Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Summary Meeting Minutes
May 23, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
WISH Proposal - Darren Ash
II.
FY 2008 Action Plan/Impediments to Fair Housing
III.
Sign Ordinance
IV.
Boarded Up Structures – Information
V.
Neighborhood Councils – Information
VI.
Summer Schedule
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council Members Present:
Council Members Absent:
Michael D. Barnes, Susan Burgess, Don Lochman and Mumford
Anthony Foxx
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
Staff:
Stanley Watkins, Neighborhood Development
Richard Woodcock, Neighborhood Development
Walter Abernethy, Neighborhood Development
Pamela W. Lopez, Neighborhood Development
Ruffin Hall, City Budget Office
Katrina Young, Planning Department
Anna Schleunes, City Attorney’s Office
Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City Attorney’s Office
Meeting Duration: 12: 10 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda Packet – May 23, 2007
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 23, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. WISH Proposal
Darren Ash presented information on the Workforce Initiative for Supportive Housing (WISH),
which is a non-profit, private/public permanent supportive housing program that provides case
management, support services and rental subsidies for Charlotte’s working poor. He explained that
the target population for WISH is households that earn between 15 and 25 percent of the Area
Median Income (AMI), which equates to $9,500 to $16,000 per year. Mr. Ash stated that there are
a number of vacant units throughout Charlotte and WISH serves as a bridge to access the target
population to the vacant units. Mr. Ash explained that WISH participants are paired with a case
worker and are located in available units throughout the City, with care taken to not inundate a
specific area.
Darren Ash stated that approximately $2 million has been raised by the business and faith
communities this year, which includes a $300,000 donation received from a corporate donor. A
$200,000 annual commitment is requested of the City for a period of five years. WISH will leverage
$800,000 for each $200,000 received. Mr. Ash added that the estimated annual cost per WISH
participant family is $6,000, which would serve approximately 35 families the first year, with an
annual commitment of $1million.
Committee member Burgess mentioned a similar request that was submitted in the 1980s that did not
come to fruition, in part, because the apartment owners would only commit to the program for one
year. Mr. Ash noted that the program only signs leases for one year, in case the participating family
is not adhering to the plan. Committee member Lochman asked what would happen if a participant
stops working? Darren Ash responded that if a participant loses their job, they will go through the
review committee via Crisis Assistance Ministries. Depending on the reason for job loss, funding may
be increased or the existing family may be removed from the unit and recycled through the homeless
program. In the latter case, a new family would be placed in the unit and WISH would still be
responsible for payment of the rent for the one year term.
Ms. Burgess suggested that the City should agree to a five year commitment, with benchmarks
instituted to get funding for subsequent years. Committee member Mumford responded that it was
not fair to put the burden of commitment on a future City Council. Mr. Mumford added that the
future Council may support investment in the WISH program but was unsure whether this Council
should make a commitment beyond this year. Darren Ash stated that WISH could report results
back for the first quarter of FY2008 and would have no problem coming before the Council annually.
Mr. Lochman questioned whether it would be better for the City to give less funding for capital
projects, such as affordable housing and increase funding for programs like WISH. Darren Ash
responded that cuts in funding of the capital market would not create the major supportive services
that are needed in a population the size of Charlotte’s. Stanley Watkins stated that Neighborhood
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 23, 2007
Page 3
Development is supportive of providing funding to the WISH program, as it will add to the tool box
used to address affordable housing needs.
II. FY2008 Action Plan/Impediments to Fair Housing
Stanley Watkins provided an overview of the FY2008 Annual Action Plan, the City’s one year strategy
for providing housing and community development activities that is required by HUD, in order to
receive federal funding for housing and community development activities. Mr. Watkins explained
that the City expects to receive funding in excess of $8.1 million in new federal grant program funds.
He noted that the Action Plan supports the City’s housing policy of preserving existing housing,
expanding the supply of low and moderate income housing and supporting family self-sufficiency, as
well as the City’s neighborhood revitalization strategy. In addition, Analysis to Impediments to Fair
Housing Recommendations are incorporated in the plan.
Committee member Barnes asked if there is a self-sufficiency/self-reliance component to the Action
Plan and, if so, what percentage is geared toward providing counseling services? Stanley Watkins
answered that there a variety of funding sources, which include counseling programs, homeless
programs, home ownership assistance, and that some funds target specific populations. Mr. Watkins
noted that approximately $450,000 is slated for housing related counseling.
Committee member Lochman asked if there are direct cases of discrimination that resulted in the
City’s proposed action to increase marketing efforts in the HouseCharlotte down payment assistance
program in African-American neighborhoods? Mr. Watkins responded that there are approximately
30-50 cases of discrimination reported annually, as reported from the Community Relations
Committee (CRC), and that CRC continuously investigates where discrimination has occurred.
Mr. Watkins acknowledged the Lead Based Paint Program (LBP), which has been recognized as one of
the premiere LBP programs in the nation. The program, recently received a “Green” rating.
Action:
Upon a motion by Barnes and seconded by Mumford, the Committee voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the FY2008 Action Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.
III. Sign Ordinance
The need to strengthen the current sign regulations, and increase the fines and penalties for sign
violations, were issues raised at the April 23rd City Council meeting. Council referred the issue to the
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee for review.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 23, 2007
Page 4
Walter Abernethy informed the Committee that all signs, other than government signs, are illegal if
placed in the road rights-of-way. He added that signs are regulated by Chapter 10 of the City Code
and Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Abernethy pointed out that some of the most common
sign violations are real estate signs, small business signs placed on utility poles, signs advertising yard
sales, promotional entertainment signs, etc. that are placed in the road rights-of-way. He indicated
that many of these signs are difficult to trace for the purpose of issuing penalties. In addition, such
signs placed on utility poles have proven difficult for staff to remove, as many are placed very high
on the poles. Mr. Abernethy noted that Code Enforcement staff holds monthly city-wide sign
sweeps, in order to stay on top of the continuing problem. He mentioned that through the Adopt a
City Street Program, community volunteers are authorized to remove signs that are illegally placed in
the public rights-of-way.
Walter Abernethy stated that the current penalty for a sign violation is $25 per sign, which is a
progressive penalty under the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the Office of the City Attorney
requires a name and address for the person who installed the sign, in order to issue a sign violation.
Per Mr. Abernethy, it is often difficult to get follow up information from some signs and many
businesses regard the $25 fine as a cost of doing business. Mujeeb Shah-Khan from the Office of
the City Attorney added that, in some cases where illegal signs reference a business at a specific
location, the business may be cited directly.
Committee member Lochman qsked for the percentage of fines actually collected from sign
violations. Richard Woodcock replied that 20 percent of the fines have been collected and the money
collected from sign violations goes to the general fund.
Mr. Abernethy provided a summary of the staff’s recommended changes to the City Code and Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to signs, as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increase the civil penalty for posting illegal signs within the public rights-of-way and approve
escalating penalties for each violation by habitual offenders ($100 per sign for 1-5 sign
violations; $500 per sign for 6-10 violations; and $1,000 per sign for 10 or more sign
violations).
Amend the sign ordinance to allow Code Enforcement staff to cite business or individuals
who may benefit from the illegally posted signs, even though the business or person may not
have actually placed the sign themselves.
Allow Code staff to issue citations to businesses, not just individuals.
Raise the bond amount listed in the Zoning Ordinance for posting campaign signs from
$50.00 to $100.00
Committee member Barnes suggested setting fines in the amount of $250, $750 and $1,000, in order
to grab the attention of violators, and setting the bond amount for campaign signs at $500. Mr.
Barnes also suggested tying the payment of fines to the receipt of a certificate of occupancy or a
business license. Mujeeb Shah-Khan responded that such requirements may not be permitted under
the current City Charter but could be added if approved by the General Assembly. Committee
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 23, 2007
Page 5
member Burgess suggested imposing a stiffer penalty for signs that are placed higher than a
specified height on utility poles and requiring decals for real estate development signs, to ensure
that only subdivisions in Mecklenburg County are advertised. Committee member Mumford remarked
that $1,000 per sign is a steep violation and asked staff to consider a warning for first time
offenders. Mr. Mumford also suggested placing a cap on the maximum amount of fines that can be
accrued.
Ms. Burgess asked if the City has considered use of an outside collection agency to recover fees and
whether the City currently uses debt setoff to recover fines for sign violations? Mujeeb Shah-Khan
replied that the City's Finance department is currently responsible for recovering the fees. Mr.
Shah-Khan added that the City uses debt set off for individuals only, and it cannot be used for
businesses that might be cited under the ordinance.
Action:
The Committee directed staff to explore the feasibility of the options discussed today and
provide feedback. Possible changes suggested include:
a) Tie fine payment to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or business license in both
Chapter
10 of City Code and Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
b) Apply a higher penalty for signs placed higher than a specified height on poles.
c) Raise the bond amount for campaign signs to $500.
d) Bring forth two options for increased fine amounts for sign violations.
e) Prohibit placement of real estate signs for developments outside of Mecklenburg County.
f) Explore the use of decals on real estate signs.
g) Consider use of an outside collection agency to recover fines.
h) Use debt set off to recover fines for sign violations.
i) Consider issuing a warning for first time offenders.
j) Place a cap on the maximum amount of fines that can be accrued.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for May 23, 2007
Page 6
IV. Boarded Up Structures- Information
Committee member Burgess informed the Committee that some citizens have requested to have
additional input on the proposed Boarded Up Structures ordinance. The Committee was of the
opinion that the public hearing for Boarded Up Structures should proceed as scheduled on May 29th
and the process can be slowed down afterward if additional public input is needed.
V. Summer Schedule
Currently, the Committee is not scheduled to meet in July or August of 2007. Committee member
Burgess stated that a meeting will be needed in either July or August, in order to stay on track with
the list of pending agenda items. Committee members agreed to provide to staff their dates of
availability for the months of July and August to ascertain an agreed upon date for an additional
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee Meeting
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 – Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center – Room CH-14
Committee Members:
Susan Burgess, Chair
Anthony Foxx, Vice-Chair
Michael Barnes
Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
____ ___
AGENDA
I.
WISH Proposal – Darren Ash
II.
FY 2008 Action Plan/Impediments to Fair Housing
(Attachment A)
III. Sign Ordinance
(Attachment B)
IV.
Boarded Up Structures- Information
(Attachment C)
V.
Neighborhood Councils- Information
(Attachment D)
VI.
Summer Schedule
(Attachment E)
Note: Attached is April 11, 2007 Follow Up Report (Attachment F)
_______________
Distribution:
Mayor/Council
Pam Syfert, City Manager
City Leadership Team
Corporate Communications
Debra Campbell – Planning Department
Anna Schleunes- City Attorney’s Office
Saskia Thompson- Manager’s Office
CDC Executive Directors
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
Neighborhood Leaders
Budget Office
Ruffin Hall
Phyllis Heath
Lisa Schumacher
Charlotte Housing Authority
Charles Woodyard
Troy White
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership
Pat Garrett
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Chief Darrel Stephens
Gerald Sennett
Neighborhood Development
Stanley Watkins
Richard Woodcock
Stan Wilson
Stephanie Small
Walter Abernethy
Pat Mason
Community Relations
Willie Ratchford
Ledger Morrissette
FY2008 Annual Action Plan/Impediments to Fair Housing
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 23, 2007
Attachment A
Committee Action Requested:
Recommend the FY2008 Annual Action Plan to City Council for approval.
Policy Framework:
• The FY2008 Annual Action is the City’s one-year strategy for providing housing and community
development activities.
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates development of this plan in
order to receive federal funding for housing and community development activities.
• The plan supports the City’s housing policy – preserving the existing housing, expanding the supply of
low and moderate-income housing and supporting family self-sufficiency – as well as the City’s
neighborhood revitalization strategy.
Program Description:
• The FY2008 Annual Action Plan includes housing and community development needs and resources for
the City of Charlotte and Regional Housing Consortium.
• The Regional Housing Consortium is a partnership between the City, Mecklenburg County and the
towns of Cornelius, Pineville, Matthews, Mint Hill and Huntersville.
• The Plan also serves as the City’s annual application to HUD to receive an estimated $8.1 million in new
federal grant program funds.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$4,788,128
HOME Investments and Partnerships (HOME)
$2,557,616
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
$ 205,907
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
$ 626,000
Total
$ 8,177,651
•
•
The proposed FY2008 federal fund allocation represents a decrease of approximately $29,483 under
the FY2007 funding amount of $8,207,134.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Recommendations are incorporated in the Action Plan.
Community Input
• Four Citizen Forums were held in February 2007 to inform the public of the Plan preparation process
and timeline for completing the document.
• Citizen forums were also conducted in the towns of Pineville, Matthews, Huntersville and Cornelius.
• Neighborhood Development advertised the public hearing in local newspapers and sent more than
1,000 invitations to neighborhood organizations, Neighborhood Development’s financial partners and
interested individuals.
• Information was also made available at Charlotte’s 12th Annual Neighborhood Symposium, which was
conducted on March 31, 2007.
• A copy of the Draft FY2008 Annual Action Plan is available in the Council library.
• A public hearing was held at City Council’s May 14, 2007 meeting. No speakers spoke at the public
hearing.
Next Steps
• City Council will be asked to adopt the Plan on May 29, 2007
• The Plan will be submitted to HUD on May 30, 2007.
Attachments
Draft FY2008 Annual Action Plan (Sent out in the Council Package)
Summary of Analysis of Recommendations to Fair Housing Recommendations
Attachment A
Attachment A
Summary or Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Overview
•
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice is a review of a community’s
policies, procedures, laws, and allowances (both public and private), that might
impact a person’s ability to live in the housing of his or her choice without regard to
race, religion, color, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status.
•
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires local
jurisdictions to prepare and submit an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, which must be approved by the local government.
•
Annually, the City must submit to the HUD an Action Plan, in order to receive
federal funding for housing and community development activities. The Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which is updated about every five years, is an
intricate part of the Action Plan submission.
Findings
Impediment # 1: Lack of Access to Homeownership for African-American and other
Minorities
Impediment #2: Maintaining the Gate-Keeping Function for Protected Classes
Proposed City Actions:
1. Community Relations will develop a print and media campaign to do the following:
ƒ
Provide education and outreach to the Latino community regarding fair housing
rights, including how to file a fair housing complaint.
ƒ
Survey, through bilingual outreach and education, the Latino community to
determine what factors are driving current housing patterns.
ƒ
Continue to collaborate and partner with organizations like Community Link,
Latin American Coalition, Latin American Council of Charlotte, and the National
Conference for Community and Justice, in support of financial literacy, first time
homebuyer programs and anti-predatory lending campaigns in the community.
2. Community Relations currently has a staff position that is dedicated to education and
outreach for the Hispanic/Latino Community.
Attachment A
3. Neighborhood Development will increase its marketing efforts in the HouseCharlotte
down payment assistance program in African-American neighborhoods.
4. Neighborhood Develop will continue to collaborate with our financial partners –
Community Development Corporations, Community Link, Consumer Credit Services,
Housing Partnership, and SocialService.com – to disseminate information about
available homeownership education programs and access to loan products.
5. City actions will be incorporated into the FY 2008 Action Plan using existing funds
for implementation.
Attachment B
Sign Ordinance Enforcement
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 23, 2007
Committee Action Requested:
Review how Code Enforcement currently addresses issues with illegal signage and consider if ordinance
amendments and new enforcement options are warranted.
Background:
On April 23, 2007, the City Council referred the issues of signs to the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Committee after hearing complaints from a citizen in a public forum. The citizen suggested
higher fines and more rigid enforcement to address the growing number of signs in the public right-ofway.
Code Enforcement is responsible for enforcing the “sign ordinance” provision outlined in Chapter 10 of the
City Code, Section 212 “Signs within the public rights-of-way and on public property”. The current
enforcement practice includes summarily removing and disposing of illegal signs and the issuing of
citations.
Since July 1, 2006, Code Enforcement staff has removed 17,359 signs posted illegally within the public
rights-of-way and have issued over $65,000 in penalties for violating the sign ordinance. There are a
number of different signs that create enforcement issues for City staff:
Real Estate (off premises directional real estate signs)
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does permit the posting of these signs on private property from 8 am
on Saturday to 6 pm on Sunday. Sometimes signs are placed in the public right-of-way and
citizens frequently confuse the zoning rules pertaining to these signs.
Small Business Signs
These are often posted late at night, unobserved. They are frequently nailed to telephone poles
and out of reach without special equipment.
Campaign Signs
This is a seasonal issue where signs are frequently posted within the public right-of-way.
Candidate must pay a $50.00 bond to post campaign signs. The $50 requires legal posting and
removal within seven (7) days after the election. Code Enforcement provides the sign rules to
candidates when they register at the Board of Elections.
Neighborhood Signs
All signs posted in the public rights-of-way are illegal. This category includes yard sales, athletic
sign-ups, churches, homes for sale, lost dog, etc.
Entertainment Signs
These are posted late at night, usually unobserved. Primary areas include downtown and along
primary corridors. It is nearly impossible to trace back when advertising an audio release or band
coming to town.
1
Attachment B
Enforcement Issues
Below are some frequent enforcement issues faced by Code Enforcement:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Many illegal signs are posted unobserved, late at night.
Sign violators are posting signs high on telephone poles making them difficult to remove.
Code Enforcement needs a name and address to issue a citation. It is often difficult to find both
components.
Some sign ordinance violators feel the $25.00 citation for posting signs within the right-of-way is
the cost of doing business.
Citizens frequently confuse the sign rules regarding illegal posting within public rights-of-way and
posting “off premises directional real estate signs”.
Sign violations represented over 50% of the $136,000 in total citations issued by Code
Enforcement.
What other cities are doing?
ƒ Charleston, SC – Charleston has one Police Officer dedicated to enforcing the sign ordinance.
This program is focused primarily within the historic district area. Their primary emphasis is
what they refer to as “Snipe” signs. These signs are usually posted in the historic district
advertising entertainment events at clubs and bars. Their fines start at $500 per illegal sign and
require a mandatory court date. If found guilty, administrative and court costs total over $1,000
per illegal sign.
ƒ
York County, SC - Proposed a permitting process requiring developers to post signs. Decals would
be affixed to signs posted. If cited for sign violations, the County will hold up certificates of
occupancy.
ƒ
Phoenix, AZ – Can cite businesses and individuals for sign posting even if it is not the actual
person who placed sign in right-of-way. Fines for placing signs in right-of-way range from $250 $2,500 per sign.
ƒ
Raleigh, NC – Penalties for posting illegal signage within the public rights-of-way escalate from
$100 for the first incident to $500 for any future incidents.
Enforcement Recommendations
The recommendations below will help deter violators and assist the enforcement process:
ƒ
Raise the illegal sign penalty and establish escalating penalties for habitual offenders. The
current penalty is $25.00 per illegal sign. The proposed penalties are:
100.00 – per illegal sign (1-5 sign violations)
500.00 – per illegal sign (6-10 sign violations)
1000.00- per illegal sign (10+ sign violations)
(Change in Chapter 10 of City Code)
ƒ
Amend the sign ordinance to allow code enforcement staff to cite businesses or individuals who
may benefit from the illegally posted signs, even though the business or person may not have
actually placed the sign themselves. (Change in Chapter 10 of City Code)
2
Attachment B
ƒ
Allow Code Staff to issue citations to businesses, not just individuals. (Change in Chapter 10 of
City Code)
ƒ
Raise the bond amount for legal posting of campaign signs from $50.00 to $100.00. (Change in
City Zoning Ordinance)
Next Steps
Give Staff direction on amending Chapter 10 of the City Code and Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to
help address this issue.
3
Attachment C
Boarded Up Structure Ordinance Information
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 23, 2007
The Boarded Up Structures Ordinance for residential structures is scheduled for public
hearing on Monday, May 29, 2007. Attached is a copy of the ordinance for your
information. Staff has advertised the public hearing in the newspaper and has notified the
participants that attended the Committee’s public meeting, as well as other interested
parties.
At the April 11, 2007 Committee meeting, the City staff was instructed to send the
residential portion of the ordinance to public hearing and continue research on the
commercial portion. Staff’s work on the commercial portion is progressing.
Additionally, staff has found out that there is a bill which has passed in the Senate of the
North Carolina General Assembly (Senate Bill 556) that will give municipalities additional
enforcement powers relative to repair, closing and demolition of nonresidential buildings or
structures. The bill next goes to the House for consideration. The bill is supported by the
North Carolina League of Municipalities.
ORDINANCE NUMBER:___________
AMENDING CHAPTER 5
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CHARLOTTE CITY CODE
ENTITLED “BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS”
WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 160A-174 allows a city by ordinance to
define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions detrimental to the health, safety,
or welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed information provided by the Neighborhood
Development Department and information gathered at a public hearing regarding boarded up
residences, as well as a review of laws in place in other; and
WHEREAS, there is convincing evidence that boarded up residences within the City
limits are a threat to the public health and safety, causing, among other adverse secondary
effects, attraction to vagrants, children, vermin and increased crime; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to minimize and control the adverse secondary
effects caused by boarded up residences and thereby protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Charlotte,
North Carolina that:
Chapter 5, “Buildings and Building Regulations” of the Charlotte City Code is amended by
creating Article 1, entitled “Regulation of Boarded Up Residential Structures,” to read as
follows:
“ARTICLE 1. REGULATION OF BOARDED UP RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES”
Sec. 5-1. Purpose and authority.
(a)
It is the purpose of this article to promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Charlotte by establishing reasonable regulations for boarded up residential structures
in order to prevent their detrimental effects in the City’s neighborhoods.
(b)
The Department’s Code Enforcement Official shall be responsible for the administration
and enforcement of the provisions of this article. The Code Enforcement Official or
designee(s) shall have the following authority:
1
(1)
(2)
(3)
to inspect the properties;
to obtain administrative search and inspection warrants, if necessary, as provided
in G.S. 15-27.2; and
to issue notices of violation and impose civil penalties.
Sec. 5-2. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(a) Board Up means the boarding up of any means of egress and ingress, including,
without limitation, windows and doors, to an unoccupied residential structure.
(b) Code Enforcement Official means the person who has been designated, in writing, by
the city manager to enforce this article.
(c) Department means the Neighborhood Development Department, Code Enforcement
Division.
(d) Owner means the holder of title in fee simple.
(e) Residential Structure means any building, structure, manufactured home or mobile
home, or part thereof, intended to be used for human habitation and includes any
appurtenances therewith.
(f) Unoccupied means a residential structure that is not occupied or that is occupied by
unauthorized persons. In the case of a multi-unit residential structure, unoccupied
means when any one unit is unoccupied or occupied by unauthorized persons.
Sec. 5-3. Requirements; Time Limit.
(a)
An owner who registers a boarded up residential structure pursuant to Sec. 5-5 of this
article must comply with the guidelines for boarding up residential structures established from
time to time by the Department.
(b)
An owner’s registration of a boarded up residential structure shall expire six (6) months
from the date of registration with the Department and may not be renewed.
Sec. 5-4. Grace Period.
Any owner who has boarded up a residential structure prior to the effective date of this ordinance
shall comply with the regulations contained herein within six (6) months after the effective date
of this ordinance. If after six (6) months, an owner has failed to register the structure, the owner
shall be in violation of this article.
Sec. 5-5. Registration.
2
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
No owner shall board up a residential structure without registering the structure with the
Department no later than 48 hours after boarding it up.
An application for registration must be made by the owner of the boarded up residential
structure on a form prescribed by the Department, and submitted to the Department. The
completed registration form shall contain at a minimum the following information:
(1)
The full true name and mailing address of the owner;
(2)
The full true address and tax parcel number of the residential structure to be
boarded;
(3)
An accurate telephone number at which the owner may be reached;
(4)
If the owner is a partnership or corporation, the owner shall designate one of its
general partners or officers to act as its agent and provide the present residence
and business addresses and telephone numbers for the agent;
(5)
The owner’s plan for the occupancy, repair or demolition of the residential
structure;
(6)
The owner’s plan for regular maintenance during the period the residential
structure is boarded up; and
(7)
Such other information as the Department shall from time to time deem
necessary.
The owner, under this section, shall have a continuing duty to promptly supplement
registration information required by this section in the event that said information
changes in any way from what is stated on the original registration.
Registration of a boarded up residential structure does not excuse the owner from
compliance with any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or statute, including, without
limitation, Chapter 11 of the Charlotte City Code. By accepting an owner’s registration,
the Department has not determined that the residential structure being registered is in
compliance with any applicable local or state regulation or law.
Sec. 5-6. Violations.
(a)
(b)
It shall be unlawful for the owner of a boarded up residential structure to fail to register
such structure with the Department as required by Sec. 5-5 of this article, except as
otherwise provided in this article.
It shall be unlawful for an owner who has registered a boarded up residential structure to
leave the structure boarded up after the expiration of the registration as set forth in Sec.
5-3 of this article.
3
(c)
It shall be unlawful for an owner to board up a residential structure in a manner that does
not comply with the Department’s guidelines unless the owner has obtained the
Department’s prior written approval for an alternative method of boarding up a
residential structure. .
Sec. 5-7. Not an Infraction or Misdemeanor.
A violation of any provision of this article shall not constitute an infraction or misdemeanor
punishable under G.S. 14-4, 14-188, 14-216, 14-217, 14-218, 14-219, 14-220, 14-221.
Sec. 5-8. Notice of violation; Penalties.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, the Code Enforcement Official or designee(s) shall
notify the owner of a boarded up residential structure of a violation of any provision of this
article and the owner shall have ten (10) days from the date of the Notice of Violation to correct
the violation. Any owner who fails to correct the violation within the time specified shall be
subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 for the first day of noncompliance and $50.00
for each day thereafter until the owner complies. The civil penalty may be recovered in the
nature of a debt if the owner does not pay the penalty within 30 days of assessment of the civil
penalty.
Sec. 5-9. Notices.
Any notice required or permitted to be given by the Department under this article to the owner
may be given either by personal delivery or by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to
the most current address as specified in the registration which has been received by the
Department or to the address listed for the responsible person in the county property tax records
if an owner has not registered with the Department. Notices mailed as above shall be deemed
given upon their deposit in the United States mail and shall be deemed to have been received on
the third regular postal delivery day thereafter.
Sec. 5-10. Adjudicatory Hearing.
(a)
(b)
An owner who has been assessed a civil penalty for a violation of this article may request
a hearing with the Department’s key business executive or his designee. Such request
must be made in writing, filed with the Department within 10 days of the notice of
assessment, and state the reasons why the civil penalty should not have been assessed.
Failure to request a hearing in the time and manner specified shall constitute a waiver of
the right to contest the penalty.
An owner requesting a hearing must post a $500.00 bond with the Department before an
appeal hearing will be scheduled. Once the bond is posted, the hearing will be scheduled
within 15 business days.
4
(c)
The Department’s key business executive or his designee shall serve as the hearing
officer. Any owner against whom a decision of the hearing officer is made may seek
judicial review of the decision by filing a written petition within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the notice of the decision, but not thereafter, with the superior court of the
county. The proceedings in superior court shall be in the nature of certiorari.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on ___________.
Approved As to Form:
City Attorney
5
Boarded Up Structures Ordinance
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
January 30, 2007
Committee Action Requested:
Review and discuss staff’s recommendation to amend Chapter 11 of the Charlotte City Code to create a
new ordinance governing boarded up structures.
Background:
At the May 10, 2006 Housing and Neighborhood Development (H&ND) Committee meeting, two issues
pertaining to boarded up structures were presented. First, a petition was submitted requesting an
inspection of boarded up structures in the Villa Heights Community. Neighborhood Development’s Code
enforcement staff inspected 72 boarded up structures. To date, 49 units have either been demolished or
are in the process of demolition. The other units are in different stages of compliance.
Second, H&ND received a request from representatives from Millions More and ACORN to conduct a citywide inventory of all boarded up structures. The Committee discussed the issue and recommended to City
Council that the City inventory boarded up structures, review how other cities address this issue and
prepare a draft ordinance for the Council consideration.
On May 22, 2006, City Council authorized staff to conduct an inventory, identify how other cities are
addressing this issue and develop a proposed ordinance. Staff conducted a city-wide survey in July and
August 2006, which identified (425) boarded up structures. Staff has also researched boarded up
structures ordinances in 14 cities. The City Attorney’s Office and Neighborhood Development have
prepared ordinance for the City Council consideration.
Project Description:
Boarded Up Structures Program
Ordinances creating requirements for boarded up structures are used by municipalities to ensure safe
and sanitary conditions are maintained while units are vacant and boarded up. Cities, which have
implemented boarded up structures, have done so because of findings that these structures produce fire
hazards, reduce property values and detract from neighborhood quality of life.
Generally, cities employing such programs set limits on how long units may be boarded up. This requires
special permitting and/or registrations of the boarded structures. Boarded up registries enable cities to
maintain an inventory of boarded up structures for aggressive code compliance enforcement. Cities also
specify the method for boarding up units and some require aesthetics considerations such as painting
boards or requiring boarding from the inside. Finally, some cities levy fees to recover the costs of
monitoring properties and ensuring acceptable conditions are maintained.
State and National Programs
The staff examined ordinances and procedures from other cities. The following fourteen cities had
noteworthy ordinances: St. Paul, MN, Milwaukee, WI, Chattanooga, TN, Alameda, CA, Durham, NC, Dallas,
TX, Columbus, OH, Burlington, VT, Buffalo, NY, Boston, MA, Baltimore, MD, Albany, NY, Minneapolis, MN.
Attached are our detailed findings from those cities.
Ordinance Recommendations
Staff is recommending that City Council approve an ordinance governing the boarding up of all residential
and commercial structures within the City of Charlotte. The City may enact an ordinance regarding
boarded-up structures under the authority of the general police power found in Chapter 160A of the
North Carolina General Statutes. The key elements within the ordinance are:
All boarded commercial structures must register with
the City.
One year limit on how long a residence can stay
boarded up
No time limit
Note: Limited remedies for commercial based on inspection
criteria. Commercial structures normally don’t meet 50%
demolition threshold.
Commercial inspection criteria
•
Insect/rodent issues
•
Fire hazard
•
Threat to children
•
Used by vagrants
Projected estimated cost to owners
Projected estimate cost to owners
$35-$60 per opening
$35-$60 per opening
Cut plywood to fit over the window and door
openings, flush with outside of the molding.
2.
Cut the 2x4s to fit the horizontal dimension of the
plywood. You will need two 2x4 exterior and two
interior braces for each window and three sets for
each door.
3.
Pre drill 3/8th inch holes in the plywood and the
braces.
4.
The holes will be placed approximately 1/3 of the
length of the brace from each outside edge of the
door and window jam.
5.
The two window braces will be placed 1/3 of the
distance from the top and the bottom of the window.
6.
The three door braces will be placed; one in the
center of the doorway, and one half the distance
from the center to the top and to the bottom of the
doorway.
7.
Place the plywood over the exterior opening and nail
to the frame.
8.
Place the 2x4 braces over the interior and exterior
of the door or window.
9.
Place the large washer over the carriage bolt and
place the bolt through the holes.
10. Place washer and nut inside and tighten securely.
Torque the nut so that it slightly compresses the
interior 2x4.
Specifications
1.
Penalties
Commercial
All boarded up residential structures must
register with the City.
Time Limit
Registration
Residential
Subject to civil penalties if units are boarded up
longer than the required time period or become
unsecured.
Fine: $500 + $50 per day until violation is
corrected.
Note: Penalties help City recover monitoring, inspection, and
follow-up cost.
Similar specifications as residential.
Subject to civil penalties if the structure becomes
unsecured.
Fine: $1,000 + $100 per day until violation is
corrected
Note: Higher penalties for commercial due to the expense to
board, more serious vagrant and fire issues, and the difficultly
achieving permanent compliances.
The follow process will apply to the ordinance:
• Require online registration of all boarded up structures (residential and commercial).
• Registration process will encourage property owners to utilize “authority to act as agent” to facilitate
police enforcement of vagrants issues.
• Statement of intent required (i.e. rental property, renovate, demolish, For Sale, time frames, lien
holders).
• One year limit on boarding up residential structures (no time limit for commercial).
• Owners subject to civil penalties if boarded up structures not registered, not properly secured, or
stay boarded up longer than one year.
• Higher civil penalties for violating boarded up regulations.
Residential - $500 plus $50 per day until violations corrected
Commercial - $1,000 plus $100 per day until violations corrected
• Six month grace period for city-wide registration of all boarded up structures.
• Nothing within the new boarded up structures ordinance would prevent Code Enforcement from
conducting a comprehensive inspection of the structure, if warranted.
• Appeals to the boarded up structures ordinance will be directed to the Housing Appeals Board.
Resource Implications
Maintaining the boarded up structures registry will require additional administrative and technology
support for Code Enforcement. The relatively small number of boarded up units city-wide, and the fact
many of these units are already under code enforcement would not support additional inspection
resources at this time.
Next Steps
• These recommendations have not been subject citizen comments. The H&ND may choose to:
1. Send the proposed ordinance to public hearing
2. The Committee and/or Staff to conduct meetings on the proposed ordinance before a final
recommendation for public hearing on the new boarded up structures ordinance proposal.
Attachment D
Neighborhood Council Update - Information
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 23, 2007
During the April 11, 2007 Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee meeting, staff
proposed to undertake additional study on the feasibility of establishing neighborhood
councils, which are umbrella groups representing several neighborhood organizations.
Neighborhood Councils are independent, citizen organizations that serve as a connecting link
between neighborhoods and the elected and appointed officials on neighborhood issues. In
some cities, the neighborhood councils have informal roles, while in others the roles are
very formal, such as commenting on rezoning, capital improvement and other neighborhood
related issues. Councils may be local government sponsored organizations or volunteer
organizations created by neighborhood organizations themselves with similar interests.
Staff will be undertaking a three-phased approach as proposed. This process includes
convening a focus group, issue identification and formulating recommendations. Each phase,
planned activities and milestones are listed below:
Phase One – Identification of Focus Group (May)
Staff has invited the following neighborhood leaders to participate:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mary Boyd, East Forest ( East)
Christine Ellis, Brandywine
Condos(East)
Carrie Graves, Savanna Woods
(East)
Marty Doss, Madison Park (East)
Donna Kretschmer, Coulwood Hills
(West)
Mattie Marshall, Historic
Washington Heights (West)
Dorothy Waddy, Clanton Park
(West)
Vanessa Johnson, ThomasboroHoskins (West)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Helen Carter, Southside Homes
(South)
Craig Harmon, Starmount (South)
Maxie Washington, Pine Valley
(South)
Deborah Richardson, Dominion @
Sharon (South)
Nancy Newton, Newell Community
(North)
John Nielson, Autumnwood
(North)
Reginald Jones, Huston Hills
(North)
Johnny White, Faires Farms
(North)
Some of the aforementioned individuals volunteered to participate at the March 31, 2007
Neighborhood Symposium.
Phase Two – Issue Identification/ Strategy Formation (June)
The group will convene on June 13, 2007 at Neighborhood Developments main office.
Phase Three – Formulation of Recommendations (July)
The group will meet to formulate recommendations for the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Committee’s consideration.
1
Attachment D
The entire process will take approximately 90 days to complete. Recommendations will be
provided to Neighborhood and Housing Development Committee pursuant to the Summer
Schedule.
2
Attachment E
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Upcoming Agenda Items
Scheduled Agenda Items *
May 23, 2007
o
o
o
o
FY 2008 Action Plan
Sign Ordinance
Boarded Up Structures – Information
Neighborhood Councils - Information
June 13, 2007
o
o
Boarded Up Structures Recommendation
Housing Charlotte 2007: Affordable Housing Review Process
June 27, 2007
o
o
o
Neighborhood Councils - Information
Chronic Homelessness Report
Foreclosures
Pending/Unscheduled Agenda Items
o
o
o
Gentrification
Johnston and Mecklenburg Mills RFP
Rental/Landlord Issues
*
Note: Due to time constraints, staff schedules no more than two policy
action items per meeting.
Attachment F
Follow Up Report
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
May 23, 2007
The following items are requests for information that resulted from the April 11, 2007
H&ND Committee Meeting:
1. Committee Request: Provide a definition of fire hazard.
Result: Staff will research and provide feedback.
2. Committee Request: Provide the exact number of fines levied and collected for Code
violations.
Result: See attached chart of penalties issued and collected.
3. Committee Request: Poll other cities on ways on policies and time limits that apply to
commercial boarded up structures.
Result: Staff will research and provide feedback.
4. Committee Request: How would boarded up restrictions for commercial structures apply to
stores within a mall, such as Eastland Mall?
Result: Staff will research and provide feedback.
5. Committee Request: Convene a meeting of neighborhood leaders to obtain input and feedback
on neighborhood councils.
Result: Staff will hold a meeting on June 13 and provide a report to the Committee pursuant
to the summer schedule.
1
Attachment F
FY2007 Code Enforcement Civil Penalties Issued
The following information represents civil penalties, billed and collected from July 1, 2006 to
April 15, 2007. Civil penalties associated with Weeds and Grass total $40 per case. The amount
for the contractor’s cost of mowing is not shown.
City Penalties
Cases
Billed
Collected
Housing
Weeds &Grass
Zoning, Signs & Other Nuisances
Total
28
2,157
980
3,165
$ 62,500
$ 86,280
$136,325
$285,105
$19,910
$34,240
$25,930
$80,080
2
Collection
Rate %
32%
40%
19%
28%