By Matt de Simone
At the top of East Main Street in Fincastle rests Aspen Hill (also knows as the Peck-Figgatt House) that was recently restored by Donald and Caroline Naysmith in 2024 and will soon become the county’s latest bed and breakfast establishment as voted by Fincastle Town Council last week.
The unanimous approval of the two-year Special Use Permit (SUP) was met with three conditions: (1) the home is limited to six guests, (2) has a minimum of four, off-street parking spaces, and (3) that a family member/owner lives on-site (in addition to the six guests). The SUP was approved for two years and then can be renewed by the Planning Commission if requested. The permit can be terminated at any time for various reasons.
As previously reported, the Naysmiths purchased the home from the Michael Moorman family last year and spent the better part of the year working on the home. The home is currently for sale. If the home sells within the next two years, the SUP would go away, according to the town. The Naysmiths wanted to have the option of turning the property into a bed and breakfast to better utilize one of the town’s historic homes.
“I’m just so thankful that the Naysmiths took (the home), invested in it, and brought it back to life so that perhaps a family can buy it, move in, and enjoy it,” Mayor Mary Bess Smith said last Thursday night. “I don’t have an issue with having a B&B there.”
Council recently held discussions with the town’s Planning Commission, which recommended bringing it before council last Thursday night. Each council member shared their own feelings about the SUP with a consensus commending the Naysmiths on the work they put into restoring Aspen Hill, which was once included in the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation’s (RVPF) list of Botetourt’s “endangered sites” in 2023.
Planning Commission Chairman Scott Critzer added that “(two) of the great things about Special Use or Conditional Use Permits is, potentially, they’re the most restrictive zoning tools (a town has). You can attach a number of conditions to that particular thing to address (any particular concerns). The other thing that’s great about them is they do not establish a precedent. It’s a one-off, one-by-one opportunity.”
Critzer added that when a locality does a general rezoning of a property in a new area, that could potentially establish a precedent. Special Use Permits do not.
“I think the Naysmiths have done a wonderful job on this property,” Critzer shared. “They’ve done what they set out to do, and this is a very low-impact commercial venture, which will allow them to not only qualify for tax credits to help defer their costs, but also help them generate some revenue which will help them maintain this property. It’s hard enough to maintain one that’s 50 years old, let alone 200 years old.”
Council member Jim Reynolds shared concern about the owners managing the facility while it is in use. However, he noted that if the town turned the SUP down, it would send out the wrong signal that the town doesn’t want that kind of business, which isn’t the case. Ed Bordett expressed that he didn’t have an issue with the property’s new use “as long as we follow the town rules.”
Smith acknowledged the concern about having the owner or family member in residence on the site. She added the third condition of a family member remaining in residence until the home is sold.
“I think having a family member there keeps that tie to property meaning something to (the owner/town),” Smith said. “(Saying,) ‘I want to keep it up. I will take care of it like it’s my own.’” The mayor then added that she believes the town needed to revisit the town code in case new owners would want to continue using the property as a business.
