City council votes to send Dobbs home demolition request back to HRB
RaShae Jennings, the city’s preservation coordinator, holds a photo of the East Stephen Foster streetscape if the Dobbs house is demolished as requested by Newcomb Oil Co. Mayor John Royalty, right, holds a photo of the existing streetscape.
By JIM BROOKS
Nelson County Gazette / WBRT Radio
Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2016, 8 a.m. — The Bardstown City Council voted Tuesday night to have the Historic Review Board reconsider Newcomb Oil Co.’s application to demolish the home next to their Five Star Food Mart at Second and East Stephen Foster.
At a special public hearing Tuesday night, the council reviewed the HRB’s denial of Newcomb’s application to tear down the home so it can build a new and modern food mart to replace the existing store. To build the new Five Star, the company said it needs the lot now occupied by the home at 118 E. Stephen Foster. Newcomb has owned the home since 1998.
The HRB denied Newcomb’s application at a public hearing in September based largely on the lack of data from Newcomb to support the company’s claim that not demolishing the home would create an economic hardship.
At Tuesday’s hearing, the company provided additional information regarding the cost to rehabilitate the property and its potential as a rental property — information the company had not provided the HRB at its hearing in September.
Attorney Jim Willett represented the company at Tuesday’s hearing, and told the council the home in question is not unique in the community. The information provided Tuesday proved the company will not get a reasonable return on its investment in the property. Removing the home will allow for the company to make a significant investment in downtown.
RaShae Jennings, the city’s preservation director, said the Dobbs home is a contributing structure in the historic district, and as such, must be protected. The house represents the story of the evolution of Bardstown’s downtown over time, and is listed as a contributing structure in the city’s National Register of Historic Places downtown district, she said.
Willett questioned the home’s status on the national register, and asked Jennings if the home’s status as a contributing property meant it was of lesser historical importance than older historic buildings. A property cannot be listed on the National Register of Historic Places without the property owner’s approval, he said.
But Jennings said the home’s status on the register is just as valid and just as important as if the status has been applied for individually. The Bardstown City Council gave its approval in August 2010, for an application to place the city’s entire historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, the home is just as important as older historic buildings, including the Talbott Tavern and others nearby.
“You’re not seriously equating this house with the history of the Talbott Tavern are you?” Willett asked.
“I am,” Jennings said. The evaluation of the historic district properties was the same for the district as it is for individual properties, she explained. Had the home not been a contributing structure historically, the register would have declared it as a non-contributing structure. There’s no difference between the individual designation and that as the group in regard to the National Register, she said.
Jennings entered into the record letters from state preservation officials asking the council to uphold the HRB’s denial of Newcomb Oil’s request to demolish the Dobbs House.
HRB chairman Pen Bogert noted that even with the new information provided by Newcomb Oil Tuesday, the company still failed to include data proving economic hardship.
“What’s missing is bona fide intent [Newcomb Oil] tried to find a use, a buyer or person to lease the property,” he said.
“If you overrule this denial by the HRB, you take a huge step backwards and set a dangerous precedent to allow demolition based on limited evidence of a usable historic building in order to allow commercial expansion.”
In light of new information brought to light during the public hearing before the council, Councilman Fred Hagan suggested the matter go back to the Historic Review Board for its review.
“We’re circumventing the progress if we review the information the HRB did not have and make a decision,” Hagan said.
Hagan pointed to the HRB as the city’s experts who are knowledgeable and trained in preservation, and its members should have an opportunity to review the new information.
The council voted unanimously to send the matter back to the HRB. The HRB must act within 45 days on the matter or the council will be force to make a final decision on the matter.
-30-
