Commission grants demolition permit appeal but requires east facade be retained unless structurally infeasible

The Livingston City Commission on Thursday approved an appeal of a Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) decision regarding a demolition permit for 218 South Second Street, but the commission attached a clarifying condition that the building’s east facade be retained in place unless a structural engineer certifies it cannot be saved.

Background: The HPC originally approved demolition with a condition intended to preserve the east brick facade and require the applicant to return to the HPC if the facade could not be saved. City staff and the city attorney concluded that the HPC’s wording did not create an objectively enforceable condition that made the application “acceptable” under the municipal code; that raised a legal technicality on appeal.

Commission action: Staff recommended approving the appeal but offered alternative wording to preserve the HPC’s intent while making the condition legally enforceable. The commission voted to approve the demolition permit with the following condition: the east facade shall be retained in place unless a structural engineer certifies that retention is infeasible. The commission noted alternative ways the HPC could have phrased the condition (for example, requiring a structural engineer or historic preservation expert to certify infeasibility, or specifying an economic threshold), but chose the structural certification as a clear, enforceable test.

Why it matters: The property lies within or adjacent to Livingston’s historic district. Commissioners and HPC members stressed the importance of treating the downtown historic resource carefully. Several HPC members and community residents urged the commission to preserve the façade; others noted the applicant’s need for a feasible, timely path to develop housing and mixed‑use infill in downtown.

Public comment: Multiple HPC members and neighborhood residents spoke in favor of preserving the façade or asked that any demolition be accompanied by clear documentation showing why the wall could not be retained. Applicant Eric Horn said his team had revised designs after HPC input, is attempting to incorporate historic elements and that saving the façade could add time and cost that would endanger project feasibility. The applicant said he remains committed to salvaging and reusing architectural elements where practical.

Outcome and next steps: The commission’s action allows the applicant to proceed with demolition if the east facade is retained or if a structural engineer documents infeasibility. If the engineer determines the wall cannot be saved, the applicant will not be required to return to the HPC for that same demolition decision; the record will include the structural certification. Any subsequent building design and design review would still be subject to HPC and land‑use review as required by city code.

Quote: Tom Blurock, chair of the Historic Preservation Commission: “This could be the biggest building in Downtown Livingston. As such, it’s something that really needs to be taken seriously as having a huge effect on the context of Downtown Livingston and the historic district.”

Ending: The commission’s condition is intended to balance the HPC’s preservation goals with the applicant’s need for a clear regulatory path; structural certification serves as the test for whether retaining the east facade is feasible.