Share
“A man’s home is his castle,” city council vice president Reggie Copeland declared yesterday.
Accordingly, Copeland and the majority vote of city council feel a castle isn’t a castle without four castle walls – at least in the case of David Barnett.
The determination came yesterday at the council’s regularly scheduled meeting at Government Plaza, where the group heard the appeal of Barnett who resides at 1123 Church St.
Barnett had previously sought approval from Mobile’s Architectural Review Board in order to build an 8-foot fence on the West side of his property with the intention of alleviating rampant burglary troubles as well as adding privacy.
1123 Church St.
He says he’s experienced at least 10 major burglaries since he purchased the home in 1979. “That’s not counting the times when people just took little things,” Barnett noted. The owner of 1123 Church St. thinks he might hold the running record for burglaries in the Oakliegh Garden District neighborhood, he later added.
Barnett currently has 8-foot fencing on the North, South and East elevations of his property, but claims at least 10 burglaries have happened mostly because he doesn’t have fencing on the fourth and West side. The ARB denied Barnett’s request, citing the board’s guidelines on fencing which state, “the height of solid fences in historic districts is generally restricted to six feet.” The guideline goes on to say that 8-foot fences may be built in instances involving commercial or multifamily property, which doesn’t apply to Barnett’s situation.
But, just before those sentences, the fencing guideline also reads, “These should complement the building and not detract from it. Design, scale, placement and materials should be considered along with their relationship to the Historic District.”
District Two Councilman William Carroll said this particular application would have been a great “opportunity to relax the guidelines,” for a worthy cause. He also noted scale being another good reason to allow the fence to be built.
“By today’s building standards this particular house could be three stories,” Carroll said of the property, which was built with soaring ceilings typical of the period in which it was constructed. Barnett also noted the house’s first floor was elevated four feet off the ground, further helping any scale issues.
Carroll, a contractor who has worked on historic projects, also persisted in bringing everyone’s attention to the word “generally,” in the guidelines, saying some discretion could have been exercised.
The ARB’s legal council, John Lawler, said the board was just following the guidelines, adding that they saw no exceptional reasons to grant an exception to the rules in this case. Lawler also asked the Council to determine if the ARB abused their discretion.
Councilwoman Connie Hudson provided the only dissenting vote, saying she didn’t feel the council could prove the ARB abused its discretion. Councilmember’s Carroll, Copeland, Gregory, Hudson and Johnson approved the fence. Councilman John Williams had left the meeting early providing the only abstention.
The initial decision of the ARB to deny Barnett’s application came roughly two months after the board encountered problems with one of their own, former chairman Tilmon Brown.
Brown, the developer of 412B Dauphin St. ¬– better known as the Mattress Factory – didn’t follow the plans he originally submitted to the ARB. After becoming aware of the inconsistencies, Brown resigned his position as chair and was afforded the opportunity to correct his wrongs in an economical manner.
Other members of the ARB called the situation involving Brown embarrassing.
“The bottom line is everyone is supposed to follow the rules. It’s an embarrassment that a former ARB member broke the rules. It makes the board look bad and it’s uncomfortable that it happened,” said Craig Roberts, an ARB member.
Barnett, who prior to constructing the fence, sought approval from his neighbors said he wanted to be mindful of the guidelines and go through the process in place, but since the denial, he’s questioned his decision.
“They always say it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission,” Barnett said.
The ARB’s guidelines are in the process of being amended.
downtowndoll says:
May 04, 2009
10:26 AM
Hmmm...run for William Carroll's seat.... However, I'm afraid Clinton Johnson, who I would probably have to sit by, would render me INSANE dealing with his wordy plus "tha' white man is out to get me" utterances! The reverse racism in this town drives me nuts. But thanks, gave me a good laugh just thinking about it all. ahhahaha! ha!
downtowndoll says:
May 04, 2009
10:13 AM
Well, I imagine that person turned down "because of mold" was actually( or accidently!) applying for a BANNER & SHIELD to be put on their house, which is a completely different thing from applying for work to be done to your house. In that case, you must apply to the ARB (Architectural Review Board) for approval, not the MHDC (Mobile Historic Development Commission). They are somewhat connected, though.
They really need to do WAY MORE educating of the community on all these historic processes because it IS confusing.
One time, we were fixing this decrepit house up and, in applying for the ARB at the beginning of a year-long huge renovation, I ALSO applied for Banner and Shield marking.
I didn't know that you should really apply for Banner and Shield markings(a different thing) AFTER you finished the work! It was my fault because I'm sure I rushed through reading all the stuff on the MHDC website. Anyway, I get a letter saying,"We're sorry we cannot approve this wreck of a house at this moment!" It was really irritating and embarassing! So my husband called up the MHDC to double-check that we were on the right track. They were a big help to us from then on. This advice and help is also free. They can even come out to your house and tell you about what will or will not be approved by the ARB.
A little tip: apply for banner and shields marking AFTER painting your house!
But you should apply for Architectural Review Board stuff BEFORE you do the work! If you live in an historic district, you know probably 1 out of 5 people actually follow the guidelines. It's very frustrating because just this week, I see some dumb young neighbors putting up something absolutely awful on their porch for railings. They are sweet but should've just moved to West Mobile. They already slid by something ugly and tacky on their back railing.
badass69 says:
April 27, 2009
02:10 PM
Although one cannot be home at all times, an armed citizen is the biggest deterrent to
crime. If law abiding citizens started killing more burglars (and the
news reported it AND the DA supported it), we'd see the crime rate drop!
Roll Tide!
Lewis Cifer
proud says:
April 24, 2009
12:58 PM
The councilmembers are ignorant!!!! They don't understand the ramifications that comes alone with relaxing guidelines for the good of one person. It is clear, if they think that person has a little money and can contribute to their campaigns then lookout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dcrefugee says:
April 22, 2009
08:15 PM
I fully support Mr. Barnett's fence, because I am the neighbor immediately to the west of his property, and you should see OUR house. I believe we meet historic guidelines, which is to say, our house looks like it has stood undisturbed in Mobile's Viet Cong slow-poach climate for more than a century. It's a living history, you see, on account of the live (and possibly self-aware) mildew. I'd build a fence, too, and maybe a series of fires.
Now, here's a quandary: say, hypothetically, a grown man's parents live in a historic district. And say, hypothetically, one of those parents has a Major Health Problem, and the aforementioned grown man moves home to care for them. Say the parents can't afford to relocate, and the son wants to live on the property, but the son can't build a small out-building or garage on the property, and therefore must sleep in his childhood bedroom.
Crazy anecdotal counter-argument aside, I generally and myopically support the idea that societal interests need often hold sway over those of the individual (because I am an awful, pinko, liberal nogoodnik, and also I thought it was awesome in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" when dying Spock says, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and then totally dies and it is awesome), but, for discussion's sake: where do you draw the line between ARB guidelines and the reasonable self-interest of longtime neighborhood residents -- who, in some cases, moved into their home decades ago and, as early adopters, helped re-establish the very neighborhood in question? At what point do you allow history to redefine... er, history?
That part isn't hypothetical. I'm genuinely curious.
singingperson says:
April 22, 2009
06:04 PM
I fully agree with the City Council's decision to allow Mr. Barnett to build an 8 foot fence around his property. I've lived in Oakleigh for the past ten years. I used to live on Church Street and I know just how many burglaries happen there. Actually, I've even witnessed one!
Mr. Barnett says that his house has been broken into more than 10 times! I think that the man can have an 8-foot fence. Just about anyone else would have given up and moved out of the neighborhood, but this man has braved it all and only asked for a fence. If you're worried about the ARB regulations, then you should worried about the 8 foot fencing across the street from this man's house that is in no way whatsoever to regulation. It is unpainted, tacky, and isn't even "fencing" something in. Oh, and I would also look at the 8 -foot fencing behind Wendy's while you are at it. Both of these fences were put in with the ARB's knowledge.
No rules were broken. Our city council decided not to follow loose "guidelines." I don't see what the big deal over this is.
I've been unhappy with the ARB for years. My former neighbor spent 5 years fixing her house up. She replaced boards, repainted it, put up a fence(following all ARB specifications). She made her home absolutely lovely.
She applied for a historic permit and was denied! One of the reasons cited was that there was some mold on her front porch ceiling. Am I the only person who lives in Mobile, the city that has previously tied for most rainy city in the USA and where the humidity can sometimes be 100%?! Almost every reason cited by the ARB to my neighbor was very much like this one. I'm glad that someone finally appealed to the City Council.
And I'd like to personally thank all of the City Council(Ms. Hudson included) for a job well done!
jbran says:
April 22, 2009
04:53 PM
downtowndoll, it sounds like you should run for City Council-- I'm not kidding.
aprildd007 says:
April 22, 2009
03:42 PM
It all goes to show, rules can be broken....it all depends on who you know. It doesn't pay to be law abiding or truthful these days. You're more likely to get things done your way in this town if you lie, cheat and steal.....
downtowndoll says:
April 22, 2009
01:47 PM
The frightening thing is that all of the council members are not even SLIGHTLY familiar with historic district guidelines. If they were even slightly knowledgeable, they would uphold the (ARB)Architectural Review Board's decisions. The guidelines are black and white, not gray. I moved here only a few years ago and they are pretty easy to understand. In Charleston, S. Carolina, historic guidelines even extend to interior renovations. We have it pretty easy here actually.
Council members should not be voting their "personal feelings"; they aren't following the guidelines.
Why do my city councilmen not know these guidelines?! I've been to several city council meetings and the ignorance of ALL of them is astounding.
We have several historic districts with more to be added, like the Midtown District. William Carroll has worked for the last two years to jeopardize the ARB for his own political gain. I voted for him last time but WILL NOT vote for him this time. I certainly hope the other city council members will educate themselves on what our historic guidelines actually are.
Like Billybob (poster above me), I've personally seen how rude councilmen are to the citizens they are supposed to represent. I've seen Councilman Carroll be unbelieveably rude to people just asking reasonable questions at the Old Dauphinway Association meeting and heard of him being rude at several other ones. I've witnessed Councilman Clinton Johnson be rude as well, but we've all know that forever.
We have invested our money in these homes and these districts. Yes, your home is your castle, but if we have a situation where none of the homeowners follow the rules AND the ARB decisions are not upheld....our beautiful historic districts will not be so beautiful or historic.
Downtown is now thriving because WE, the homeowners, have invested AND followed the historic guidelines in the nearby historic districts. We expect that investment to be protected by the city council, who oversees ARB and our Historic Development Commission.
Can someone make city council members take a test on the historic guidelines, PLEASE?!?!
billybob says:
April 22, 2009
12:14 PM
I will most often times side with the property owner. However, as we were told by Mr. Lawler (atty for the ARB0 the only parameters or decision to be made by the city council was whether or not the ARB had "abused its power-discretion". Instead, the council set out to lambast Mr. Lawler. Mr. Carroll & Johnson seem to enjoy patronizong the person at the podium showing utter disrespect for most speakers. Mrs. Hudson was the sole oposition due to the fact that she could not find that the ARB had abused its power- the others voted based on theie personal feelings.