Town Council center
Owners of historic homes, anxious for a resolution, will have to wait longer in a yearlong conflict over their property rights.
The Blacksburg Town Council tabled Ordinance 1546 Tuesday night, which would have provided stronger guidelines on whether homeowners wishing to demolish a historic structure had to seek approval from the town.
The ordinance was “postponed indefinitely,” according to Mayor Ron Rordam, because of a “tremendous amount of input” from citizens that has caused the council to re-think holding a vote.
The ordinance has been a topic of discussion for the past year.
Kay Moody, the recently-appointed chairwoman of the Blacksburg Historic Design Review board, said during the council’s meeting Tuesday the controversy has been “very difficult” to endure.
Homeowners have at times clashed with the board. Some feel that an amendment restricting demolition of historic structures would impose on homeowners’ rights. Others said that it would protect the integrity of the historic district.
One homeowner who has been vocal throughout the process has been Tom Roberts, who spoke Tuesday night about his efforts to educate his fellow property owners about the ordinance.
“I don’t doubt the hard work and dedication of the committee,” he said, “but listen to the people who have sent e-mail, called and had individual experiences.”
Roberts, however, merely said he was attempting to ensure that homeowners were as informed as possible about a process that could potentially affect their rights as property owners.
Moody, who has been a member of the board since 2000, directly criticized Roberts during her remarks as having led “an attack on our board.”
He said he wanted to have conversation between homeowners and the Design Review Board to ensure that rules governing the board’s regulatory powers were clearly defined.
“It was an impression of a lot of property owners that Ordinance 1222, the existing ordinance, was being posed as if it were mandatory already, although it was still called advisory,” Roberts said.
The new ordinance was originally introduced in 2009 when an issue with a Blacksburg home owner brought to light the loophole in the original Ordinance 1222, which outlines the basis of the historic district.
When homeowner Beverly Taylor requested a demolition permit for her building at 103 S. Main St., across from Tech Bookstore, the Blacksburg Historic Design Review board cited a clause that forced her to endure a one-year waiting periodbefore being eligible to apply for the demolition permit.
The building, having fallen into disrepair in 2005 when the Taylor’s Frames & Things business closed, needs a great deal of work to be habitable again.
Taylor initially wanted to sell the building to a developer who wanted to use the land. However, the house was protected as a contributing structure under Ordinance 1222, meaning that it was more than 50 years old at the time the Historic Design Review board was created in 1999.
Although Taylor has since found resolution in her particular situation — the sale on the house will be closed on later this month to a local contractor who wishes to renovate it into a restaurant — the town of Blacksburg, through monitoring the situation, became keenly aware that there was a loophole in Ordinance 1222.
At the moment, the Historic Design Review board only has advisory capacity, while Ordinance 1546 would give the board regulatory powers.
Members of the Blacksburg Town Council voiced their concerns Tuesday about allowing the ordinance to pass as an amendment. Many noted both positive and negative aspects of the amendment and suggested that it be re-written.
Council member Susan Anderson said she had been “concerned” during last November’s election season about the future of Ordinance 1546.
It was originally supposed to be put to a vote in November; but was pushed to December to give homeowners more time to consider its contents. At that time, the vote was again pushed back to last night’s agenda.
“We thought it would be fairest to delay so people could focus,” Anderson said. “It is precisely the kind of ordinance that people are either very for or very against.”
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 10 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 6 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Great article. Well written, well researched. A good source of information on a topic which would not have otherwise been made available to the public.
Reply to this Top
I agree that the article is very good. It did leave out one important detail, mainly because the Town is reluctant to discuss it. There is a second historic district, only one block away from the one that faces the imposition of mandatory controls. That second district is exempt from any oversight by the Historic or Design Review Board what so ever. There is no equality under the law in historic Blacksburg!
Reply to this Top
Is the neighborhood Tom mentions suffering from property neglect? No, it is not. Several, not one, not two, but several of our downtown property owners are neglecting their properties, waiting for a buyer so they can demolish. Don't we want replacement buildings to maintain the integrity of the town? The majority of people I have spoken to do. That is what this ordinance is to me, not an effort to force elaborate detail and expensive extra's on a building, but a means to make recommendations as to how the proposed new structures can blend into the fabric of our town, loosely paraphrasing a comment from our mayor.
One other point, several people who are fortunate to own properties in our commercial downtown but live out of the town limits live in neighborhoods with restrictions. That seems strange to me, you build a house in a neighborhood with protective restrictions but instead of working with the town to help formulate similar protection for your commercial properties, you cite your individual property rights.
Top
A. Your comment about what I wrote does not address the basic question of equality under the law. Nor do you take into account the fact that the historic neighborhood which is exempt from regulation is the one in town which has the greatest concentration of Town Council and Historic or Design Review Board members living in it.
B. The reason given for this increase in arbitrary powers being granted to a non elective board is to protect a historic neighborhood from buildings which are inconsistent with their existing fabric. Don't both historic neighborhoods deserve such protection?
Top
Towns staff is now labeling the residential neighborhoods included in the historic overlay district as being eclectic.
Greater empowerment of the HDRB is supposedly to insure that no replacement buildings are placed in those eclectic neighborhoods that are inconsistent with what is already there. Humm
My thesaurus gives the following synonyms for eclectic: assorted, diverse, free and miscellaneous.
Can someone please tell me how any proposed building could possibly be inconsistent with assorted, diverse, free and/or miscellaneous?
Reply to this Top
Community Since,opinion ride doctor image site withdraw artist criticism finally after significant catch among save imagine reader tea combination community reply insist couple state substantial head selection coffee flow still learn experiment sum people exercise organization separate roll music hair science end why inside plan increase money experiment until important roll elderly basic look outcome approach process train settlement why person movement close off some far approach begin peace sex life paper concentrate sometimes they grow court record slightly intention facility contain green male
Reply to this Top