Board of Architectural Review denies partial demolition application for Murphy Theater building

After a public hearing and sometimes circular exchanges with SEESUU applicant Gary Wayland over the structural status of the portions of the old Murphy Theater building at 131 East Main Street in Front Royal’s Historic Downtown Business District he wants to demolish to make way for a redevelopment plan, on Tuesday evening, December 13, the Town’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR) voted 4-1, Duane Vaughan dissenting, to deny the demolition application. Vaughan appeared to side with the alternative of tabling a decision to give the applicant additional time to provide sought after information on the structural integrity of the targeted portions of the building. But with the applicant’s stated resistance to additional expenditures to acquire that information, the board majority opted for an immediate final decision.

According to Town Planning Director Lauren Kopishke, present for the public hearing with Town Deputy Zoning Administrator John Ware, SEESUU and Wayland can appeal the decision within 10 days to the Front Royal Town Council.

During the Public Hearing the BAR heard from 14 speakers other than the applicant, many with past or present owner or management connections to nearby downtown businesses and buildings, including the Murphy Theater building. The general message from those speakers, other than SEESUU’s real estate agent Bill Barnett, was to proceed with extreme caution on an application with so few answers to specific questions regarding the potential for redevelopment rather than demolition of the targeted portions of the building. Wayland made it clear that only the “sometime before World War II” terra cotta section and circa 1940s/’50s rear apartment addition were being requested for demolition, not the darker bricked original 1879 Methodist Church portion or the 1908/’09 front commercial section fronting East Main Street.

View of the old Murphy Theater building looking south down Church St. from East Main. As explained in earlier story on the site visit, the oldest sections are the commercial addition facing East Main, added in 1908/09, and the original Methodist Church section dating to 1879, which is the darker bricked section behind the commercial addition. The demolition is proposed for the lighter bricked sections to the rear. Below, BAR members and planning-zoning staff stop at the terra cotta section during last week’s site visit.

And despite the fact that SEESUU’s redevelopment plan was not under consideration, only its partial demolition application, most neighboring property and/or business owners heard at public hearing were also troubled by SEESUU’s previously stated endgame: 60 “dwelling units” of 600 square feet or less. – “Parking, parking, parking” was a continued refrain from speakers opposed to, or cautious about, what demolition authorization would lead to. The large number of “dwelling units” too small to be termed apartments by Town Zoning standards is a plan opponents believe will negatively impact downtown commercial district parking availability to existing businesses’ customers and staffs.

Recently elected BAR Chairman Collin Waters took the point in questioning SEESUU principal Gary Wayland, the latter recovering from hip replacement surgery. “I think the point we’re missing here is the terra cotta section of the building has its own significance,” Waters told Wayland, drawing some applicant push back from indications the terra cotta exterior was initially seen as a temporary exterior that would eventually be covered by sturdier material.

“I think it does,” Waters countered of the section’s historical significance, adding, “I think we as a review board, it’s our duty to make sure that we’ve exhausted all efforts before we justify demolition of a historically significant building in this town. That’s why I want to know more about the engineer’s report, any kind of a cost analysis between restoration versus demolition.”

“If that’s what this board is here for, from my perception of it, it’s not historically significant that we need to make sure that it’s going to be standing for the next 30 years,” Wayland replied, continuing, “I’ll tell you what, it’ll be standing for the next month or so. I don’t know how long – and I’m not going to take my money and put it in to say, ‘Oh gosh, when is this thing going to fall down?’ I’m not going to do it till I know where I’m going.”

The view from E. Jackson St. looking north showing the most recent addition to rear, circa 1950s-ish, holding apartments. It and the adjacent terra cotta section, including the portion towering over the rest of the building, are the sections proposed for demolition.

The SEESUU applicant had made it clear that where he has been during years of unrealized redevelopment plans does not include an engineer’s evaluation of the structure he has earmarked for demolition. He asserted that historically and structurally the terra cotta section does not have the value of either the original 1879 church section or the East Main Street-fronting commercial section, circa 1908/09, both of which he plans to leave in tact.

Eventually, after hearing the applicant and his real estate agents arguments and the public input of others with a stakeholder interest in Front Royal’s Historic Downtown Business District, as noted above, the BAR rejected the application by a 4-1 margin.

The public hearing speakers list in the order they appeared was:

1/ Keith Menefee (bakery owner at 128 E. Main with family ties to the area);

2/ John Vander Wijst (adjacent Schewels store manager);

3/ applicant Gary Wayland (who did not speak 3rd in rotation as he had made his case during conversation with BAR chair and members earlier);

4/ Bill Barnett, SEESUU real estate agent;

5/ Suzanne Silek, a former owner of 131 E. Main St. Interestingly, Silek noted from information received during her family’s ownership, circa 1980/’90s, a former Methodist Church member, a Mrs. Sumption, may remain buried beneath the terra cotta  portion of the building because her body buried in the original Methodist church cemetery between the church portion and Jackson St. was not recovered when the cemetery was moved to facilitate the building’s expansion;

6/ Ellen Aders, owner/manager of the State Farm building on Jackson St. behind the rear apartment section of 131 E. Main, also earmarked for demolition;

7/ Barbara Samuels, an E. Jackson St. resident;

8/Phil Foster, nearby resident with long family and personal ties to the downtown area;

9/ Lewis Moten, area resident;

10/ Millie Andrews, manages an clothing alteration store on Jackson St.;

11/ Nina Thayer, co-owner of C&C Frozen Treats on E. Main St.;

12/ William Huck, co-owner of C&C Frozen Treats;

13/ David Silek, son of former building owners Suzanne and Frankie Silek, who asserted that not only Mrs. Sumption’s, but other bodies as well were not recovered at the time of the cemetery move. Asked by Chairman Waters if he knew that to be a fact, Silek declined to respond;

14/ Kerry Barnhart, co-owner of Vibrissa brewery and restaurant off E. Main and Chair of “Discover Front Royal” joint town-county tourism promotional entity;

15/ Brian Conley, an E. Jackson St. based realtor.

One-way, but which way would the demolition application for this section of the building go? Below, applicant Gary Wayland pleads his case at podium as BAR and public, latter largely un-pictured, listen. BAR Chairman Collin Waters, facing Wayland at far end of table, took the point in seeking applicant information on the structural status of the terra cotta section to determine the viability of redevelopment rather than demolition. Without that information available, the BAR voted 4-1 to deny the demolition application.

The consensus of most speakers, save the applicant and his real estate agent, was to proceed with caution on approval of this demolition application without more information on the building’s condition that might support renovation as a viable option, or outright opposition based on the lack of that information and what is proposed to follow demolition developmentally.

See the full conversation with the applicant, public hearing speakers, and BAR discussion and vote in the Town video.