The house that used to be home to Beverly Taylor’s business sits dormant on Main Street, as its historic home label delays its sale and renovation.
Commonly known as the Bennett-Pugh House or the Taylor’s building, 103 S. Main St. has been unoccupied since 2007. After Taylor’s husband and business partner passed away that year, their self-business, Taylor’s Frames & Things, was forced to close.
Taylor had tried unsuccessfully since 2005 to sell the building and the property on which it sits, which was assessed at $419,300 last year.
The house needs significant work to be brought up to code for use as a commercial or residential location, Blacksburg building official Cathy Cook said.
“There are structural issues,” Cook said, “but it can be fixed with a bit of money.”
In January of 2009, Taylor went before the town Historic Design Review board to request a demolition permit for the house as a condition of selling the property.
The board, however, was reluctant to grant the permit immediately.
John Bush, recently elected Blacksburg Town Council member, was one of the founding members of the Historic Design Review board in 1999 and has served on it continually since its creation.
Bush said that while the main function of the board is advisory only — meaning that most home owners do not have to adhere to board suggestions — the one area in which the board does have mandate control is demolition of what are known as “contributing structures,” those buildings that were 50 or more years old when the board was created in 1999.
When the board was created, a survey was conducted of all historic homes and buildings in the Blacksburg area in order to establish historic districts. Those homes that were 50 plus years old were classified as contributing; those less than 50 years old are known as non-contributing structures.
The contributing structures have been registered not only with the town, but also with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Bush said.
“We have buildings from every time period,” Bush said. “It’s a great, lively mix of buildings.”
The board wishes to help owners preserve and maintain their historic homes and properties. Bush said if homeowners wish to do small renovations, or change the interior of their houses, the board does not care. When homeowners want to perform major construction to the exterior of the building or build an addition, however, the board works with the owner in an advisory review process of the construction plans.
Bush said the only thing the board has “teeth,” or regulatory power, on is the demolition of buildings classified as contributing structures.
“If you own a contributing structure, we feel you really shouldn’t do that (demolish the building),” Bush said. “We prefer that you consider selling that to someone who can use it, not tear it down.”
So when Taylor brought her request for a demolition permit before the board last January, it did not grant it immediately. Instead, it asked her to leave the house on the market for a one-year grace period, in case a buyer could be found.
“The problem,” Bush said, “was that she bought it for more than it was worth, so they couldn’t sell it easily.”
Although Taylor had the house and surrounding property on the market since 2005, the board requires a one-year grace period from the time that the owner requests a demolition permit. Since she didn’t ask until January 2009, the house remained for sale.
Taylor appealed the board’s mandate of leaving the house on the open market for a year to the town council, but the council supported the original decision.
The year has expired, and Taylor can now move forward.
Taylor declined to comment on the specifics of the sale, or on the potential buyers Bush referenced. She also declined to comment on the status of her demolition permit.
Director of Planning and Building Anne McClung said that Taylor, however, has not yet applied for a demolition permit, although she is now eligible.
“It’s been on the open market for a year,” McClung said, “so she is eligible to apply.”
If Taylor chooses to apply for a demolition permit, McClung said that the permit would be granted to the “entity who can do the demolition,” in conjunction with Taylor. Tayor cannot apply for a permit without having a demolition company co-apply.
Bush said two potential buyers have come into the picture.
“There’s one developer who wants the property but he’s not willing to buy it unless there’s a demolition permit included,” Bush said. “But another gentleman came along who has purchased an option on the property who wants to renovate it.”
Bush said that the individual who has purchased an option of the property would have the right to either purchase the property first, or else refuse to buy it.
“I’m hoping he will make this venture work,” Bush said. “The great news is if that happens, what that shows is that the process works.”
The board is currently considering an amendment to its ordinance controlling homeowners’ demolition of historic contributing structures, town ordinance 1222. The amendment, yet to be voted upon, would also restrict the new building that could be constructed on the property after the historic building is torn down.
There has been controversy among property owners concerning the proposed amendment. It was originally supposed to be voted on in December, but because of protests from homeowners, the vote was pushed back. Talks and town meetings are ongoing; Bush said he hopes for action to be taken on the amendment by March or April.
“It would help with the appropriateness of construction in the historic district,” Bush said. “We’re trying to ensure that big mistakes are avoided.”
However, McClung said the other party interested in renovating instead of demolishing Taylor’s house “is about to close on it.”
“He is trying to go through with the sale,” McClung said.
McClung said she expects the property sale to be completed within about a month.