Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission clears demolition and reconstruction at 1605 Grama Street under state federal recovery program
Summary
The commission removed the 365‑day demolition stay and approved demolition and reconstruction at 1605 Grama Street, a federally funded NCORR/Rebuild NC project that SHPO found would have an adverse effect; a memorandum of agreement will mitigate the effect through documentation and SHPO review of proposed designs.
The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission on March 12 approved removing the 365‑day demolition stay and granted design approval that clears the way for demolition and reconstruction of the house at 1605 Grama Street under the state home‑recovery program.
Staff presented the case: the house sustained significant damage associated with Hurricane Florence, and a damage inspection estimated rehabilitation costs at about $27,540 — above the program’s $20,000 rehabilitation cap. Because the homeowner recovery program (federally funded) supports reconstruction when rehabilitation is not cost‑effective, the applicant proposed demolishing the existing structure and constructing a new one‑story hip‑roof dwelling on a similar footprint using program plans and materials.
Federal review and mitigation: Because the project uses federal funds, staff said a Section 106 review was completed and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) found that demolition and replacement would result in an adverse effect to the Carolina Heights historic district. An MOA has been developed to mitigate that adverse effect; mitigation measures include formally documenting the existing house to SHPO standards and allowing SHPO to review the proposed new design.
Program sponsor’s explanation: Jeff Royal, a program sponsor representative for Encore, told the commission the program typically applies a rehabilitation threshold that, if exceeded on invasive inspection, shifts the project to reconstruction. He said initial, noninvasive inspections often underestimate hidden structural and systems damage that later multiplies repair costs; once deeper damage is discovered, reconstruction becomes the more predictable and timely option for delivering a safe, sanitary home under federal standards. Royal said the program must move quickly to complete projects within grant timelines and that delay could cause the sponsor to withdraw the project from its current construction queue.
Contractor comments: Casey Simpson of DSW Homes described typical construction details for the new plan — brick steps, wrapped porch posts, and wood windows where the applicant requested them — and said demolition costs in Wilmington typically range in the low five‑figure range.
Commission deliberation and legal context: Commissioners asked about the rehabilitation estimate, SHPO’s role and the MOA, and whether the commission was being asked to decide demolition. Staff clarified the commission’s jurisdiction: the demolition decision itself is processed administratively in many cases, and the commission’s principal discretion in this case is whether to remove the 365‑day stay and to approve the proposed design. Commissioners said they were sympathetic to the house’s deteriorated condition and to the applicant’s need for a viable, code‑compliant replacement, but they also stressed the importance of mitigation and careful design review.
Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to remove the 365‑day stay and approved the demolition and reconstruction request, subject to the conditions and mitigation in the SHPO MOA and standard staff conditions on materials, glazing and disposal of demolished materials.
What’s next: Staff will finalize and post the commission’s order incorporating the MOA mitigation terms and standard conditions. The program sponsor and applicant will proceed with permitting and construction under the program’s schedule.
