Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Church Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Space Needs Committee hears engineering report will recommend demolition of deteriorated Belmont church
Summary
The Space Needs Committee reviewed an engineering assessment that found a former Belmont church in poor structural and energy-condition, with staff recommending demolition unless a defined reuse and major spending plan are approved.
The Space Needs Committee on Sept. 3 heard that Hunt Engineers’ assessment of an old Belmont church concluded the building is too deteriorated and costly to restore for modern use, and staff said a written engineering letter recommending demolition will be provided to the committee. Fred Demick, chairman of the Space Needs Committee, said the written report will show the recommendation “was based on engineering synopsis, not just we just wanna tear it down.”
Committee members said the building has historic value but agreed the technical findings drive options. “It really didn’t recommend doing anything more because of the cost of, change of use, change of occupancy and bringing it up to energy code,” Tom Windus, superintendent, said, summarizing the engineering position that both structural problems and current code requirements would make rehabilitation expensive.
The nut graf: The engineering letter is intended to document technical reasons for potential demolition so the public understands the recommendation and what it would take to preserve the building, including structural repairs and meeting modern energy and occupancy codes.
Committee discussion focused on whether to seek a second opinion and on what future use would be if the county invested in repairs. Windus advised that any deeper analysis should start with a clearly defined intended use: if the space remained assembly-type use or became conference space for business meetings, different code and facility upgrades apply. He warned that bringing the building to current energy code “would cost you millions” because of insulation, mechanical and other upgrades. Windus also said functions such as conference use would require bathrooms and plumbing where none currently exist.
Members recalled prior outreach to a land bank and to local organizations. Committee member Gretchen Hanchet said the church is historic and people are emotionally attached; she thanked staff for pursuing a documented engineering analysis. Other committee members urged practicality: one member said, “Let’s get rid of it,” arguing the building is beyond reasonable repair.
The committee also discussed procedural steps before any demolition: staff noted a historian will inventory artifacts and family memorials, and materials inside must be cleared. Demolition will not proceed until required steps—historic records, removal of salvageable items and the formal documentation from Hunt Engineers—are completed.
Discussion vs. decisions: the committee did not vote to demolish or authorize demolition at this meeting. Windus said he was not recommending further spending unless the committee chose to pursue rehabilitation; he described the options and cost drivers. The committee requested the written engineering letter and said the report will be presented for further discussion at a later meeting.
Ending: Committee members asked staff to provide the Hunt Engineers letter and any follow-up documentation; staff said that will be presented to the committee for discussion before any demolition action.
