MH Housing Authority conducts public meeting

Aug. 22—mount hope — A public meeting about a controversial retaining wall replacement in the Mount Hope Historic District was held Wednesday.

The meeting, scheduled by the Mount Hope Housing Authority, was held in the Mount Hope Housing Authority Community Room at Midtown Terrace.

At press time, no meeting results were available, but state and federal officials discussed the topic last week.

"The review process requires an opportunity for the public to comment," Susan Pierce, West Virginia deputy state historic preservation officer with the West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History, said in an Aug. 17 email. "We (State Historic Preservation Office) have been requested to attend a public meeting about the wall replacement project ..."

The retaining wall replacement at Stadium Terrace is part of a nearly $1 million project utilizing federal Capital Fund money undertaken by the Mount Hope Housing Authority earlier this summer.

The retaining walls for the 1939 Stadium Terrace housing project were built of ashlar stone, according to the 2007 nomination for the Mount Hope Historic District into the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Register of Historic Places.

Some local residents and a historic preservation specialist opposed the retaining wall replacement process. They noted the original stone wall was included in the National Register of Historic Places designation and that input from the public and preservation officials should have been allowed before the project started.

"Our office was contacted earlier this summer by members of the public regarding the replacement of the stone retaining walls," Pierce said last week. "We were not contacted by the City of Mt. Hope, Mount Hope Housing Authority, or HUD before the beginning of this project.

"We immediately contacted the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in early July to ask if the project was federally assisted and to state that the walls were included as contributing resources in the Mount Hope National Register Historic District. HUD staff confirmed that federal funding is used by the Mount Hope Housing Authority. In general, when a federally-funded or permitted undertaking occurs, federal regulations, 36 CFR 800, require consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and that the lead federal agency, or its delegated representative, must consider impacts to historic resources."

Pierce said there has been recent dialogue between Mount Hope and MHHA representatives, HUD and SHPO about the matter. "We held a phone conference with representatives of HUD, the Mount Hope Housing Authority, and the City of Mount Hope on Tuesday, Aug. 15," she said. "We discussed compliance with the review process and how to remediate this situation."

A HUD representative said last week the agency is still reviewing the retaining wall project.

Stormy Parsons, the housing authority executive director, said replacement of the retaining wall continues. "The fence is currently being secured to the top of the wall, the second set of stairs needs to be poured, a sidewalk needs poured and the stone still needs to be stained," she said. "And, of course, the parking lot will need to be paved and striped."

"HUD has agreed to provide additional training to local officials that are responsible for the 'Section 106' review process," Pierce added. "Our office has volunteered to assist in these educational efforts.

"We are happy to explain the review process to any local agency before beginning a project assisted by federal funding."

David Sibray, a Preservation Alliance of West Virginia board member representing southern West Virginia, said Wednesday's meeting was to be held in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires, via Section 106, that federal agencies take into account any adverse effects a project may have on historic properties.

In July, a HUD spokesperson said via email, "The City of Mount Hope's attorney conducted an analysis and provided an opinion to the PHA, which noted that the retaining wall is within the historic district; however, it is not identified as a historic object in the 1999 historic research survey or as a historic structure in the historic preservation section of the 2013 comprehensive plan. Only designated historic properties are protected by a preservation ordinance.

"Section 106 of NHPA applies when a federal project has the potential to impact a historic property. The City notes the wall is not designated as a historic property; thus, Section 106 would not apply."

Email: skeenan

@register-herald.com;

follow on Facebook