Historic cottage demolition request at 703 West Marion fails to gain board recommendation amid engineer report concerns

The Historic Preservation Advisory Board on July 24 did not recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the single‑family residence at 703 West Marion Avenue (and its accessory structure at 205 Chastain Street). Staff had recommended approval based on a building inspection by a professional engineer citing ‘‘severe and widespread deterioration’’ and unsafe systems, but multiple board members questioned the report’s methodology.

Why it matters: the main structure, built in 1936 in the bungalow style, is listed on the local register of historic places. Staff noted the inspector found electrical systems had been infiltrated by salt water and that the building was ‘‘no longer safe for occupancy.’’ The city code allows the board to delay approval for up to 18 months to allow preservation or relocation efforts, but board members discussed other options.

Board concerns: several members said the engineer’s report relied in part on a 50% rule metric that they believe does not apply to contributing structures and does not substitute for a determination that the structure is structurally unsound. Theresa Duskin and other members said they saw evidence they believed could be cleaned and repaired rather than demolished. Board member Samantha Modich said the city should identify who is qualified to perform structural‑engineering assessments on historic homes and consider second opinions. ‘‘I think the whole structural engineer report…the 50‑50 rule really needs to be more—there needs to be more guidelines for our community,’’ Modich said.

Ownership and permitting: the property was listed for sale and the listing agent, Nancy Weber of Keller Williams, told the board demolition work was already planned but said the seller would close out demolition work and then list the vacant lot if demolition proceeded. Board members asked whether a demolition permit would transfer with a property sale or require reapplication; staff said legal clarification from the city attorney would be required.

Outcome and next steps: the motion before the board was not recommended; the board did not recommend approval of CA 18‑2025 at this meeting. Members who opposed the recommendation cited concerns about the engineer’s basis and the practicality of the permit transfer if the property sells. Board members offered to tour the property to better evaluate conditions; a site visit was arranged.

The board’s recommendation goes to the zoning official, who will make the final permit decision. The transcript shows staff reminded members that the board can only delay approval (up to 18 months) and cannot permanently deny a demolition certificate under the municipal process.