A historic review board will take another look at a structure not quite unconditionally loved by the church that owns it.
By JANET ZINK
Published June 13, 2003
TAMPA - The battle over the Galvin House continues.
Hillsborough County commissioners on Tuesday lobbed a decision on the future of the historic Brandon home back to the Historic Resources Review Board.
Saying that the HRRB may have acted improperly when it ruled in May not to give the home landmark status, commissioners asked the board to take another look at options for the structure.
The house, built more than 100 years ago at 201 Victoria St., sits on property that First Baptist Church of Brandon bought in July with the intention of turning it into a parking lot or buildings for its growing congregation.
In response to community concerns about losing a historically significant building, the church has talked with several people who are willing to move the house to another place. But Brandon preservationists want the home to stay where it has always been.
Before purchasing the land, representatives from the church and the previous property owner told the HRRB they did not want the home given landmark status. Doing so would kill their deal, they said.
Commissioner Kathy Castor, who made the motion that the issue be sent back to the review board, said she was troubled that county staffers told the HRRB that moving the house was the only option available since the property owners didn't want the house protected.
The county did, however, have another option.
Its historic preservation ordinance allows the HRRB to give landmark status over a property owner's objections. But since the ordinance was passed in 1992, the board has never done that, said Hillsborough County attorney Jim Porter.
The commission approved Castor's motion, with Jan Platt and Pat Frank voting in favor of it. Tom Scott and Jim Norman voting against it, and Ronda Storms, who is a member of the church, abstained. Commissioner Ken Hagan was absent.
At a commission meeting in May, Storms proposed letting the church and those interested in saving the house work together in the decision process, which removed the commission from the conflict.
But after hearing from constituents who wanted to save the home, Frank asked to have it included in the board's agenda for Tuesday. In addition to reviving the possibility of declaring the building a landmark, Frank said she wants to know if any of the HRRB members have a conflict of interest.
One member, Mark Johnson, does attend the church. But he did not participate in the board's May vote.
The HRRB's next regular meeting is scheduled for June 23, said Parviz Moosavi, a senior planner with the county who assists the review board.
Referring the matter back to the HRRB doesn't protect the house, Porter said. As property owner, the church has the right to demolish or relocate it.
Church representatives said they are still conferring with people who have offered to move the house.
"It's never been our intention to demolish the house. It's been to preserve it," said church administrator Myles Dowdy. But, he notes, "It's not going to be preserved on that location."
The Bayshore Co. has proposed moving the home to property it owns near Parsons Avenue and Vonderburg Drive, about 1.3 miles from the current location.
Jim Lewis, president of Bayshore, said church representatives have asked him how long it would take him to get the zoning changes he needs to move the house. Lewis said it could be done in as little as 45 days. It takes about two weeks to get a permit to move a structure.
If the board votes to give the home landmark status, it would still need final approval from the County Commission.
Once a structure is landmarked, the property owner needs permission from the HRRB to move, demolish or renovate the building, said assistant county attorney Margaret Courtney, who represents the HRRB.
Designating the house as a landmark could open the county to a lawsuit because the church relied on a board decision before entering into a business deal, Courtney said.
