Georgetown staff asks council for direction on historic‑district demolition rules; HARC seeks stricter criteria

City planning staff asked the council for guidance on proposed updates to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and demolition review criteria for the city’s historic districts. The changes were developed with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), which suggested tightening the demolition definition and elevating the “last‑order‑of‑resort” standard in the review criteria.

Proposed changes and HARC’s recommendation: Staff recommended aligning the UDC demolition definition with the design guidelines so the rules are consistent. HARC proposed that a demolition should be defined as either the complete removal of a structure or the complete removal of a street‑facing façade, rather than treating any removal of a portion of the façade (for example, a window bay) as a demolition trigger. HARC also proposed removing “unreasonable economic hardship” as an independent qualifying justification for approving demolitions and instead evaluating demolition requests against a ranked set of criteria emphasizing loss of historic significance and demolition only as a last‑resort option.

Council concerns and discussion: Some council members cautioned that removing economic hardship from the list of qualifying criteria could disadvantage longtime owners of deteriorated properties for whom rehabilitation is infeasible or for whom financing is unavailable. Council members suggested a compromise approach: retain economic hardship as a consideration but link it to objective standards (project cost estimates versus replacement cost, documented financing attempts, or whether adaptive reuse is physically feasible) and consider an implementation sequence that requires owners to secure necessary planning approvals before demolition is allowed.

Process clarifications: Staff said the building inspections unit has already tightened intake and that a demolition worksheet now prompts property owners to disclose the full scope of work — a procedural step meant to reduce surprise demolition requests discovered after displacement of historic fabric. Staff said some casework (for example, a façade taken down and rebuilt) might not meet the stricter definition of demolition HARC proposed, and that the updated procedures would reduce administrative ambiguity.

Next steps: Planning staff will continue to work with HARC to draft specific UDC language that codifies criteria, clarifies the role of economic hardship with objective indicators, and establishes timing rules about what must be in place prior to a demolition permit (staff suggested requiring zoning approvals or project permits before demolition is authorized where a demo is tied to new construction). The council did not vote on ordinance text at the workshop but asked staff to return with red‑line UDC changes for formal consideration.

Ending: Staff said the goal is to preserve historic resources while creating a clear, workable process for property owners and review commissions.

Note: Quotations and points in this story come from a planning presentation and HARC discussion at the council workshop; the council asked staff for additional drafting to balance preservation objectives with owners’ documented hardship claims.