Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers decision on demolition request for 119 Church Street, asks for detailed structural and cost reports
Summary
The commission voted to defer a demolition application for the principal building at 119 Church Street pending clearer structural engineer reports, rehabilitation cost estimates from qualified professionals, and clarification about an accessory structure and future site use.
The Historic Zoning Commission on July 14 deferred consideration of a demolition request for the principal building at 119 Church Street, citing the need for additional documentation including a structural engineer’s report prepared by a professional experienced with historic structures, clearer rehabilitation and reconstruction cost estimates, and information on future plans for the site.
Staff reported the building — estimated to date from 1920–1924 and shown on Sanborn maps — is listed as non‑contributing in the National Register documentation. The applicant submitted photos showing deterioration, a 2023 structural engineer report and a 2025 framing report, and cost estimates that showed rehabilitation costed more ($835,000) than constructing a new building ($506,000). Staff said the design guidelines require structural‑engineering or architectural reports from professionals experienced with historic structures that include detailed physical condition descriptions, feasibility of rehabilitation, and cost estimates comparing rehabilitation and reconstruction. Staff also asked for a separate report describing intended future use of the lot if demolition is approved.
The owner/representative (Mr. Ligon) said an accessory building visible in aerial photography is a modern small metal storage shed and not a historic structure; staff asked the applicant to provide clarifying photos and documentation about that accessory building. Commissioners discussed the broader neighborhood context and preservation concerns, with one commissioner urging the applicant to consider retention or interpretive measures given the history of demolition in the area.
After discussion, a motion to defer to the August 11 meeting passed. Staff recommended the applicant supply the professionally prepared engineering report with rehabilitation cost estimates, clarification of who prepared the cost figures, and additional information about the accessory structure and future site plans prior to the next hearing.
