Pensacola ARB imposes 30-day demolition delay on 850 N. Tenth Ave.; owner cites mold, health concerns

The City of Pensacola Architecture Review Board voted Thursday to impose a 30‑day demolition delay on a historic house at 850 North Tenth Avenue in the East Hill neighborhood, finding the structure architecturally significant under the city’s historic building demolition review ordinance.

The board’s action gives the property owner time to explore alternatives to demolition but does not prevent him from obtaining a demolition permit after the delay period. The owner, Dale Moore, told the board he intends to demolish the house and build a new, safer home for his family.

The board’s preservation staff presented the application under the City of Pensacola historic building demolition review ordinance and asked the board to determine whether the house meets criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and, if so, whether demolition should be delayed. Preservation staff noted the house retains exterior historic elements and appears to be a well‑preserved example of folk‑Victorian construction in East Hill.

Owner Dale Moore described longstanding indoor environmental and pest problems that he says threaten his wife’s health and his own. “I have mold…It smells just like cat urine,” Moore told the board, adding that recent health events — including his wife’s heart issues and his own pacemaker — led him to seek a new, air‑conditioned slab‑on‑grade house. He also said his annual homeowners’ insurance premium rose to $10,000, and that he cannot afford to keep the existing structure insured.

Historic preservation staff member Prestera told the board the structure retains nearly all of its historic exterior woodwork — windows, doors and siding — and that it “is a good example of the folk Victorian that you’d see in East Hill” and therefore warrants a deliberative review before demolition. Board member Mead, who described himself as experienced with older construction, urged a delay so alternatives such as removing foam insulation in the attic, opening condensation planes and addressing moisture problems could be evaluated. “Fixing the problems that are causing the problems…is going to be vastly cheaper than trying to build a new house,” Mead said.

The board considered two competing motions during the discussion. A motion to approve demolition outright was moved and later failed. After additional discussion, including comments from staff about the purpose of a demolition delay (to permit exploration of alternatives and community input), Mead moved that the house be found historically and architecturally significant and that a 30‑day delay be imposed; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

Miss Walker, preservation staff, explained the practical effect of the delay: “If you put a demolition delay on it…once that thirtieth – or forty‑fifth day passes, I draw up a project approval letter…which is what he will need to pull the demolition permit.” The board’s 30‑day delay therefore gives the owner limited time to seek alternatives before staff issues the authorization required for a demolition permit.

Moore said he appreciated the board’s consideration but repeated his health‑based urgency and financial constraints. Board members who live in historic houses noted there are ways to remediate moisture and pest issues but also acknowledged the owner’s health concerns and the limited scope of the ARB’s authority.

The board’s action does not itself require preservation work or provide funding; it only invokes the city’s demolition review procedure and the maximum short delay allowable under that ordinance.

The ARB moved on to its next agenda item after the vote; the property owner will be eligible to apply for a demolition permit once the 30‑day delay period ends unless other legal holds are placed by other agencies.