District: Uptown - Partial Control
Owner: Taryn M Wallace-Hill
HDLC Staff: Jesse Stephenson
Rating: Contributing
Applicant: Michael Moore
Permit #: 25-16818-HDLC
Description: Retention of the demolition to grade of a Contributing rated, one-story, single-family residential building without a Certificate of Appropriateness and in deviation of the Commission and City Council motions.
Retention Items:
Demolition: Deny with a Tier 3 fine.
Fine Range: $16,750-$25,000
Staff Recommendations:
On June 6, 2025 an application was filed for the demolition to grade of 4854 Camp Street. The application was heard on July 9, 2025 by the HDLC Commission and at that time the Commission voted to deny the request for demolition. Mr. Moore (the applicant) appealed the Commission denial to the New Orleans City Council. The application was heard on August 21, 2025 and at that time the City Council voted to uphold the denial of the request for demolition. The property owner paid a visit to HDLC staff inquiring about the likelihood of incarceration should he decide to demolish the building anyway. Director Block responded that incarceration was unlikely but strongly advised him that he should not go that route and that if he did he would be heavily fined. On August 23, 2025 an inspection was conducted by HDLC Staff after a concerned citizen called. The building had been demolished to grade and the site was clear. HDLC alerted the Dept of Safety and Permits of the illegal demolition and they, too, have flagged the property in the permitting system. The Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors was also notified about this premeditated unpermitted demolition.
HDLC’s legal counsel was consulted on what could be the legal consequences of such an action. His response included “While an application for retention seems to logically indicate that someone has constructed something that they wish to retain, Code Section 84-52 mandates that a person who demolishes a structure without a CofA also apply for retention. The Code, however, does not provide for the consequences of an application denial. The HDLC guidelines state that if the Commission denies the retention application, the property owner may be required to return the property to the previous condition. While this may be unfeasible when a historic structure is demolished, I see nothing preventing the Commission from ordering that any future CofA only be issued if a structure is built which resembles the previous structure as much as possible.
This course of action is a bit more than just recommending that DSP use a restrictive footprint for any new construction, because the applicant cannot ask for DSP to issue a permit without first obtaining the Commission’s consent. It also makes the denial of an application for retention more than just performative.”
Code Section 84-83 says that a person who demolishes a structure within a historic district without a CofA may be fined a single fine of not more than the greater of $25,000 or 15% of the structure’s assessed value. While that section caps the amount of the fine, it does not, make that fine an exclusive remedy. Code Section 84-23(d) grants the HDLC’s director the right to enforce any violation of Chapter 84, Article II by administrative adjudication, or by civil action for injunctive relief, or to implement any other appropriate remedy brought on in the name of the city. Part C of that section sanctions six-month imprisonment for violations of any provisions of Chapter 84, Article II.
I would argue that in addition to the Commission imposing a fine under Code Section 84-83, the HDLC may bring a case seeking six-month imprisonment for Mr. Moore. Regardless of whether a judge grants that, it will put Mr. Moore on notice that he can go to jail for these sorts of violations. Furthermore, it will make it more likely that a court will sentence Mr. Moore to prison for future violations.
Staff recommends denial of the demolition to grade with a Tier 3 fine.
Case History:
09.23.25 - Inspection conducted of demolition to grade without a Certificate of Appropriateness or Building Permit.
08.21.25 - New Orleans City Council upholds HDLC Commission decision.
07.09.25 - HDLC Commission denies demolition to grade.
06.06.25 - Application submitted for demolition to grade.
HDLC Guidelines:
Section 12, Pages 23-24 of the Guidelines for New Construction, Additions and Demolition states that the demolition of all or portions of historic resources within a local Historic District or Landmark site are considered drastic actions, since they alter the character of the area. Once historic resources or buildings that contribute to the heritage of the community are destroyed, it is generally impossible to reproduce their design, texture, materials, details and their special character and interest in the neighborhood. When reviewing demolition applications at properties located within a Historic District or at a Landmark site, the HDLC uses the following criteria in its evaluations:
The historic or architectural significance of the building or structure as designated by its “rating”: Contributing
The importance of the building or structure to the tout ensemble of the area: FEMA survey research estimates that 4854 Camp was constructed from 1925-1935 but does not appear on the Sanborn map until 1951. The single shotgun building sits perched further back from it's neighboring buildings. Sanborn research indicates that a single shotgun has resided on this parcel as far back as 1896. It does not appear that the siting of the current is congruent with the 1896 siting but the massing and interior finishes are indicative of a building of the late 19th century.
The alternatives to demolition that have been explored by the applicant: New Construction
The difficulty or impossibility of reproducing such a building or structure because of its design, texture, material or detail: It would not be cost prohibitive to recreate a building of this size or massing but replication of the remaining interior finishes and fenestration pattern would be highly unlikely.
The condition of the building or structure: An exterior and interior inspection was conducted on June 20, 2025. The building appeared to be in good structural condition. The stick framed building sits atop masonry piers with an asphalt shingle roof. Vegetation was present on part of the roof and chimney.
Staff Recommendations:
The building is clad in vinyl siding presumably encapsulating wood weatherboards. The primary elevation retains little of it's architectural elements while the sides retain the typical shotgun fenestration pattern with wood trim and vinyl windows. The building was plumb and level and did not have outward signs of wood destroying insect. Gutters and downspouts were present at the building. In some locations the gutters would need to be removed to install proper flashing. The masonry piers and subfloor were intact and bearing the load of the building.
The interior of the building is currently not occupied. The interior layout is truly a single shotgun layout as evidenced by it's concentric doorways. The wood floors in the main portion of the building appear to be original and are wider than more narrow plank flooring see in Craftsman style home. The fire place surrounds and mantels that are intact also allude to the building being older. There were no visible signs of wood destroying insects however there were signs of water intrusion. The water intrusion is most likely caused by the flashing condition noted above. The rear shed addition of the building houses the kitchen and bathroom and is in very poor condition.
Staff believes this is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation due to the relatively intact nature of the interior and the minimal intervention required to restore the front elevation. Fore the aforementioned reasons Staff recommends denial.
Recommendation: Denial
1951