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.”
Another reason the initial November vote was pushed back, Anderson said, was an oversight by the town that failed to inform the homeowners of a public meeting about the amendment in December.
“We were going to have a vote and I found out that we had not mailed out letters or postcards to the affected community members,” Anderson said. “I thought it was not fair for people not to have known about this.”
Recently elected council member Krisha Chachra said that now that the issue has been resolved with Taylor’s particular building, she believes “we, as a council, don’t need to pass this (ordinance) quickly to protect one property.”
“I am confident of the plans to preserve the Taylor house,” Chachra said. “Now I think we can take a little more time and find a greater consensus from those (the ordinance) would directly affect.”
Chachra and others proposed changes that would involve more members of the community in the re-drafting of a new amendment to Ordinance 1222.
“I believe that maybe there’s a way we can find options we haven’t thought of yet,” Chachra said. “There is a way, I believe, to relatively and effectively address this issue. This is important.”
Chachra also said she wants to find a way to avoid discussions of demolition with property owners.
“I really do think one of the things we should consider is how we encourage people to upkeep their buildings,” she said.
Town council member Leslie Hager-Smith concurred with Chachra, mentioning the need for homeowners to be held accountable for the state of their buildings, so that buildings do not fall into a state of disrepair warranting demolition and presenting conflict between property owners and the Historic Design Review board in the first place.
“How come this town just lets buildings sit and rot?” Hager-Smith said. “Our community suffers when individuals decide to exercise their rights in this way.”
Rordam hopes for a productive resolution to the question of Ordinance 1546 to be found in the future, and plans to discuss revisions for the ordinance next week.
“From what I hear tonight,” he said, “we will go ahead and put this on the work session agenda for next week to continue this discussion.”