.jpg)
The Lexington Architecture Review Board voted 4-1 last Thursday to approve an application by Chy Clark for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the historic Sheridan House located at 201 Randolph St. Several members of the board expressed regret about the situation, but ultimately felt that the decision was in the best interest of the city.
Board member Julie Goyette, who made the motion to approve the certificate, said that the motion was “difficult” to make, but that members of the board “have to think of the city, and I feel like the residents and the city deserve better.
“Ideally, the building would be restored and be beautiful page B5 and would be in Lexington for many years to come,” she added. “But we’re not at ‘ideally,’ we’re at reality.”
“It’s disappointing that no effort was ever made to mothball the structure or protect it further against the elements,” said Board Chair Caroline Alexander. “If you were truly going to take ownership of it, knowing what you purchased as a second or third owner, it can’t be a condition of sale, but it should have been an understanding. It’s odd to sit on it this many years, but if you let it go long enough, if it gets bad enough, you get what you want.”
Alexander cast the lone dissenting vote, expressing concerns about setting a precedent by which future purchasers of land with historic buildings in Lexington that are in poor condition could potentially demolish them instead of working to fix and restore them.
City planner Arne Glaeser noted that the ARB’s decisions are largely on a case-bycase basis, and while they should remain fairly consistent, approving the demolition would not necessarily set a precedent that others could take advantage of in the future.
Board member Ian Small, who provided the second to the motion, said he agreed with Alexander’s concerns, but noted that the majority of the deterioration to the building was the result of a “catastrophic event,” specifically a fire in February of 2016 that destroyed part of the roof. Russ Orrison, who owned the building at the time, applied for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the building that fall, but the application was denied by the ARB. The house has changed owners twice since then, with no improvements to the structure.
“I think it is very frustrating that nothing has been done in seven years for this [building] and that is tragic, and unfortunately, there’s nothing that I know of that mandates that [the owners] had to do something to preserve it,” Small said. “I do think that it is an eyesore and the residents of Diamond Hill deserve better. I think it’s deteriorating property values rather than supplementing them or helping them at this point, and there probably is a public safety [concern]. I wouldn’t doubt that there’s vermin there. I think it’s very, very unfortunate, but I would agree that the best option here is to demolish it at this point.”
Following the fire, Black Dog Salvage – a Roanoke-based salvage company – removed a number of historic items from the house, including one of an exterior Victorian Oak door and jamb, which are listed for sale on its website for $4,799.99. The salvaging was featured in an episode of the seventh season of the company’s reality show “Salvage Dawgs.”
Though she did not attend the meeting in person, Clark submitted a letter to the ARB in which she explained that her family “has been rehabilitating homes in Lexington since the late of 1980s, including many in the Diamond Hill area.”
“We have always tried to fix them and have been adding value to the neighborhood for decades,” she wrote. “In all that time, we have never torn one home down. Unfortunately, this home is way beyond repair and is just not worth the money that is needed to turn it back into a single family home.”
Several residents of the Diamond Hill area spoke to the board during a public hearing on the application, all of whom urged the ARB to take action to do something about the condition of the house.
“I think we have been patient and patience has run out,” said Beatrice Johnson, who lives on Massie Street, a couple of blocks down from the Sheridan House. “You’ve got good intent – that you want to preserve and keep the history – but the action isn’t there. We need action to go along with your intent.”
Johnson acknowledged the history of the house, but noted that the names of figures associated with it – namely John Sheridan, a prominent local businessman in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and William McDowall, the architect who designed and built the house – are deceased, arguing that the neighbors living in the area deserve to be considered as well.
“We appreciate what they did, but now we need some appreciation of having to live with this and looking at this and the danger it brings to us and our children as well,” she said.
“It’s not fair to us, as citizens, to have to look at this every day,” added Marquita Dunn, who also lives on Massie Street. “It may have been a historical property at one time, but it’s been sitting there for seven and a half years in the open. Black Dog Salvage came out and took anything of value, so what’s left? An eyesore.”
- Later that evening, Glaeser updated the Lexington City Council on the ARB’s decision and answered some questions from Council regarding the next steps of the process. The next step of the process, he said, is for Clark to apply for a demolition permit, which she will need to do in the next 30 days before proceeding with the demolition.
“We’ll follow up with them in short order to lay out expectations because the letter from the building official obtained what it was intended to do, and now the next step is how dowe make sure the demolition is achieved in a reasonable time frame,” he said.
He also noted that part of the process for demolishing a building was completing an environmental report to identify any potential hazardous material in the building – such as asbestos – and removing it safely before tearing down the building. As a result of that, he said, “it’s possible that the public might not see much being done immediately.”
Glaeser noted to both Council and the ARB that Clark had not provided a plan for what she intends to do with the property once the house is removed.
