Laserfiche WebLink
~ 62 <br /> <br />was closed. <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Ms. Richards, the ordinance entitled "AN <br />ORDINANCE TO QUITCLAIM NATURAL GAS LINES LOCATED IN THE STILL <br />MEADOW SUBDIVISION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO THE VIRGINIA <br />DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION" was offered and carried over to the next <br />meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />APPEAL: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION RE: DEMOLITION <br />OF 101 E. MAIN STREET <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said that the appellant, representative from the Board of Architectural <br />Review (BAR), and aggrieved parties will be allowed to speak. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Little, an attorney representing Gaylon Beights, receiver of the property, <br />said that partial demolition of 101 E. Main Street is being sought, with the Main Street <br />and l~t Street facades to be preserved. Mr. Little said that City staff recommended <br />approval of this request, but it was denied by the BAR. Mr. Little explained that the prior <br />certificate of Appropriateness expired because no building permit was issued within a <br />year. Mr. Little said that staff recommended approval of the request because they felt <br />partial demolition with preservation of the south and east facades wouldl not have an <br />adverse impact on the design control district and will preserve the significant exterior <br />features of the building. <br /> <br /> Ms. Joan Fenton, Chair of the BAR, said that the BAR was originally never <br />presented with the partial demolition proposal. Ms. Fenton said that when the applicant <br />came to the BAR with its most recent request, the BAR was told they should honor the <br />agreement Council had made unless there was a major change. Ms. Fenton said the BAR <br />did that and saw no change. Ms. Fenton noted that there is no proposed project for the lot <br />and the rear portion of the building is visible from Market Street. She added that there is <br />also no known owner of the property. Ms. Fenton said that if a building is put on the lot <br />it will block the rear view and then it could be demolished. Ms. Fenton said she <br />understands that the Council is to consult with the BAR on appeals. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards asked for a verification of Ms. Fenton's interpretation regarding the <br />ability to demolish the rear of the building if it is no longer visible, and Mr. Brown said <br />that interpretation is correcL <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked for a clarification on whether interior demolition would be allowed, <br />and Mr. Brown said the BAR cannot consider interiors of buildings. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Brown said that the invitation to <br />the BAR to participate in the appeal before Council constitutes consultation with them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that in theory any appeal is considered de novo. Regarding <br />changed circumstances, Mr. Toscano said there is no standard to having to prove change. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said that the BAR is subordinate to Council, and their action followed <br />what Council had done. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said that in theory someone could construct a new wall to block the <br />view ofthe rear of the building, and it could then be demolished, and Mr. Brown said that <br />is correct. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano said if the property is redeveloped it does not make much difference <br />what Council does. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox said that the BAR, s decision gives the owner of the building latitude to do <br />any number of things. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he has no philosophical problem maintaining the fagade of the <br />building unless there is some economic or structural reason to take it down, which there <br /> <br /> <br />