Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Request topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks for structural report before deciding on demolition of outbuilding at 3182 (property owner requests removal for sale)
Summary
The board tabled a demolition request for a deteriorated outbuilding after members said submitted materials did not show it was beyond repair and asked for a structural engineer's report and additional photos.
The Montgomery City Historic Preservation Review Board tabled a request to demolish a small outbuilding (referred to as a cottage) behind a residence after members concluded the application lacked sufficient professional documentation to show the structure was beyond reasonable repair.
Property owner Diane Pickle told the board the cottage is dilapidated, sits partly on the ground with less than 10 inches of clearance at the front, has no utilities, and has deterred potential buyers — the owner said a pending VA-financed offer conditions the purchase on removal of the cottage. Pickle said contractors have advised lifting the structure and adding a proper foundation, but she also said she lacks funds to complete such work and estimated a repair cost of roughly $100,000.
Board members examined submitted inspection photographs and a home-inspection report but said the materials did not clearly demonstrate the building is structurally unsound or irreparable. Several members said items shown in the photos — foundation settlement and limited clearance — could be repairable and recommended an independent structural engineer prepare a formal report that documents the building’s condition and the likely cost and scope of repairs.
One board member moved to table the application pending a formal structural engineer’s report and additional information about the building’s condition; the motion was seconded and carried. The board discussed that most demolition approvals involve structures judged clearly unsafe or beyond repair, such as fire-gutted buildings or carports, and that the available documentation should make the case for demolition.
The motion to table leaves the property intact while the owner obtains the requested professional evaluation; staff offered to list the specific information the board wants in the engineer’s report to help the applicant and expedite review when the item returns to the agenda.
