Suika Rivett represented her application for demolition of the house at 9 Hillside at the April 18 Historic District Commission meeting, telling commissioners she did not know when she purchased the property the stack stone foundation was suspect. It has since failed causing the rear of the building to sag. Contractors told her renovation would cost more than the house would be worth. Therefore, she considered her best option was to demolish the structure and start over.
The house is a contributing structure, and guidelines state demolition should not occur unless the building official recommends demolition and if there is no reasonable expectation of a return on the investment to renovate it.
Building Inspector Bobby Ray’s report on the property stated the structure is in severe decline and the foundation has failed to the point the rear of the original building is no longer resting on the foundation. A rear addition is also not being supported by the foundation. In fact, “the addition seems to have been built with wooden supports,” which Ray deemed were inadequate to support a two-story addition.
Ray also noted the structure seems to be tilting backward and the exterior siding and possibly the exterior frame walls should be replaced as well as the windows and doors. The floor has rotted from water damage, and the building needs new roofing material.
Nevertheless, Ray stated, “Due to the extent of the damage (mainly foundation), I am not able to determine costs of repairs. I am making a recommendation that a structural inspection be initiated by a licensed structural engineer and a report be submitted along with the engineer’s opinion for the possible demolition. I ask that this be done prior to the approval or disapproval by the Historic District Commission.”
Two nearby neighbors stated they understood Rivett’s predicament, but spoke up against demolition and hoped the property could be renovated.
Rivett said if the foundation could not be fixed, there was nothing she could do for the interior. Commissioner Dee Bright was dismayed the structure had been allowed to deteriorate this far, and commissioner Mark Ingram noted this is the kind of property the commission is supposed to protect. Commissioner Wendi Super, however, commented the commission should be empathetic to the circumstance.
Commissioner John Nuckolls said he wanted to know the cost of renovation, but acknowledged it was inappropriate to force someone to pay three times the value of a property to get it repaired.
Bright also pointed out guidelines say economic hardship does not apply to someone who neglected the property.
In the end, commissioners voted to go along with Ray’s recommendation and defer a decision until the property is inspected by a licensed structural engineer.
Commissioners approved these two applications:
- 203 Spring – add rear deck
- 25 Prospect – replace upper front and rear porch railings.
Chair Steve Holifield presented Administrative Approvals, applications for repair and work involving no changes in materials but which include changes in roofing and paint colors:
- 75 Spring – re-roof
- 10 Alamo – reroof
- 8 Summit – repaint
- 94 Wall – repaint
- 22 Ridgeway – repaint
- 63 N. Main – repaint metal roof new color
- 63 Spring – re-roof
- 13 Eureka – re-roof; extend paving COA six months
- 25 Prospect – repaint
- 23 Hillside – replace rotten siding, repaint
Next meeting will be Wednesday, May 2, at 6 p.m.