Charlotte City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Summary Meeting Minutes
February 14, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Plan
II. Boarded Up Structures
III. Housing Charlotte 2007 Update
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Council Members Present:
Michael D. Barnes, Susan Burgess, Anthony Foxx, and Pat Mumford
Council Members Absent:
Don Lochman
Staff Resource:
Curt Walton, Assistant City Manager
Staff:
Stanley Watkins, Neighborhood Development
Walter Abernethy, Neighborhood Development
Mike Jenkins, Neighborhood Development
Richard Woodcock, Neighborhood Development
Others:
None
Meeting Duration: 12:15 p.m. – 1:50 p.m.
1.
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda Packet – February 14, 2007
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for February 14, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Plan
Committee member Susan Burgess explained that the Focus Area Plan will be forwarded to
full Council with the understanding that the Committee may have to respond to potential
issues that may occur. The Committee discussed various targets set forth in the Focus
Area Plan.
Initiative #1: Reduce the Number of Challenged Neighborhoods.
Committee member Mumford asked why no data was input for Fiscal Year 2007? Stanley
Watkins answered that the Quality of Life Study is generated biannually.
Initiative #2: Expand the Supply of Affordable Housing.
Mr. Mumford commented that the targets are determined by the budget and suggested
that, while the actual number of units generated is important to report, a more meaningful
measure be used to reflect what has been completed. Committee member Barnes remarked
that affordable housing should be better distributed throughout the City and questioned
whether the assisted multi-family housing locational policy is defective, in terms of
equitable distribution. Citing Arbor Glen, Fairview Homes and Belmont as examples, Mr.
Watkins responded that the locational policy is not flawed but there needs to be a balance
between the distribution of affordable housing and the revitalization of neighborhoods. He
noted that, with the exception of neighborhoods such as Arrowood, South Park and Idlewild
Road, most of the housing dollars have been directed toward revitalizing the neighborhood.
Committee member Foxx requested that information be shared with full Council on the
impacts of federal budget cuts at the local level.
Initiative #3: Eliminate Substandard Housing and Neighborhood Nuisances.
Mr. Mumford noted that the compliance numbers are relatively constant annually, and
questioned whether the numbers should be decreasing if the housing stock is getting better.
Mr. Watkins responded that the constant number relates to the capacity that can be
addressed, given the work load and amount of staff, as opposed to the need. Mr. Watkins
added that staff has looked for a better way to measure the cleanness of a community that
would not require timely and costly surveys but, to date, has not found a better method
than reflecting the number of substandard units. Mumford suggested showing the number
or percentage of substandard housing units relative to the total housing units at not above a
certain percentage. Mr. Watkins stated the goal can be reflected as keeping the current
level at or below two percent, adding that the number of substandard units is decreasing
and the focus is on addressing individual properties instead of major areas. Walter
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for February 14, 2007
Page 3
Abernethy noted that the neighborhood nuisance number encompasses a variety of
violations, such as parking on the front lawn, high grass, trash, junked cars, illegal dumping,
campaign signs, etc.
Mr. Foxx requested that the City/County Response on Neighborhood Issues report be
updated to show the progress that has been made on certain issues.
Initiative #5: Educate and Engage Residents in Maintaining Model Neighborhood Standards.
Mr. Mumford asked how the success ratios are derived. Stanley Watkins answered that the
percentages are estimates that indicate the percentage of neighborhood initiatives that are
projected to be successfully completed. Mr. Barnes questioned the measurement methodology.
Stanley Watkins stated that the results reflect the success of training that has been provided
to neighborhood residents, such as Community University and Neighborhood Matching Grants,
in terms of actual implementation and initiatives undertaken by neighborhoods.
Initiative #6: Invest in Comprehensive Neighborhood Infrastructure.
Mr. Mumford proposed that the return on the investment be measured in terms of the net
result in the neighborhood instead of by the actual expenditure. Mr. Watkins stated the
increase in the overall value of a neighborhood as a result of infrastructure investments can be
reflected but it must be shown over a period of time, such as three to five years, as opposed
to annually. Committee member Barnes asked Mr. Watkins to provide an example of a current
neighborhood that reflects a positive return on economic and infrastructure investments that
have been made within the last five years.
Mr. Foxx asked how the total need for infrastructure investment is determined, noting that
there is a disconnection between the identified need and plans being in place for
implementation? Mr. Watkins replied that engineers survey each Neighborhood Statistical
Area to determine the need and generate a rough estimate of the cost to address
infrastructure needs. He added that two existing neighborhoods (Ashley Park and Thomasboro
Hoskins) will be studied for construction and that other plans will need to be developed, as a
result of the money that has been allocated for improvements. Mr. Foxx recommended working
with the Economic Development Department to correlate the impact of economic development
initiatives on neighborhoods.
Mr. Barnes requested a list of the top three neighborhood complaints received by the City
and the associated penalties and fines for the associated violations. Mr. Watkins stated
that staff will also provide information on the enforcement pathways, rules of procedure
and penalty system for each Housing, Nuisance and Zoning Code Enforcement. Discussion
ensued about the need to impart to full Council the difficulty of enforcing certain types of
infractions that continue to resurface, namely human behavioral issues, and that the City’s
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for February 14, 2007
Page 4
role as arbitrator continues to increase. Mr. Watkins noted that punitive fines for repeat
offenders need to be increased. Walter Abernethy stated that contractor liens and civil
penalties are currently used for some violations but that while new areas of enforcement
have been added, fines have not increased in approximately 10 to 15 years. He added that
an increase in the fee for appeals would effectively lower the number of frivolous appeals
submitted. Mr. Barnes suggested creating a non-appealable administrative penalty to
address irresponsible absentee landlords. Walter Abernethy stated that the Housing
Program assesses civil penalties for noncompliance and the penalties do accrue.
II. Boarded Up Structures
Walter Abernethy informed the Committee that as a result of the City Council’s directive in
2006 to conduct a city-wide inventory of boarded up structures, a total of 425 boarded up
structures were identified in July and August of 2006. Approximately one-third of those
units were already under enforcement and the majority of the structures identified were in
the Neighborhood Action Plan areas. The City currently allows structures to be boarded up
but has no specific ordinance that governs the boarding up of residential and commercial
structures. Staff recommendations would require registration of boarded up residential
and commercial structures and impose a one year time limit on how long residential
structures may remain boarded up. No time limit is placed on commercial structures due to
limited enforcement measures based on inspection criteria. Specifications for boarding up
structures will be provided and higher civil penalties will be imposed for violation of the
ordinance, in the amount of $500 and $50 per day for residential structures and $1,000 and
$100 per day for commercial structures. A six-month grace period is recommended to allow
time to register existing boarded up structures in the City.
Committee member Barnes suggested imposing a bond or instituting some means through the
rezoning and land use regulations to cover the cost of demolition for big box commercial
structures that may go out of business. Mr. Abernethy commented that a demolition bond
would be useful, in that, for safety reasons, the City often has to incur the cost of boarding
up vacant big box commercial uses, and that cost is often not recouped. Committee member
Foxx suggested that Neighborhood Development consult with Economic Development to
ensure that the proposed boarded up structure regulations include relevant
recommendations set forth in the Business Corridor Plan. Mr. Abernethy mentioned the
need for public input prior to proceeding to public hearing.
Action: Upon a motion by Barnes and seconded by Foxx, the Committee voted
unanimously to set an evening H&ND Committee meeting within the next 30 days to
solicit public input on the proposed Boarded Up Structures ordinance.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
Meeting Summary for February 14, 2007
Page 5
Action: Upon a motion by Mumford and seconded by Barnes the Committee voted
unanimously, as a result of the Committee’s discussion on boarded up structures, to
recommend that full Council seek resolution on the big box issue.
III. Housing Charlotte 2007 Update
Stanley Watkins informed the Committee that, to date, approximately 280 persons have
registered and there are approximately 100 scholarships available. He added that all
registered Neighborhood leaders were sent notice of the event and informed about the
availability of scholarships. The maximum capacity has been expanded to accommodate 400
attendees.
Other Business:
The Committee agreed to reschedule the March 14th and 28th meetings to March 7th and
March 21st. Both meetings will begin at 1:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
City Council
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee Meeting
Wednesday, February 14, 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.
Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Plan
(Attachment A)
II.
Boarded Up Structures
(Attachment B)
III. Housing Charlotte 2007 Update
(Attachment C)
Note: Attached is January 17, 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
Community Relations
Willie Ratchford
Ledger Morrissette
Attachment A
FY08-09 Focus Area Plan
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
Committee Request:
Review the draft FY08-09 Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Plan.
Policy Framework:
• Annually the City Council reviews and amends the focus area plans for each of its five
focus areas – Community Safety, Economic Development, Environment, Housing and
Neighborhood Development and Transportation.
Project Description:
ƒ The City staff has updated the Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area
Plan, which included reviewing and updating as appropriate the focus area theme,
description, strategic objectives and objective targets.
ƒ The following strategic objectives are being proposed for the FY08-09 plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reduce the number of Challenged neighborhoods
Expand the supply of affordable housing
Eliminate sub-standard housing and neighborhood nuisances
Graduate revitalization neighborhoods
Success of neighborhood problem-solving initiatives
Invest in comprehensive infrastructure improvements
ƒ
There is one new strategic objective suggested this year, neighborhood problem
solving initiatives. This objective tracks and measures the City’s success in working
with neighborhoods to resolve problems.
ƒ
Also, the targets for affordable housing and infrastructure have been adjusted to
reflect the Council’s spending priorities.
ƒ
Please note the FY08-09 targets for code enforcement, housing and infrastructure
have been updated based on more refined projections from Neighborhood
Development. The changes are shaded in the attached document.
Attachment:
Draft FY08-09 Housing and Neighborhood Development Focus Area Plan
1
Attachment A
City of Charlotte
FY2008 & FY2009 Strategic Focus Area Plan
Updated Draft
“Creating great neighborhoods in which
to live, work, and play.”
The City of Charlotte’s long-term health, vitality, and distinction as a leading city is predicated upon its
ability to develop and sustain its neighborhoods. Social changes, crime and disorder, physical deterioration,
and economic divestments create challenges for the City’s residential, commercial and industrial
neighborhoods. The City’s housing and neighborhood strategy focuses on quality of life measures, expanding
affordable housing, effective code enforcement, infrastructure investments, successful neighborhood
problem solving and graduating revitalization neighborhoods. The City will be responsive to addressing the
needs of all neighborhoods, but will develop unique approaches and solutions to address each of the City’s
challenged, transitioning, and stable neighborhoods. (Also see Community Safety, Economic Development and
Transportation Focus Area Plans for more housing and neighborhood development strategies.)
2008 & 2009
Page 1
Attachment A
City of Charlotte FY2008 & FY2009 Strategic Focus Area Plan
Updated Draft
Housing and Neighborhood
Development
Strengthen Neighborhoods
H&ND.1 Focus Area Initiative: Reduce the number of challenged neighborhoods
► Measure: Number of challenged Neighborhood Statistical Areas (NSAs)
Targets:
FY2009—n/a
FY2008—22
Prior Years: FY2007—n/a
FY2006—24
H&ND.2 Focus Area Initiative: Expand the supply of affordable housing
► Measure: Number of completed affordable housing units
Targets:
FY2009— 600
FY2008— 700
Prior Years: FY2007—1,000
FY2006—1,187
H&ND.3 Focus Area Initiative: Eliminate sub-standard housing and neighborhood nuisances
► Measure: Number of housing units, nuisance complaints and zoning citations brought into compliance
Targets:
FY2009—Housing—2,700 Nuisance—38,500 Zoning—5,500
FY2008—Housing—2,700 Nuisance—38,500 Zoning—5,500
Prior Years: FY2007—Housing—2,500 Nuisance—38,000 Zoning—5,250
FY2006—Housing—2,569 Nuisance—37,204 Zoning—n/a
H&ND.4 Focus Area Initiative: Neighborhoods that have graduated from the revitalization plan process
► Measure: Number of revitalization neighborhoods completed (eight neighborhoods have revitalization
plans)
Targets:
FY2009—1
FY2008—1
Prior Years: FY2007—None
FY2006—1
H&ND.5 Focus Area Initiative: Educate and engage residents in maintaining model neighborhood standards
► Measure: Percent of neighborhood organizations implementing successful problem solving initiatives
Number
Success Ratio
Targets:
FY2009—360
80 %
FY2008—360
80 %
Prior Years: FY2007—310
80 %
FY2006—110
99 %
Invest in Infrastructure
H&ND.6 Focus Area Initiative: Invest in comprehensive neighborhood infrastructure
► Measure: City neighborhood infrastructure investments vs. infrastructure needs
Targets:
FY2009—$15.0 million/$651 million
FY2008—$15.0 million/$651 million
Prior Years: FY2007—$12.0 million/$651 million
FY2006—$ 8.8 million/$548 million
Attachment B
Boarded Up Structures Ordinance
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 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. 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.
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.
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.
1
Attachment B
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 B
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 B
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.
Next Steps
The boarded up structure recommendations have been prepared by staff without citizen input. Staff’s
recommendation to the H&ND Committee is as follows:
1.
Send the proposed ordinance to public hearing to receive citizen comments, or
2. Direct staff to conduct meetings on the proposed ordinance before the Committee makes a
recommendation for public hearing.
The ordinance will come back to the Committee for final recommendation after the public hearing.
Attachment:
Boarded Up Structures Chart of Other Cities
Brochure on Technique to Board Structures
4
Attachment B
Survey of Boarded Up Structure Regulation
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
City
Are boarded up
structures allowed?
Alameda, California
Yes
Specific ordinance
requirements for
boarded up structures?
Yes
Albany, New York
Yes
Yes
Boston, Massachusetts
Yes
Yes
Buffalo, NY
Yes
Yes
1
Program Summary
Boarded up Buildings Code gives property owners 90 days
to bring property up to minimum standards or face
demolition at the owner’s expense.
In July 2000, the Mayor signed into law an ordinance
creating the Albany Vacant Building Registry. The Registry
was instituted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
public by establishing a registration process for vacant and
boarded up buildings. The process requires responsible
parties to implement a maintenance plan for such buildings
in order to remedy any public nuisance problems and prevent
deterioration, unsightly blight, and consequent adverse
impact on the value of the nearby property. * Owners must
register boarded up buildings annually, by mail or on-line,
and submit a yearly $200 fee for each registered building.
The yearly fee acts as an incentive for building owners to
maintain their buildings.
An Annual Abandoned and Boarded Up Building Survey
identify newly abandoned buildings, examine the causes of
abandonment, and prioritizes properties for action. From
this survey, a list of privately owned abandoned buildings is
published on Boston’s website.
The City of Buffalo and RUN Buffalo created a program to
acquire abandoned and boarded up properties, remove
uninhabitable buildings, and replace them with landscaped
green spaces. The project involves the demolition and
removal of blighted and boarded up residential and
commercial structures. The City of Buffalo will then in turn
transfer ownership of the property to RUN Buffalo.
Attachment B
Survey of Boarded Up Structure Regulation
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
City
Are boarded up
structures allowed?
Burlington, Vermont
Yes
Specific ordinance
requirements for
boarded up structures?
Yes
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Yes
Yes
Colorado Springs,
Colorado
Yes
Yes
Columbus, Ohio
Yes
Yes
2
Program Summary
Owner must apply for a permit and include a “Statement of
Intent” which includes the expected boarded up period, a
regular maintenance plan, and a timeline for lawful
occupancy, rehabilitation, or demolition. * Owner must
arrange inspections by the agency and police and fire
officials to determine the repairs needed for structural
integrity, the safe entrance for police and fire officers in
emergencies, and that the building is not a danger to the
public. * A quarterly fee of $500 is accessed to cover the
cost to the departments, including the time spent monitoring
the buildings prior to “vacancy” under the ordinance.
Places 4x8 signs (on the boarded up structure) declaring
who owns the derelict building along with placing
advertisements in the local newspaper noting they own
boarded up properties.
Developed new “blight” ordinance. City Inspectors engaged
in a two-year process to identify all boarded up and vacant
structures and to bring them up to minimum standards.
Uncooperative property owners subject to fines and
demolition of structure.
Partnerships through the City Attorney, Safety Director, and
Development Director created a team designed to expedite
the process of declaring a boarded up structure a public
nuisance. A code enforcement officer and an assistant city
attorney are assigned full-time to aggressively pursue the law
and reduce the foreclosure process by 3 to 6 months. Police
officers are also given the authority to arrest anyone found
on the property.
Attachment B
Survey of Boarded Up Structure Regulation
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
City
Are boarded up
structures allowed?
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Yes
Specific ordinance
requirements for
boarded up structures?
Yes
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Yes
Yes
Raleigh, North Carolina
Yes
Yes
Richmond, Virginia
Yes
Yes
Spokane, Washington
Yes
Yes
3
Program Summary
Demolish structures that have been vacant and boarded up
for over 6 months that exhibit code violations the owner has
not corrected. * This city is also considering a Boarded up
and Vacant Resolution. After the property has been vacant
for 6 months, the City will require the property owner to
make corrections to the structure and take the boards off of
the abandoned building.
City ordinance allows any building to be boarded for 60 days
without penalty. After those 60 days, if the owner has not
removed the boards or taken out a permit to rehab the
building, the building may be placed on the Chapter 249 list.
A building on the Chapter 249 list requires a code
compliance inspection before any rehab work can begin. In
addition, buildings on the Chapter 249 list are subject to
demolition. A proposal to demolish a building must be
approved by the City Council.
Allows structures to be boarded up, but ensures properties
are brought up to minimum standards through aggressive
code enforcement action.
Requires registration of boarded up and vacant structures.
Properties must be boarded up properly to limit vagrant
access.
City Council asked to increase fees charged to owners of
boarded up homes. The ordinance would raise the fee for
registering a boarded up structure from $200 a year to $600 a
year. The money pays for the City’s cost of monitoring the
buildings.
Attachment B
Survey of Boarded Up Structure Regulation
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
City
Are boarded up
structures allowed?
St. Paul, Minnesota
Yes
Specific ordinance
requirements for
boarded up structures?
Yes
Wichita, Kansas
Yes
Yes
4
Program Summary
All structures boarded up are registered on a website with
owner information and property values, to attract investors
for redevelopment of the property. The owner pays annual
escalating fees if the building remains vacant and boarded up.
The owners of boarded up structures have 365 days to
complete a development plan for the property.
New “Stop Blight” program requires owners of boarded up
structures to register their homes, pay a registration fee, and
include a long-term plan for the property.
Attachment C
Housing Charlotte 2007
Affordable Housing Forum
Status Report – February 14, 2007
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
The Planning Committee for the Housing Charlotte 2007 Forum continues to make progress
in preparation for the Thursday, February 22, 2007 event at the Charlotte Convention
Center. This is a day-long event that will focus on new ideas and solutions for providing
affordable housing.
Invitations have been sent to over 850 people. To date, 150 attendees have
pre-registered for the event, including paid attendees, sponsors participants and
scholarship recipients. Approximately 300 total participants are expected to be in
attendance. Because of limited seating, a maximum of 440 attendees can be accommodated
on the day of the event.
An Honorary Committee chaired by Hugh L. McColl, Jr. and Shirley L. Fulton has been
formed for the event. The committee consists of members from the business, faith, nonprofit and neighborhood communities.
Fundraising for the event has exceeded its $100,000 goal. Some of the major sponsors
include Bank of America, Social Venture Partners, Wachovia, BB&T, Charlotte Regional
Realtor’s Association, Lending Tree, Charlotte Housing Authority, Crosland, RBC/Apollo and
Reznick Group.
Workshops
This year’s forum offers workshops designed to invoke new ideas and thinking and produce
solutions that work best for the community. Workshops are entitled:
•
•
•
Finance + Affordable Housing
Building, Zoning and Land Use Regulations + Affordable Housing
The Community + Affordable Housing
These workshops will address key issues affecting affordable housing in this community
regarding the provision of affordable housing, regulatory barriers to developing
affordable housing and community acceptance of affordable housing.
Speakers and Panelists
Featured speakers and panelists include representatives from various governmental
agencies, academic, private and non-profit organizations. The three keynote speakers are:
F. Barton Harvey, III , Chairman of Enterprise, a national leader in investment capital
and development services for affordable housing and community revitalization efforts. Mr.
Harvey and the co-founder of Enterprise are credited with working with Congress to create
Attachment C
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit legislation. In addition, Mr. Harvey has testified
before Congress on a number of community development issues.
Bruce J. Katz, Vice President of the Brookings Institution, a private nonprofit
organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions. Mr. Katz is a
well-known expert on global, national and regional economic development issues and is the
architect of Hope VI, a federal program to demolish and redevelop public housing. In 2006,
Mr. Katz received the Heinz Award for Public Policy for his work in advocating for cities
through smart growth, innovative housing and transportation, green space preservation,
better schools and good jobs.
T. Anthony Lindsey, CEO of GlobeCrossing Realty, a Charlotte based real estate services
and mortgage finance organization. Mr. Lindsey is nationally known for his expertise in
affordable housing and homeownership advocacy and is skilled in the major aspects of real
estate, finance and development for commercial, residential and investment transactions.
Mr. Lindsey currently serves as Chairman of the City of Charlotte Housing Trust Fund
Advisory Board and on the Board of Directors of Homes4NC, which was established in 2004
by the North Carolina Association of REALTORS to promote safe, decent and affordable
housing for all in North Carolina.
Attachment D
Follow Up Report
Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee
February 14, 2007
The following items are requests for information that resulted from the January 17, 2007
H&ND Committee Meeting:
Committee Request: Specify zoning on the Johnston and Mecklenburg Mills site.
Result: Properties were rezoned from I-2, general industrial to UR-3(CD), urban residential,
conditional district on November 19, 1990 via Petition 90-79 to allow the conversion of
Johnston Mill into 78 apartments and Mecklenburg Mill into 80 apartments. The approved
site plan also permits the addition of a 19-unit efficiency apartment building, a 3,625
square foot child care center for up to 100 children, and a 1,400 square foot manager’s
office. Rezoning may be required to change the approved site plan.
Committee Request: Historic Landmarks Designation of Johnston and Mecklenburg Mills.
Result: Per Dan Morrill of the Historic Landmarks Commission, both of the Mill buildings
are designated (by the Landmarks Commission) as local historic landmarks and are on the
National Register of Historic Places. City Council has to approve all local landmarks and
could remove the historic landmark designation. The Landmarks Commission has the
power to impose a one-year delay on the demolition of any local historic landmark. Any
new buildings constructed on the site must be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks
Commission.
Committee Request: Provide information on the constraints to providing affordable housing
within one-half mile to one mile of the Mills site.
Result: The Johnston and Mecklenburg Mills RFP specifies that One to One replacement of
affordable rental housing is desired, with a minimum of 75 units on site. Any off-site
affordable housing units must be within one-half mile of the Mills site.
See attached map that depicts land availability within a one-half and one mile buffer of
the Mills site.
Committee Request: Status of the Self Sufficiency Act (Charlotte Housing Authority’s response
to Section 8 housing).
Result: Charlotte Housing Authority plans to make a presentation on its “Moving to Work” (MTW)
program to the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee at an upcoming
meeting in March or April 2007.
1
INST(CD)
R-22MF
UR-2(CD)
R-12MF
B-1
Attachment D
I-1
R-17MF
O-2
INST(CD)
R-4
R-17MF
R-17MF
Asbury Av
R-17MF
R-17MF
R-5(CD)
R-12MF
R-8
Ware
Av
O-2
R-17MF
B-2(CD)
R-12MF
B-1
O-2
R-17MF
I-1
B-2
B-2(CD)
O-6(CD)
I-1
R-22MF
R-22MF
B-1
B-2
I-1
R-5
R-22MF
B-1SCD
INST(CD)
I-2
B-2
B-1
B-2(CD)
R-22MF
R-22MF
I-1
R-17MF
I-1
St
R-5
am
R-5
Av
is
Gr
ah
I-1
I-1
rr
No
R-8
B-1
N
I-1
W
I-1
30
3315 and 3327 North Davidson St
St
UR-3(CD)
UR-3(CD)
R-8
I-2
MUDD-O
I-1
B-1
NS
B-1
Tr
yo
n
St
N
R-17MF(CD)
MUDD-O MUDD-O
R-22MF
I-1
R-5
R-22MF
R-22MF
O-2
MX-2
R-5
R-8MF(CD)
ES
UR-2(CD)
I-2(CD)
O-2
I-2(CD)
O-2
R-22MF
N
Dalton Av
Da
n
so
vid
St
R-22MF
O-2
R-5
B-1(CD)
O-2
B-2(CD)
r
O-2
D
ay
stw
Ea
R-5
R-5
R-8
R-22MF
R-9MF(CD)
O-1(CD)
I-1
R-4
B-1 R-8
R-22MF
O-2
R-5
B-1
Se
igl
eA
v
R-I
R-22MF
Neighborhood Development, January 25, 2007
R-22MF
B-1
R-5
t
Eas
R-5
R-5
R-5
R-17MF
B-1 R-17MF R-5
R-22MF O-2
R-17MF
B-1
R-8
UR-2(CD)
B-1
R-5
Av
B-1
B-2
n
so
he
at
M
R-22MF
R-5
R-17MF
O-2
R-8
R-8 R-22MF UR-2(CD)
MUDD
O-2
I-1
UR-2(CD)
I-1
O-2
B-2
d
R-8
B-1
O-2
O-2
R-8
Cre
ek
R
R-22MF
O-2
R-5
I-1
uga
r
R-5
R-22MF
R-22MF
R-5
O-6(CD)
R-22MF
O-2 B-1
R-22MF
MUDD-O
R-22MF
R-5
MUDD-O
B-1
NS
NS
O-1(CD)
MX-2
I-2
O-2
MUDD-O
t
St
O-2
O-2
R-22MF
B-2
Th
36
MUDD-O
NS
R-5
UR-1
R-22MF
B-1(CD)
E
hS
0T
E3
MUDD-O B-1
NS
B-1
a
Plaz
The
B-2
UR-3(CD)
I-2
UR-2(CD)
I-1
B-2
B-1SCD
I-1
Th
R-22MF
O-2
O-2
R-5
I-2(CD)
R-22MF
R-3
R-22MF
R
Ford
d
B-1
Sha
m
O-2
rock
Dr
Zoning
1/2 Mile Buffer
1 Mile Buffer
O-2