Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Summary Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Boarded Up Structures
(Attachment A)
II.
Neighborhood Councils
(Attachment B)
III.
Neighborhood Symposium Post Report
(Attachment C)
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council Members Present:
Michael D. Barnes, Susan Burgess, Anthony Foxx, and Don Lochman
Council Members Absent:
Pat Mumford
Staff Resource:
Julie Burch, Assistant City Manager
Staff:
Stanley Watkins, Neighborhood Development
Richard Woodcock, Neighborhood Development
Mike Jenkins, Neighborhood Development
Janaya Patton, Neighborhood Development
Stephanie Small, Neighborhood Development
Anna Schleunes, City Attorney’s Office
Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City Attorney’s Office
Meeting Duration: 12: 20 p.m. – 1:40 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Agenda Packet – April 11, 2007
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 11, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Boarded Up Structures
Stanley Watkins provided an overview of the issues identified at the public input meeting on boarded
up structures that was held on April 4, 2007. Mr. Watkins explained that the Code Enforcement
division currently boards up open structures if they present a safety hazard and will continue to do so
should the ordinance be adopted. He added that code enforcement action can be initiated on
boarded up structures. Mr. Watkins informed the Committee that while specifications for boarding
structures will be included in the ordinance, staff would also like to allow alternative methods for
boarding up. Anna Schleunes explained the statutory requirement that, under the general police
powers used for enforcing boarded up structures, the City does not have the legal authority to place
a lien on the land. Therefore, a transfer of ownership will restart the time limit on a residential
structure that is boarded up.
Members of the Committee expressed concern that the proposed time limit of one year for
residential structures is not aggressive enough. Mr. Watkins stated that the poll of cities reflected
a one year time limit as the norm, with the shortest time period being six months. Committee
member Foxx asked if the current enforcement mechanisms will be changed? Mr. Watkins responded
that currently, boarded up structures are inspected if requested by citizen petitions, public agency
referrals or field observation and those methods will be retained should the ordinance be adopted.
Mr. Foxx expressed concern that enforcement and tracking of units may be hampered due to
technology constraints. Mr. Watkins explained that staff plans to eventually consolidate the existing
three computer systems into one system and proposes a pilot study of a new wireless system next
year.
Committee member Lochman mentioned that the public input meeting netted several comments
regarding requiring the boards to be painted. In addition, the citizens suggested that boarded up
structures be rehabilitated and used to provide additional affordable housing units. Mujeeb ShahKhan explained that per the police powers, which relate to health and safety, there is no authority to
address aesthetics. Mr. Shah-Khan added that a local act could be pursued. Mr. Watkins responded
that, should Council make it a priority issue, staff can provide a relocation plan for making board ups a
priority for affordable housing.
Committee member Barnes questioned the lack of a time limit for commercial structures. Anna
Schleunes responded that it is a City policy, not a statutory requirement. Ms. Schleunes added that
should a time limit be included for commercial structures, enforcement capability would remain
limited due to the criteria required for demolition, the scope of which is driven by state statute. The
Committee requested information on methods used by other cities to address boarded up commercial
structures.
Action:
Upon a motion by Barnes and seconded by Foxx, the Committee voted 3-1 to amend the staff’s
recommendation to require a time limit of six months for residential structures.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 11, 2007
Vote:
Page 3
Yeas: Barnes, Burgess, Foxx
Nays: Lochman
Absent: Mumford
Upon a motion by Foxx and seconded by Barnes, the Committee voted unanimously to amend the
staff’s recommendation to allow flexibility to the specifications for boarding up structures.
Upon a motion by Barnes and seconded by Lochman, the Committee voted unanimously to send
staff’s recommended ordinance forward for a public hearing.
II. Neighborhood Councils
Stephanie Small informed the Committee that 450 surveys pertaining to neighborhood councils were
distributed at the Neighborhood Symposium on March 31, 2007, with a minimal response. Ms. Small
discussed some of the key considerations in forming neighborhood councils, which include the role,
geography, criteria for participant selection and City staff support and resources.
Committee member Burgess stated that she foresees the neighborhood council serving as a formal
way to educate andinform neighborhoods of issues and facilitate dialogue on common issues that cut
across Council districts. Ms. Burgess added that she recommends a city-wide council as opposed to
councils based on smaller geographies and suggested that staff poll neighborhood representatives to
see how they can best be served. Committee member Foxx agreed with the concept of neighborhood
councils as a way to engage citizens but expressed concern about the possible replication of services
currently provided by the City, the cost of staff time to facilitate the neighborhood councils, and
creating false expectations regarding authority and the channeling of input into the decision making
process.
Committee member Lochman stated that there are a variety of City programs that work to solicit
input and that the neighborhood associations seem to be well formed and are able to express
concerns directly to district representatives. Committee member Barnes referenced two existing
coalitions in the northeast area.
Action:
Upon a motion by Foxx and seconded by Barnes, the Committee voted 3-1 to direct staff to
research and seek input from neighborhood leaders on the concept of neighborhood councils
within the next 90 days.
Vote:
Yeas: Barnes, Burgess, Foxx
Nays: Lochman
Absent: Mumford
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 11, 2007
Page 4
III. Neighborhood Symposium Post Report
Committee member Susan Burgess briefly spoke about the success of the Neighborhood Symposium.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee Meeting
Wednesday, April 11, 2007 – Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center – 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.
II.
Boarded Up Structures
(Attachment A)
Neighborhood Councils
(Attachment B)
III. Neighborhood Symposium Post Report
(Attachment C)
Note: Attached is March 21, 2007 Follow Up Report (Attachment D)
_______________
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
Attachment A
Boarded Up Structures Ordinance
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 11, 2007
NOTE: Comments from the April 4, 2007 public input meeting will be forwarded to members and
interested parties prior to the meeting date.
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. Code Enforcement staff and the Police
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 an ordinance for the City Council’s consideration.
On February 14, 2007, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee scheduled a public input
meeting for April 4, 2007.
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 that have
implemented boarded up structures ordinances 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.
1
Attachment A
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:
2
Attachment A
One year limit on how long a residence can stay
boarded up
No time limit
Specifications
Note: Difficult to ascertain a time limit due to market forces
surrounding commercial development and limited remedies available
based on commercial inspection criteria. Commercial structures
rarely achieve the 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.
(See Attached Brochure)
Similar specifications as residential.
Subject to civil penalties if units are boarded up
longer than the required time period or become
unsecured.
Subject to civil penalties if the structure becomes
unsecured.
1.
Penalties
Commercial
All boarded commercial structures must register with
the City.
Time Limit
Registration
Residential
All boarded up residential structures must
register with the City.
Fine: $500 + $50 per day until violation is
corrected.
Note: Penalties help City recover monitoring, inspection, and
follow-up cost.
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.
3
Attachment A
The follow process will apply to the ordinance:
• Require on-line 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.
No aesthetics requirements (such as painted boards) are imposed upon boarded 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
Based on the relatively small number of boarded up units city-wide, and the fact that many of these units
are already under code enforcement, additional inspection resources would not be required at this time to
enforce the ordinance. However, additional administrative and technology support for Code Enforcement
would be required in order to create and maintain the boarded up structures registry. It is estimated to
cost about $4,000 to design the database, create the interface, and establish a website. It will take
approximately one-third of an Administrative Officer’s time to maintain the registry, at an annual cost of
$22,618.
Note: The City Council is also working on a hotel/motel ordinance through Council’s Public Safety
Committee. Should the ordinance be approved by full Council, it will have additional resource
implications for the Code Enforcement division of Neighborhood Development.
Attachment:
Boarded Up Structures Chart of Other Cities
Brochure on Technique to Board Structures to be used as Minimum Acceptable Board Up Standards
4
Attachment B
Report on Neighborhood Councils
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 11, 2007
Note: At the last Committee meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Burgess indicated that she would solicit
feedback on this concept at the Neighborhood Symposium held on March 31, 2007.
Committee Action Requested:
Provide direction to staff concerning Neighborhood Councils.
What is a Neighborhood Council?
ƒ A neighborhood council is a group of citizens representing several neighborhoods working on
common issues and concerns.
ƒ In some cities, the neighborhood councils have informal roles and, in others, very formal roles.
ƒ They focus on service delivery, zoning and development, growth management and other
neighborhood related issues.
ƒ They may be independent, citizen organizations or government supported organizations serving
as a connecting link between neighborhoods and the elected and appointed officials on
neighborhood issues.
How are Neighborhood Councils Organized?
ƒ Some local governments establish Neighborhood Councils through a process of adopting an
ordinance and the duties and/or partnership details are declared by way of resolution.
ƒ A council area may be formed around the whole city or distinct geographies or boundaries within
the city. For example, in the City of Tacoma, Washington, the Neighborhood Council areas are
defined by the existing planning service area boundaries.
ƒ In most cases, neighborhood councils represent all stakeholders within the specified Council
boundary. Stakeholders are defined as those who live, work, or own property in the
neighborhoods within the specified boundary.
ƒ In some government structures, where neighborhoods are formally recognized by way of a
registration process, councils are formed with members from neighborhood organizations who
formally register with the City’s Planning Department or Neighborhood Services office. In this
case, each neighborhood organization elects one active member to serve on the council.
How do Neighborhood Councils Operate?
ƒ While the neighborhood councils have no formal powers, they offer advice to local government
decision makers who use their advice for neighborhood related policy decisions.
ƒ Many cities provide financial and staff support to the councils. However, because each
neighborhood council is independent, members of each council decide their own specific mission
and activities.
ƒ In some instances, the councils are registered with the State as a non-profit group, which
allows them to obtain additional funding sources like grants to perform community development
projects.
1
Attachment B
Examples of Neighborhood Councils:
The City of Charlotte has some independent, citizen neighborhood councils. Examples are the
Charlotte East Community Partners, West Boulevard Coalition, and Northeast Coalition.
The Charlotte East Community Partners (CECP) is established to promote the interests, economic
well being and to address the housing and human services needs of the Charlotte East Community.
The CECP meets monthly and is managed by its Board of Directors.
The board of directors is comprised of 15 persons representing east area neighborhoods, multifamily dwellings and businesses. Some of the neighborhoods represented are Winterfield, Windsor
Park and Shannon Park. Officers of the CECP consist of a President, Vice President, Secretary and
Treasurer. Officers are elected by the Board of Directors and serve a one year term. The CECP
provides input on issues like City rezoning cases, transit and housing.
The West Boulevard Coalition (Coalition) is established to promote unity by creating a safe, clean,
drug free environment. The Coalition meets monthly and is managed by its Board of Directors.
The Coalition is an informal organization comprised of board members from several Westside
neighborhoods. Some of the neighborhoods represented included Arbor Glen, Barringer Woods,
Clanton Park and Ponderosa. The Coalition works closely with faith based and non-profit
organizations. Their primary focus is on schools and landlord/tenant issues. More specifically, they
are focusing on dropout rates, low performing schools, low test scores, and code enforcement. One
of their most recent accomplishments included the new Stratford YMCA. The Coalition is currently
in the process of obtaining its 501c(3) status.
See the attached table, which provides a brief snap shot of neighborhood councils from the
following Cities:
1. Durham, NC
2. Raleigh, NC
3. Columbia, SC
4. Rock Hill, SC
5. Reno, NV
6. Tacoma, WA
The Northeast Coalition represents about 25,000 homes in Northeast Charlotte. The group
focuses primarily on rezoning petitions proposed in the area.
What are Key Considerations for Establishing Neighborhood Councils?
ƒ
What role(s) should Neighborhood Councils play?
– Advisory role or Formal role
ƒ Will City funding be provided?
ƒ Will City staff support be provided?
ƒ What is the basis by which Neighborhood Councils will be formed?
– Council Districts, Distinct Geographies or Planning District boundaries
2
Attachment B
ƒ
Examples of Neighborhood Councils from Other Cities
Durham, North Carolina - David Harris, President harrisdl2003@yahoo.com
• The City of Durham’s Inter Neighborhood Council is an independent, non-profit organization
that does not receive financial or staff support from the City.
• The Council is made up of representatives from neighborhood organizations throughout
Durham’s City and County. Each neighborhood is entitled to send one representative and one
alternate to serve on the council and must pay an annual membership fee.
• The council’s responsibilities include:
1. Advising both the City and County on policy issues which affect neighborhoods.
2. Research and inform its members of issues affecting residential neighborhoods.
3. Making recommendations to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners on
appointments to boards such as the Board of Adjustments, Planning Commission,
Environmental Affairs Board, etc.
4. Fostering cooperation among existing neighborhood organizations and encouraging the
establishment of neighborhood organizations where none exist.
Raleigh, North Carolina - Hardy Watkins, Community Services Director (919) 831-6100
• There are 18 geographically located Citizen’s Advisory Council’s (CAC) within the City.
• The function of the CACs is to serve as a formal vehicle for citizens to give input on issues of
interest, which affect their community/neighborhood to the City's decision-makers.
• The Councils meet monthly and are responsible for reviewing presentations regarding
neighborhood policy items from various City departments and advise the City on issues that
impact their community/neighborhood.
• The CACs are the only advisory bodies of the City Council whose membership is strictly
voluntary. The number of members varies from council to council.
• The City of Raleigh Community Services Department offers staff support and programming to
each council.
Columbia, South Carolina – Roland Smallwood, Community Liaison (803) 545-3381
• The Columbia Council of Neighborhoods (CCN) is an umbrella organization made up of the
various recognized and approved neighborhood associations of the City.
• The Council’s primary purpose is to promote communication and cooperation between
organizations, foster a sense of community and assist each other by providing a forum where
member organizations can bring specific concerns for discussion, receive reliable information
and support for legitimate causes.
• The Council provides a connecting link between neighborhoods and the elected and appointed
officials and units of local government that it advises on issues of neighborhood concern.
• The Council meets monthly and receives presentations from various local and state agencies and
City and County departments and provides advice to City Council and School Board, on
neighborhood issues.
• The Council has an indirect impact on the allocation of CDBG funding and the General Fund
through a citizen’s survey.
• The City allocates approximately $50,000 to the Council each year for program and
administrative services.
3
Attachment B
Examples of Neighborhood Councils from Other Cities (Continued)
Rock Hill, South Carolina – Terry Windell, Neighborhood Coordinator (803) 326-3877
• The Council of Neighborhoods has been in existence for about seven years. It was organized as
a result of several neighborhoods having common issues (ex: storm water and infrastructure).
• The Council acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council, City and County Departments and
other local agencies on neighborhood related issues.
• The Council meets monthly and receives presentations from various agencies and City
departments (i.e. Planning & Zoning, Code Enforcement) and provides advice on neighborhood
issues.
• The Council is a 35 member group with an executive team comprised of a President, Vice
President, Secretary and Treasurer. Members can be appointed to the Council by their home
owners or neighborhood associations. The Council is also assigned a City staff person to act as
a liaison between the City and the Council of Neighborhoods.
• Approximately $4,000 is allocated to the Council of Neighborhoods each year. Funds are used
to cover printing and postage costs and are also used to send at least two representatives to
the annual NEUSA Conference.
Reno, Nevada – Charles Goode, Director, Community Relations Division (775) 321-8318
• The City of Reno has eight Neighborhood Advisory Boards (NAB) – nine members serve on each
board.
• NABs advise the City Council on policies that affect neighborhoods throughout the community.
• The Boards meet monthly and receive presentations from various city departments (i.e. Planning
& Zoning, Code Enforcement) and advise the City on issues that affect neighborhoods.
• The boards are also responsible for awarding annual neighborhood improvement grants to
neighborhood-based organizations through the City’s Community Pride Grant Program - $50,000
per board.
• Council allocates approximately $19,000 for administrative services to the NABs each fiscal
year.
• The boards are open to residents who live within a neighborhood in the NAB boundary.
• Members are a group of volunteers who are appointed by the City Council for three-year terms.
Tacoma, Washington – Elton Gatewood, Neighborhood Council Coordinator (253) 591-5229
• The City of Tacoma has eight Neighborhood Councils. The councils are open to all residents
within each council boundary. The number of members varies from council to council. Members
are elected to one year terms in November.
• The councils are independent, non-profit organizations who are responsible for 1) advising the
City on neighborhood issues; and 2) awarding annual neighborhood improvement grants to
neighborhood organizations through the Innovative Grant program - $20,000 per council.
• Also, each council is allocated $5,000 per year for personal services contracts to cover the cost
of administrative needs and $10,458 for daily activities.
• In addition to providing financial support, the City Manager assigns an intern to each council to
serve as liaisons between the councils and the City.
4
Attachment C
12th Annual Neighborhood Symposium Post Report
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 11, 2007
The 12th Annual Neighborhood Symposium was held on Saturday, March 31st at the Charlotte
Convention Center. Approximately 660 neighborhood leaders and residents, presenters,
exhibitors and volunteers attended, representing a 60 percent increase over last year’s
participation.
Based on the theme, “Neighborhoods in Action: Mobilizing, Organizing and Sustaining Success,”
special emphasis was placed on bringing community leaders together to network and share ideas.
During the morning session, neighborhood leaders from Druid Hills, Hampshire Hills, Madison
Park and Milton Commons shared their successes in neighborhood beautification, resident
participation and involvement, website communication, and capacity building. Neighborhood and
community leaders were also involved as presenters on several workshop panels, including
Neighborhood Advocacy, Maintaining Neighborhood Integrity (aesthetics), Gentrification and
Improving Neighborhood Quality of Life. Concurrent workshops geared toward youth focused on
communication, diversity, conflict resolution and neighborhood leadership. At least 85 youth
participated in those sessions.
Keynote speaker John Barros, Executive Director of the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative,
shared the experiences of his neighborhood in Roxbury, MA. He encouraged the audience to
stay involved, build capacity within the neighborhood, identify other leaders, and work in
partnership with the city and other stakeholders in revitalizing neighborhoods and improving the
quality of life.
A record-breaking 45 exhibitors provided resource information for adults and youth. Exhibitors
included city and county departments, and non-profit and neighborhood-based organizations.
Citizen comments have been very favorable. Participants expressed excitement over the new
location, the workshop topics, content and presenters, the keynote speaker and the variety of
exhibitors and resource information made available.
The proceeding report will be available in May 2007.
Attachment D
Follow Up Report
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
April 11, 2007
The following items are requests for information that resulted from the March 21, 2007
H&ND Committee Meeting:
Foreclosure
1.
Committee Request: Research and determine the number of foreclosures for clients
that used the HouseCharlotte program or post counseling program.
Result: Staff will research and provide follow up information.
2.
Committee Request: Research successful models that have been used by other cities
to address the problem with foreclosures and determine what should be included in the
local legislative agenda.
Result: Staff will research and provide follow up information.
3.
Committee Request: Provide a comparison analysis to show where the high instances of
foreclosure exist throughout the City in an effort to develop solutions, such as
neighborhood improvements, code enforcement services, additional public safety action
that can be implemented now to help slow down the decline of such neighborhoods
Result: Staff will research and provide follow up information.
4.
Committee Request: Provide a comparison of neighborhoods of similar range in price
that don’t have foreclosure problems to determine the factors that contribute to the
problem.
Result: Staff will research and provide follow up information.
General
5.
Committee Request: Are there regulations pertaining to grading to make sure that
water properly drains away from the house?
Result: A grading permit and approved erosion and sedimentation control plan are
required when more than one acre of land is being disturbed. An approved subdivision
plat is required for residential subdivisions prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
1
Attachment D
Engineering and Property Management oversees the initial grading and overall runoff in
residential subdivisions and will ensure common collection points for each lot within the
subdivision.
As part of the final building inspection required for a certificate of occupancy, the
building inspectors of Land Use and Environmental Agency (LUESA) check for proper
drainage (draining away from the foundation) on individual lots within subdivisions of
residential subdivisions. The site may be altered by final landscaping done after the
final certificate of occupancy. Plant beds placed close to the foundation may retain
moisture due to the loose soil.
6.
Committee Request: Does the Building Code regulate how vinyl siding is attached?
Result: The North Carolina State Building Code has no set regulations for the
installation of vinyl siding. The Building Code requires inspection of the framing and
structural sheeting but does not require inspection of vinyl siding installation. The
Building Code refers installers to the suggested installation methods of the
manufacturer. If installed too tightly, the siding cannot expand and contract. It is the
responsibility of individual contractors to install the siding. For hearty plank siding, the
Building Code requires a vapor barrier to prevent the penetration of moisture.
2