LUZ committee grants appeal, clearing way for demolition permit for Henry C. Arpin House

The City of Jacksonville Land Use and Zoning Committee voted 6-1 on Feb. 19 to grant an appeal of the Jacksonville Historic Preservation Commission’s December denial of a demolition permit for the Henry C. Arpin House, a single‑family farmhouse listed on the National Register of Historic Places and located at 2747 Littlejohn Road in Mandarin. The committee’s action will allow the demolition permit to issue for agenda item 2025‑0035.

The vote comes after hours of testimony in which the city’s Office of General Counsel and neighbors argued the developer violated the PUD conditions and the zoning code by removing the house’s chimney, moving the structure off the approved site without final move‑on permits and allowing it to deteriorate. The applicant and his attorney said the house became structurally unsafe after prolonged delays in the city permitting process and after an intended recipient withdrew, leaving no viable relocation site.

The matter is significant because the Arpin House is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places and because its preservation had been a condition of the Melkin Farms PUD approved by the council in December 2020. The dispute raised questions about enforcement of PUD conditions, the city’s permitting processes and the practical protections offered by national historic listing versus local landmark designation.

Carla Lopera of the Office of General Counsel summarized the city’s account at the start of the hearing. Lopera told the committee the house was added to the national register in August 2019, and that the PUD approved in December 2020 included conditions requiring the developer to either relocate the house to a new suitable location or place it on Lot 1 within the subdivision. Lopera said the applicant “affirmatively agreed to be bound by those conditions” and later “illegally demolished the chimney and illegally moved the building to a temporary location.” Lopera told the committee the house was exposed and allowed to deteriorate after that move, and she urged the committee to deny the appeal so the developer could be required to “live up to his commitment.”

The appellant, represented by Courtney Gaver of Rogers Towers, and Michael Danhauer of Board and Development LLC, disputed that characterization. Gaver said the appellant complied with the PUD condition by securing a proposed relocation site on Sunbeam Road and assembled relocation permits but encountered an extended, 18‑month delay obtaining final move‑on/move‑off permits from the city. Gaver asked the committee to reverse the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial and grant the appeal.

Danhauer told the committee he has rehabilitated historic houses for two decades and spent roughly $100,000 trying to save the Arpin House. He said the house was moved 1,400 feet to a temporary lot because the developer who controlled Lot 1 pushed to build, and that the intended recipient of the house later withdrew. Danhauer said a structural engineer reported in January 2024 that the house’s ability to survive relocation was questionable and that the city later condemned the house as unsafe.

Neighbors who spoke opposed demolition and said the house had value and could be moved and restored with expense. Tracy Arpin, a family descendant, said the house was not in a state of deterioration when the prior owners allowed a photographer inside and that the structure remains worthy of protection. Neighbor Paul Miller and others described the house as an eyesore on Lynn John Road and a safety hazard in its current location.

During the hearing City building official Josh Gideon explained the city’s permitting record: a relocation application with an address was started in November 2023 but “remained in temporary status and never was submitted” for review, and therefore the city did not have an issued move‑on permit in hand. Gideon said the move‑on/move‑off process requires documentation of a final destination before a move can be approved.

Committee members voiced differing views. Several members expressed frustration with permitting delays and the PUD structure that made the house’s preservation a condition of a development entitlement. Councilmember Michael Boylan, district 6, said he believed Danhauer had made good‑faith efforts to preserve the house and that the situation was complicated by delays and enforcement questions. Another member, Councilmember Rory Diamond, said he was sympathetic to neighbors but concluded the most practical outcome was to allow demolition.

After debate, the committee approved the appeal (agenda item 2025‑0035) by voice and recorded ballot, with the clerk announcing "6 yeas, 1 nay." Following that vote, the committee withdrew the related historic‑designation item (2025‑0026), which the committee chair moved to withdraw and the committee approved.

The committee and city attorneys discussed enforcement options that would exist if the appeal had been denied, including pursuing a settlement agreement that could require relocation to an alternate suitable site, civil fines for code violations and other remedies. OGC attorney Jason Teal advised that, if denied, the landmarking analysis would proceed under the municipal code and settlement discussions could then be used to find a permanent location for the house.

The committee record includes a number of documentary materials handed to members: the PUD written description, a structural engineer report, a wood‑destroying organism (WDO) inspection report, emails and affidavits from the applicant documenting the timeline and communications with city staff. The appellant and his representatives told the committee those materials demonstrate the permitting delays were the primary cause of the home’s deterioration and that the relocation recipient later withdrew.

With the appeal granted, the demolition permit will issue consistent with the appeal outcome on agenda item 2025‑0035. The committee did not adopt specific new conditions on the demolition permit in the hearing record, although some members and the appellant discussed voluntarily compiling photographic and architectural documentation of the house prior to any demolition.

Next steps: the companion landmarking item, 2025‑0026, was withdrawn after the appeal was granted. The committee and OGC described enforcement and settlement as possible paths if the property remained subject to other code actions, but no settlement was recorded in the hearing.

(Article based on committee testimony and documentary materials presented at the Feb. 19, 2025 Land Use and Zoning Committee meeting.)