FIVE CHIMNEYS HOUSE Downtown Blacksburg

Plaques on the front porch of the Five Chimneys Building in downtown Blacksburg identify the site as a historic structure.

ALEXANDER BLACK HOUSE Downtown Blacksburg

TOM RICHARDSON'S HOME Wharton Street

MATT GENTRY The Roanoke Times

Last month, a "for sale" sign outside the old Taylor's Frames & Things at 103 S. Main St. indicated that it's now under contract.

BENNETT-PUGH HOUSE 103 S. Main St.

BLACKSBURG -- Tom Richardson has owned the two-story home on Wharton Street for more than 30 years.

Richardson has worked to maintain the place and pay the taxes on the property, but homes, like people, have a life span, he said.

"I've earned the right to say what should become of it" if the house has outlived its life span.

Richardson's home, though, has a special distinction. It's a contributing structure in the town's historic district, which means it reflects a unique architectural, historical or cultural feature of the town and is at least 50 years old, according to the town's zoning ordinance.

The town board charged with preserving the integrity of the district wants to make sure that whatever replaces historic structures fits in with and complements the character of the district.

Therein lies one of the chief arguments about a proposed ordinance that focuses on redevelopment of a historic property that has been demolished or relocated and would give the town's Historic or Design Review Board some mandatory say in that process.

But some property owners argue that it's their right to decide a site's future, not the review board's.

As written, the proposed ordinance would address a loophole in the town code that came to light last year regarding a demolition permit request for the old Taylor's Frames & Things building.

Review board members and town officials say the goal with the ordinance is to help protect the overall character of the district.

The ordinance would make the review board's recommendations mandatory, instead of advisory, when it comes to redevelopment plans for a site where a contributing historic structure has been demolished or relocated.

Under the current code, the board may deny demolition or relocation of contributing structures for up to a year. All of its other recommendations are advisory, however.

The town council first considered the new ordinance late last year but delayed action in December after some property owners voiced opposition and some council members said they wanted to tweak it.

Last month, a public meeting held about the ordinance drew more than 60 people, most of them property owners in the historic district. Some said they believed the ordinance would make the redevelopment process too cumbersome and could discourage new development in the district.

Now council members are talking about tabling the ordinance and drafting another. They are expected to discuss the issue again at Tuesday's council meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Blacksburg Municipal Building, 300 S. Main St.

About the process

The seven-member review board was established in 1999, which is also when the town council established the historic overlay district. The board was charged with protecting and preserving the historic sites.

There are approximately 200 landowners in the historic overlay district and of those approximately 113 own contributing properties, town officials said.

The board's work includes reviewing requests for relocation and demolition of structures, renovation work and new construction in the district.

Currently, the only mandatory power of the board is its decision regarding the demolition of a contributing structure. That decision can then be appealed to town council, said Anne McClung, Blacksburg's planning and building director.

If a decision is upheld by the council, an applicant may either reapply after putting the parcel up for sale, usually for one year, or take the matter to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, McClung said.

Today those who want to demolish a building in town talk with town staff to ask for a permit and, if the property is in the historic district, they are then referred to the review board.

The applicant then discusses the project with board members, who ask why the person wants to tear down the structure and what will go in its place, said Councilman John Bush, who is a member of the review board and is its former chairman.

"Most of the time, we're not going to want to tear down a contributing structure," he said.

However, in the event demolition is approved, the proposed ordinance would make the board's recommendation mandatory for new construction on that site.

But the applicant can still appeal that decision to the council, said Kay Moody, chairwoman of the review board.

Bush said the idea behind the proposed ordinance is that it allows for a "better informed discussion" about the future of a property, while also protecting the existing properties in the district to make sure that "when new construction happens that it makes sense and fits into the fabric of the district."

But some property owners argue that they don't want their hands tied when it comes to the future of their property, especially by a board that is not elected, but is appointed by the council.

As an advisory board, "they should not have the say-so on a property owner's taste," said John Brown, who is part-owner of some contributing structures in the district.

Brown said he respects the people who volunteer their time to serve on the review board, "But on the same hand, in this case, I don't want them to have any major power over what we can do with our property."

Others wonder if the proposed ordinance might impede development in the district if the process proves too cumbersome for an applicant or could discourage innovation with projects.

Michael Hedgepeth, an architect who is working on a renovation for a building in the historic district, said, "I think the ordinance goes so far that it's not only going to chase away projects that might be deemed inappropriate for downtown Blacksburg, but I also think it's going to take away any potential good projects."

Going forward

Bush, an architect who has served on the review board since 1999, said in that time there have only been a few instances when an applicant wanted to demolish or relocate a historic structure.

In one case, a home was relocated and in another the property owner was given the OK -- and was armed with a redevelopment plan -- to demolish a home in poor condition but has yet to demolish the structure, he said.

And then there was the case with the old Taylor's Frames & Things building.

Beverly Taylor pleaded unsuccessfully with town council last January to let her demolish the building. Taylor said then she feared keeping the property could bankrupt her.

The council upheld the review board's decision to deny a demolition permit for the historic structure, and officials said then that the ruling against demolition was to avoid setting a precedent of destroying historic buildings that fall into disrepair.

If the council had overruled the review board's decision, the code allows little regulation of what could replace it.

Rordam and the council then asked that new rules be drafted.

As for the Taylor property, Taylor has been trying to sell it. Last month, a "for sale" sign outside the house at 103 S. Main St., indicated that it's now under contract. But to close the deal, Taylor wrote in an e-mail last month that she needs a demolition permit from the town. She declined then to discuss specifics of the possible sale.

Town officials said last week that no demolition permit has been requested for the property.

Now, what to do with the proposed ordinance?

That's a question the council is expected to take up Tuesday. Last week, some members indicated they supported tabling the ordinance, drafting another and trying to incorporate some of the suggestions they have heard from property owners.

"Maybe we could build off of that and create an ordinance that meets everyone's needs," Councilman Don Langrehr said.