Please note that I’ve referred to the Local Historic Districts Act (MCL 399.201, et seq) as the LHDA, the Clarkston ordinance (152.01, et seq of the Clarkston Code of Ordinances) as the Clarkston Ordinance, and the HDC charter proposal as the Charter Proposal.
Discussion:
This section is not prohibited by either the LHDA or the Clarkston Ordinance. It’s consistent with the spirt of the LHDA, MCL 399.205(5), and Clarkston Ordinance 152.07(E), which encourages the HDC to work with owners when an owner’s proposed work would affect the exterior of a resource and the HDC believes the alternation or loss of the resource would adversely affect the purpose of our historic district, the state, or the nation. In that case, the LHDA instructs the HDC to work out an economically feasible plan to preserve the resource.
The Charter Proposal requires that, should the HDC determine that enforcement action is appropriate, it must send a written notice to the property owner or occupant. The notice must advise the property owner or occupant what the legal basis is for the action the HDC is contemplating, what the HDC wants the property owner or occupant to do and provide the property owner with a sufficient time to start and complete the requested action, considering the breadth and nature of the HDC request. The Charter Proposal requires that the property owner be given no less than 35 days from start to completion to comply.
The Charter Proposal also requires the HDC and the property owner to engage in a good faith negotiation (discussion) regarding what’s required and how long it should take. In the unlikely event they can’t agree, then mediation is required at the city’s expense.
In fairness to the property owner, this section prohibits the HDC from taking enforcement action during the time the property owner has been given to start and finish repairs, while the HDC and the property owner are discussing the issue, or during the mediation period.
Notes:
This charter section is not contrary to the LHDA or the Clarkston Ordinance because it does not prohibit the HDC from engaging in enforcement actions. It simply requires the HDC to work with the property owner before formal enforcement actions that could generate administrative appeals and/or involve the court system are taken. This is in the interest of fairness to the property owner or occupant and to avoid unnecessary taxpayer expense for city attorney fees.
Other than the added mediation step, the city has the same requirements for its code enforcement officers – a written notice with a time for compliance that can be adjusted after a discussion/negotiation with the code enforcement officer. The added step of mediation at the city’s expense recognizes that while code enforcement usually pertains to things such as lawn cutting or removing an unlicensed car from the yard, HDC enforcement requests can be quite significant, costly, and burdensome for the homeowner or occupant to comply with, even when the HDC’s position on the matter is correct.
Formal enforcement actions should be rare and arise only when a property owner either allows the property to fall into disrepair or does work that alters the exterior of a building without seeking HDC approval first. HDC orders pertaining to “Demolition by Neglect” and “Restoration and Repair” are addressed in separate sections and discussed below.
Most of the actions taken by the HDC involve applications the HDC approves, disapproves, or asks for more information about before approval or disapproval, and the Charter Proposal doesn’t affect that activity at all.
Paid for by Susan Bisio, P.O. Box 1303, Clarkston, MI 48347 with regulated funds.)