a revised draft that clarifies the ordinance’s floor/ceiling for scheduling meetings, the role of remote or representative appearances, and the proposed sign wording. Staff said it will consult with the commission and the city attorney and bring recommended changes to a future work session.

The draft ordinance remains under discussion; no formal vote was taken at the work session.

Ending: The council directed staff to consult further with the Historic Preservation Commission and to return a revised ordinance addressing the meeting timeframe, notice language and options for virtual or representative meetings. The item will return to a future work session for continued review.