Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reidsville council orders facade repairs and a full inspection for dilapidated downtown building at 105 Gilma Street
Summary
After years of delay, Reidsville council voted June 9 to pursue a two-track approach for 105 Gilma Street: authorize limited repairs to address an unsafe façade and simultaneously seek an administrative search warrant to inspect the building’s interior and rear for possible condemnation or broader repair needs.
Reidsville — Reidsville City Council on June 9 directed staff to pursue two parallel actions to address the long‑running deterioration at 105 Gilma Street: (1) solicit and advance limited repairs to an unsafe front façade the owner had failed to complete, and (2) pursue an administrative search warrant and a comprehensive inspection of the building’s interior and rear to determine whether further repairs or condemnation are necessary.
Planning Director Drew Bigalow told the council that the property owner (listed in city records as Washington Street Holdings/Mr. Carpino) pulled a building permit in November 2024 but had not completed the required work; the permit later expired. Staff provided an initial repair estimate of about $30,750 from Wright & Ray Building Company for the identified façade work and recommended council authorize the city to solicit bids and move forward with repairs if necessary, with costs recorded as a special assessment against the property.
Multiple councilmembers and staff framed the issue as a public‑safety and downtown‑revitalization concern. One councilmember said the building’s condition had become an eyesore and a hazard and asked whether continuing to delay action was appropriate: “If he don’t care about his property, why should we?” That comment reflected frustration voiced repeatedly during the discussion.
Legal and inspections staff explained the tradeoffs: pursuing the repair ordinance and placing an assessment puts the city into a secured position (a special assessment or lien) and can address an immediate hazard (the façade), while initiating a condemnation or full structural remedy requires restarting a more formal notice, inspection and hearing process that can be delayed by owner appeals or by the owner pulling a new building permit. City attorney Tim (transcript) and the chief building inspector, Chuck, advised the council that the city could simultaneously move forward with targeted repairs and seek a warrant for a full inspection; an engineer’s review may change final scope and cost.
Council action and next steps: Council voted to authorize staff to pursue both pathways — solicit and proceed with repairs for the cited façade deficiencies and to obtain an administrative search warrant for a full structural inspection of the property — and asked staff to return with procurement bids, engineer assessments and an amended repair ordinance if additional work is required. If the interior inspection shows the building is condemnable, staff will bring that to council for a separate process; if the owner completes repairs after the city starts work, staff said the city could suspend its work and allow the owner to proceed.
Why it matters: 105 Gilma Street is in the downtown core and is attached to adjacent properties; staff and council cited fire and public‑safety risks, the potential for property‑value impacts on adjoining owners, and Main Street accreditation implications if the city takes demolition as a first choice. The council’s dual approach preserves options for urgent hazard abatement while enabling fuller structural evaluation before committing to larger expenditures.
