Commission finds economic hardship, approves demolition on 400 block of East College Street

The Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission voted April 21 to grant a demolition application for a contributing historic structure on the 400 block of East College Street, finding economic hardship sufficient to meet the commission's demolition criteria.

Staff summarized the property as a 1.5‑story vernacular cottage listed as a contributing structure in the East Main Street Historic District and said the applicant submitted five exhibits including a home inspection summary, a full inspection report and a structural construction cost estimate. Staff told the commission the inspection listed multiple concerns: an aged roof past typical service life, rot and moisture intrusion requiring repairs, corroded/faulty electrical panels, galvanised water supply piping needing replacement, foundation openings and floor structure damage, and three points of significant concern (gas pipe leaks needing immediate repair, a vertical foundation crack with displacement and uneven settlement, and exposed/damaged floor structure with insect damage).

Applicant Thomas Jennings framed his request as an economic‑hardship case. Jennings said he purchased the house at auction and provided a renovation estimate that he said would amount to roughly $700,000 of total investment; he estimated a post‑renovation sale value based on local comparables of about $275 per square foot and argued that the project would leave the owner significantly "upside down." "I believe that that constitutes economic hardship," Jennings said, adding that he would build a new house that would be sympathetic to the historic district if demolition were allowed.

Commission discussion focused on whether the building retained sufficient architectural and historical integrity and whether removal would produce a more appropriate visual effect. Commissioners noted the block's modest rhythm of smaller homes, expressed concern about setting a precedent for demolition driven by lot value, and reviewed the economic‑hardship documentation (applicant supplied three of the seven supporting categories specified in the rules of procedure).

Commissioner Busey moved to grant the demolition based on the commission's demolition criteria; the motion was seconded and passed on roll call. The clerk read: Miss Bridal — Nay; Miss Brown — Nay; Mister Busey — Aye; Mister Panessey — Aye; Vice Chair Belcher — Aye; Chair Davis — Aye. The motion carried and the demolition request was approved.

The commission's decision allows the applicant to pursue removal of the existing structure; the record shows commissioners voiced interest in ensuring any replacement design contributes appropriately to the streetscape and the applicant said he would return with plans if demolition approval were granted.