Infignos Media - Order may mean the end for historic Anniston building

From Local News

Brought to you by Transformation Technologies

Improve your golf scores. View our free 16 minute golf course at golf.transformationsolutions.com

Order may mean the end for historic Anniston building

Monday, March 5, 2012

The historic but deteriorating Anniston City Land Company building may have been issued its death sentence.

The Public Works Department has been ordered to demolish the building Wednesday morning, under a directive issued late Friday afternoon by City Manager Don Hoyt.

The 123-year-old, vacant, city-owned structure was evaluated by a city building inspector after a portion of an outer wall collapsed in early February. The inspector cited it as a nuisance property and recommended demolition.

Hoyt took the issue to the City Council, which has tabled the issue and not taken it up again. Two of the councilmen, Herbert Palmore and Jay Jenkins, attended a meeting of the Anniston Historical Preservation Commission to discuss the issue. But the council members didn’t give the city manager a directive, and the city has never actually applied for certification from the commission as the law seems to require.

In a letter emailed to The Anniston Star on Monday, Hoyt said, “At their February meetings, the Anniston City Council had its last chance to commit the resources necessary to save the Land Company building.”

The city was cited on Feb. 8 and given 45 days to comply with the citation. That would give the city until March 24. The City Council doesn’t have another meeting scheduled until March 27.

Joan McKinney, chairwoman of the Historical Preservation Commission, said she is confounded by the announce-ment.

At the commission meeting, members asked the city to take the time necessary to investigate other options aside from demolition. Commission member Megan Brightwell pointed out that the city routinely gives homeowners extra time to meet the city’s directive to come into compliance with local codes if they ask.

Monday, when asked about the time limit to wait a little longer, Hoyt asked, “Wait for what? I have to comply with all building codes, building and safety codes.”

He referred to a portion of the law that states, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as to exempt property owners from complying with existing city building and zoning codes.”

He has said repeatedly that public safety trumps historical preservation. Hoyt also said Monday that a strong case can be made that demolitions are not even in the purview of the commission.

Although the commission’s chairwoman, McKinney, said her group hasn’t asked for a legal opinion on the subject, she said she believes the law clearly states that demolitions are in the commission’s purview.

“The law says that all demolition of historic structures must present the plans and apply for the certificate of appropriateness through the historic preservation commission,” she said. “I thought it was quite clear. Apparently it is the city’s interpretation to override it.”

McKinney said the move wasn’t a big surprise, but added that it was a big disappointment that the commission members’ questions and requests were disregarded.

“I thought we were all on the same side,” McKinney said. “The Historical Preservation Commission is part of the city. It’s a city function.”

McKinney said she is afraid the city’s actions will set a precedent for other property owners who feel the commission’s involvement is inconvenient. The commission members, all volunteers, were appointed by the City Council and take their appointments seriously, she said.

“I just kind of feel, is there even a necessity for a Historic Preservation Commission and an ordinance if these things are happening, if this can happen?” McKinney said.

The Anniston City Land Co. building was erected in 1889. It is the last remaining structure of what was known as the “Gateway to Anniston,” built to impress visiting businessmen in hopes of enticing them to invest in Anniston.

Both Councilmen David Dawson and Ben Little were disturbed by Hoyt’s announcement.

“The City Council didn’t approve that,” Dawson said. “I don’t know that he can do that without approval.”

The council tabled the issue when it came before them in February, to seek more information. The commission was supposed to meet Friday afternoon to discuss the Land Company building but cancelled the meeting when bad weather was predicted, Dawson said. That meeting was rescheduled for Wednesday morning. Dawson said he had hoped the council could get together and make a decision after that.

“He never said anything about that being our last chance,” Dawson said of Hoyt.

Little said if Hoyt were to order demolition, he should wait until the 45th day from when the citation was presented. That would truly be the last chance for the City Council to respond.

“We might call a special meeting,” Little said. “Due process is what we must do.”

Councilman Palmore said he hadn’t seen Hoyt’s letter, but he didn’t know whether Hoyt had the legal grounds to order the demolition. He said he would call Hoyt.

Mayor Gene Robinson was more supportive of Hoyt’s position.

The building’s fate is really an administrative decision, Robinson said.

“I think Don was being polite to even bring it to the council,” Robinson said. “By tabling it on the 14th and then not bringing it off the table on the 28th, I think that the council was telling the city manager that he needs to do what he needs to do.”

Jenkins had a similar opinion.

“It technically doesn’t require a vote at this point,” Jenkins said. “He’s under a requirement from a nuisance abatement to address the abatement need. Whether that is stabilization or demolition is a decision that he has to make.”

Hoyt said he feels like he doesn’t have any choice but to order the demolition, since the citation came in his name. The council had two opportunities to look at the issue, Hoyt said, and cancelled the only other meeting that was scheduled before the deadline.

“I don’t know what the council is going to do,” Hoyt said. “For right now, I don’t see where I have any choice.”

Here's More...

Dental Health is Important for Children's 'Baby Teeth'

only 63 percent of children ages two to four see the dentist at least annually.

Lamb Chops and Red Wine: A Perfect Easter Pairing

consider a classic red variety like Cabernet Sauvignon.

Alabama Department of Public Health issues 2016 Fish Consumption

advisory may place the consumer at risk for harm from the contaminant.

Aquarium animals and plants should never be released in the wild

Releasing aquatic plants is illegal

Keywords: historic, Anniston, land company,

Visit Local News