SALISBURY — The Salisbury City Council approved a historic designation for another house in Salisbury on Tuesday, along the way continuing a previous discussion around the necessity of the landmark ordinance and the accompanying tax credit.

The property in question was the Franklin Smith House, a Spanish mission-style house built in 1902 and located in the 200 block of South Fulton Street. The owners, John and Pamela Schaffer, applied for the designation under the criterion of embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction.

Planner Emily Vanek pointed out distinctive characteristics of the style, including a mission-shaped dormer with a quatrefoil window, large square porch supports with an arched arcade balcony, a red tile roof, wide overhanging eaves and smooth stucco wall coverings.

Gary Thornburg spoke during the public hearing and provided additional historical context around the construction of the house, saying that for years before the house was constructed the Hall House was the only structure on the block, which was mostly farmland. The Franklin-Smith House was the first home to be constructed other than the Hall House on the block.

Pam Schaeffer said that while they were asking for designation under only one criterion, the house was also a large part of the history of the city, having been built by Franklin Fletcher Smith, who she called the father of the chamber of commerce in Salisbury. She also said that Smith was instrumental in raising money for the Salisbury Hotel and owned four drug stores “all the way from Spencer to Rockwell.”

Councilor David Post repeated his concerns from past meetings about the city’s ordinance regarding historic landmark designation and the resulting 50 percent tax credit.

“(The house) is certainly, without a question, a landmark in the city. I just don’t like the ordinance, because I do believe that there’s a cascade coming and it has a tax effect. We saw last week that it was approaching a quarter-of-a-million bucks with everything in the pipeline,” said Post.

Vanek said that it was a good time to review the ordinance and consider revisions. She also reported that the Historic Preservation Commission had formed a landmark subcommittee, which had a few recommendations including strengthening the standards and implementing an ordinance addressing demolition by neglect.

Post referred to several pieces of information that Vanek provided to answer prior questions, including a staff report from a prior meeting which lists out the properties that have been given landmark designation status and the loss of revenue the tax credit poses to the city over a 10-year period. Over that period, the city will lose $212,259 of tax revenue from 10 designated properties, according to the report, or approximately $21,000 every year.

Vanek also provided a graph showing the recent increase in applications. Before the city council implemented a moratorium in 2021 on new applications, the city had approved six designations. Since that moratorium ended, the city has approved six designations and received four more applications.

Several people spoke in favor of the ordinance and the tax credit during the discussion, including the Schaffers, who bought and began to restore the house in 2013, four years before the ordinance was approved.

“Since (the 1970s), there has been almost nothing done to the house. The landmark status in general, should be looked at as an opportunity to provide some incentive to owners to not let that happen in a house that we hope the community values. The house was built in the early 1900s, there’s no reason it can’t be there in the 2100s and beyond,” said John Schaffer.

The historic landmark status provides a tax incentive, but the 50-percent tax deferment is also based on the designated portions remaining within historically significant status, and if that is lost the city has the ability to claw back the last three years of deferred taxes.

The city provides the tax deferment because it adopted the state’s General Statute 105-278 as a local ordinance, which mandates that the city provide the 50 percent. In essence, the state law means that cities can either provide a 50-percent tax deferment to historic landmark properties or not provide any designations or tax deferments at all, it cannot provide something in between.

“I think we have to recognize that this was put into place for a reason, and that we have had several houses, but not all houses are going to fall into this. I think that the upkeep and the maintenance to keep some of these homes from falling into disrepair that actually hold the history of the people who made Salisbury, these founding families. I think that does play into preserving our history,” said Mayor Pro Tem Tamara Sheffield.

Randy Cernohorsky, who had his own home designated as a landmark at the prior city council meeting, said that the homes were primarily getting purchased by people who were looking to enter the community, noting that they represented significant investments into the local economy. John Schaeffer said that they bought the Franklin-Smith House for approximately $360,000 and have since put over $675,000 into restoration projects, which they spent knowing that they would never be able to get a million dollars back out of the house.

“The price tags on these houses are fairly high and then the amount of money that the new owners are spending is local and goes into the local economy,” said Cernohorsky.

After the public hearing and ensuing discussion, the councilors voted unanimously to approve the historic landmark designation.

“What we also know is if anybody who does have this status and the house starts to fall into disrepair, we can claw back that status. We’re not locked into anything. I say that to say that I believe in the landmark status program and if we need to review it now and again to make sure we’re doing the right thing for all of the city, absolutely, but I am definitely in favor of approving this,” said Sheffield.

However, Post said that he would not be voting “yes” on any future landmark applications, saying that he was only voting to approve currently because he had believed that the ordinance required the councilors to vote in favor if the standards were met. City Attorney Graham Corriher, who had been out on paternity leave, said that as the vote was a legislative decision and not a quasi-judicial one, Post could vote either way so long as he was not voting on an arbitrary basis.