Another Historic Fairhope Home Demolished

Posted by Publisher on

Fairhope, Alabama 

 

Before demolition.

 

After demolition.

 

CITY'S BAYFRONT HISTORIC DISTRICT

A familiar old home at 114 N. Bayview St. that was constructed in 1931 has been demolished.

The property is currently owned by Robert Comstock of Barboursville, Virginia and zoned R-2, according to public records. 

The city's Historic Preservation Committee was formed 10 years ago to develop ways to help preserve historic properties, but city leaders have failed to adopt any of their recommendations so far.

Current members are:  Jill Godard (Chairman), Gary Gover, Jim Huggins, Mara Hunter , Cooper Norman, Skip Jones, Andrew Ousley. They meet monthly at the Museum of History. 

 


Bayfront historic district.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Why in the world would somebody not appreciate this home? There are interior pictures online where it was last sold in 2004 and the interior was not decayed or anything. Things like this are a good reason for historic preservation regulations and I'm all in favor of freedom for homeowners but this is a travesty to do this and never be able to get it back. Even if there were structural issues or termite damage it would have been worth it to repair and restore. Maybe there is more to this story.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Anonymous said…
If I'm reading the public records of the sale correctly, this property was sold in 2019 for $625,000 and the council granted some sort of variance for it in March of this year. Fairhope has long been ruined by this sort of thing. Shouldn't be surprised.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Unknown said…
Felix Bean

Perhaps the commission should be disbanded if the city doesn't take their recommendations. I suppose we can point the finger directly to the City Council.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Janus said…
"Things like this are a good reason for historic preservation regulations and I'm all in favor of freedom for homeowners"

I, too, am for and against it. Let us proceed and not proceed accordingly.
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Unknown said…
Are these people long term residents or new comers looking to help each other take 0very these properties
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
Another ugly Mcmansion on the way.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
Some citys have historical villages for old homes.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
Old does not always equal historic.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
No big deal. The big deals are when they replace a single family within multifamily, non owner occupied..
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
Publisher, was this previously R-1 and now R-2? Would that mean that more than one dwelling can now be built on the property?
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Publisher said…
All of the lots in that neighborhood are R-2, according to the zoning map (medium density single family).
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
To their credit, I believe the City Council realizes that the majority of the 20K residents of Fairhope don't care about historic preservation when it involves telling someone what they can and can't do with their legally purchased property. As long as the property owner follows the city building codes that are on the books then they should be able to do as they please. The backlash from the general public would be great if the City Council began dictating what home owners can do with their property. Fortunately, we have a very practical City Council.

From the internet:

"Just because a home is old does not mean it is registered or qualified to be a historic home. Age alone isn’t enough to classify a home as historic. To be accepted as a historic property, the home needs to be at least 50 years old (although there are some exceptions) and meet one of four pieces of criteria:

Be connected to significant, historical events
Be connected to the lives of significant individuals
Be considered an embodiment of a particular master or historic style
Has provided or is likely to provide important historical information"



Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymous said…
Yet in other areas the split of two lots built as one is not allowed by planning and zoning.The city is only for developers and not the common home owner.The under world and under table deals have been an issue for years in this town.Yet is is well know that $$$$$ is the condition of this single tax plantation rather than a community.I do hope the current investigations play out.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
Anonymus said…
It’s America. Land of the free!
Saturday, December 19, 2020
Anonymous said…
People of Fairhope need to decide what they want their community to be. If they like how peaceful and quaint it is, the old time feel of the bay, then the community needs to get behind preservation. If they want Fairhope to look like Clearwater with a bunch of high-rises, then continue on the current path. Like all things, there are degrees of historic preservation. The best preservation programs are harmonious with owner property rights.
Monday, December 21, 2020
Anonymous said…
Looking at zillow pictures,the repairs look more costly than the house is worth in my opinion.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/114-N-Bayview-St-Fairhope-AL-36532/72743171_zpid/?


The land is valued at 520k and the dwelling at 189k. That's an easy decision even though one cannot only use that as the decision.

And who's to say that the new owner won't build a similar looking dwelling...
Friday, December 25, 2020
Post a Comment