Pay the fine. Skip the permit?

After approving retroactive renovations on a 1918 Craftsman duplex, commissioners debate whether existing penalties are enough to deter repeat violations.

ALBANY — Albany-Dougherty Historic Preservation Commission members are considering whether stronger enforcement tools are needed after another major renovation in a local historic district proceeded without the permits and design review required under city ordinance.

A unanimous vote Wednesday approving retroactive renovations on a 1918 Craftsman duplex at 412 W. Residence Ave. quickly evolved into a broader discussion over repeat violations, contractor accountability and whether the city’s existing penalties are sufficient to deter property owners who bypass Albany’s historic preservation review process.

Commissioners ultimately approved a retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness for extensive exterior work that had already been completed, but required additional changes to better reflect the home’s historic character, including historically appropriate windows, porch details and replacement doors.

Albany’s Historic Preservation Ordinance requires property owners to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness before making material exterior changes to properties within designated historic districts. The commission reviews proposed work using locally adopted design guidelines based on the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, with exterior alterations such as windows, siding, porches and other character-defining architectural features generally requiring approval before construction begins.

Planning Director Paul Forgey told commissioners the city discovered the project only after construction was well underway.

“The stop work order was issued… that’s how we discovered the project,” Forgey said. “They didn’t have any permits, and didn’t come to the preservation division.”

According to Forgey’s presentation, nearly every major character-defining exterior feature of the duplex had already been altered before city staff intervened. Original three-over-one Craftsman windows had been replaced, brick porch columns covered with stucco, masonry stairs removed and replaced with wood, original porch supports eliminated and decorative pressure-treated porch spindles installed.

“If the work had been submitted before it started, planning staff would not have recommended approval,” Forgey told commissioners.

Rather than requiring the owner to completely restore the structure, planning staff recommended a more limited remedy, requiring replacement of the front windows with designs more compatible with the home’s original Craftsman architecture and replacing the decorative porch spindles with simpler, historically appropriate elements. During the discussion, commissioners also questioned whether some of the newly installed windows complied with minimum building code requirements for health and safety, raising concerns beyond the project’s historic integrity.

“We’re trying to acknowledge the fact that they are making an investment in the community, and they’ve done a lot of work,” Forgey said.

Commissioners also learned the property owner was not local. During the discussion, Forgey said the owner lived out of town and indicated the renovated duplex would likely become a rental property rather than owner-occupied.

While commissioners ultimately approved the application, several questioned whether owners who ignore permitting requirements should continue receiving retroactive approvals.

“This is nothing the staff has done,” Commissioner Matt Trice said. “When we have an issue like this, and the owner and contractor don’t show up to explain… I don’t think we ought to be considering it going forward.”

Trice argued projects should remain under stop-work orders until owners personally appear before the commission.

“If there’s not enough interest of that owner to show up and address this body, I don’t think we ought to be dealing with it going forward. It ought to be tabled, and the stop order stays in place,” he said.

Commissioner Scott Marcus agreed retroactive approvals should remain rare.

“I think retroactive approvals [should be] an exceptional basis,” Marcus said. “You’ve got to give somebody some consideration if they did a sympathetic restoration.”

The discussion then shifted from the project itself to whether the city’s ordinance provides enough deterrence.

“Is there something that we need to look at proposing — a change or amendment to the ordinance?” Marcus asked.

Forgey said the city’s current penalties are relatively minor.

“Our punishment on the building code side is pretty mild,” he said. “We require a double permit fee. So, you know, a $500 permit becomes a $1,000 permit, which isn’t much of a penalty.”

City staff has discussed whether larger fines or additional restrictions could be legally imposed, he said.

“We have pondered the legality and the utility of increasing the fines,” Forgey said.

He also acknowledged the practical realities of enforcement.

“I’m not going to say most contractors, but a lot of contractors do work all the time without any permits and get away with it because we can’t be everywhere at all time,” Forgey said. “So it’s just part of their business plan as they try and get away with it.”

In this case, however, Forgey said the project was too extensive for anyone involved to reasonably believe permits were unnecessary.

“It wasn’t an accident.,” he said.

Even so, Forgey cautioned against adopting policies that discourage investment in long-neglected neighborhoods.

“It’s going to help the neighborhood a little bit because it was a ruin before,” he said. “But we’re still struggling with getting to an even point where we can move up in value.”

He noted Albany faces different preservation challenges than many Georgia communities because portions of its historic districts continue to experience significant disinvestment, requiring commissioners to balance protecting historic character with encouraging redevelopment.

The issue resurfaced later in the meeting during consideration of another historic property. As commissioners reviewed proposed renovations to the historic Farkas House, Trice told the applicant’s architect the commission remained wary of absentee ownership following the earlier discussion.

“We’re just very sensitive to absentee owners,” Trice said. “I don’t know how much of this meeting you’ve listened to, but we just had another circumstance with an absentee owner that was not complying with local code…”

The architect, Brandi Morrison of Atlanta, responded that although the owner now lives in Gwinnett County, he regularly returns to Albany and is committed to restoring the property. Planning staff also told commissioners they had worked closely with the owner before any construction began and said he was “interested in doing the right thing.”

Under Albany’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, work performed without an approved Certificate of Appropriateness may be halted through a cease-and-desist order, while the city’s building code separately authorizes stop-work orders when construction proceeds without required permits or contrary to code requirements.

Although commissioners approved the Residence Avenue project, the discussion suggested future applicants who ignore the city’s preservation process may face increased scrutiny — and potentially tougher penalties if the commission pursues amendments to the ordinance.