Historic Preservation Board denies demolition of 935 Citrus Avenue

The Historic Preservation Board voted to deny an application to demolish the locally designated residence at 935 Citrus Avenue, known in the record as the Regal Cottage, after hearing testimony from the owners’ representative, affected neighbors and staff.

Bert Looper, the general contractor representing owners Nicholas Munsell and Ava Burkes, told the board the house has “limited historical and architectural significance” and that after years of study “the preservation is not practical, not feasible.” Looper said multiple architects and designers concluded that, once non‑historic additions were removed, “there is very little of the original building that can be meaningfully preserved,” and estimated rehabilitation costs at roughly $700–$800 per square foot compared with about $350 per square foot for new construction.

Victoria Turner Gunther, an adjacent affected person, urged the board to retain the designation and described the property as part of a larger, historically connected block tied to early local families. “This house is part of a large block of ground which was purchased by Fritz and Esther Bridal,” she said, and appealed to the board’s interest in preserving neighborhood history.

Staff told the board that documentation supports some designation criteria (noting the property qualified under a single architectural criterion) but said financial‑feasibility and alternative‑use criteria were harder to validate without a proposed design and complete cost scope. Staff also noted that prior repairs had been made under certificates of appropriateness and that comparison of restoration to new construction should account for alternative compliance paths in the existing‑building code.

After discussion about flood exposure, termite type and structural anchoring, a board member moved to find Certificate of Appropriateness 26COA06 for demolition of 935 Citrus Avenue inconsistent with Section 48‑18(b) and to deny the demolition. The motion was seconded and passed by a 3–1 vote with one recusal. The board did not adopt demolition; the record shows Mister Gonzales recused himself because his office had provided an exhibit and documentation under review.

The board’s discussion repeatedly emphasized the need for clear evidence supporting claims about immediate safety risks and for a complete cost comparison if financial infeasibility is to be a decisive factor. The board also noted the owners’ stated intent to salvage materials where feasible.

The denial ends the board’s approval of the demolition request; next steps for the owners would include compliance with local code for any future work and (if pursued) potential appeals to the City Commission as allowed by local procedure.