Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor says Adam Street house is beyond repair; staff asks for rehabilitation cost comparison before demolition decision
Summary
A contractor and structural engineer told the DRC that a contributing house on Adam Street has severe structural failure and estimated stabilization would cost about $160,000; staff said loss-of-integrity criteria and an economic-hardship analysis (rehabilitation vs. new construction) are still required before demolition may be approved.
At the meeting a contractor representing the owners of a contributing house on Adam Street reported findings from structural and contractor assessments and asked the historic zoning commission to permit demolition and reconstruction with a rebuilt front elevation.
Ben McCreary said engineers found the house lacks a continuous load path, some wall framing can be moved by hand, and roughly 60–70% of structural elements would require replacement. He said selective stabilization would be expensive and effectively equivalent to full reconstruction; the contractor provided an estimate of approximately $160,000 to stabilize the structure — a figure he described as a premium with no guarantee of success.
Elizabeth, a planning staff member, noted the property is listed on the National Register and remains a contributing resource; she said that under the demolition criteria the commission may find demolition permissible only if one or more conditions are met: loss of integrity, demonstrated economic hardship, or structural instability shown by an engineer’s report. Staff said evidence for structural instability has been provided but that additional documentation is required: specifically, a cost estimate for full rehabilitation versus new construction (including what would be required to bring the structure up to code), and clearer documentation about which historic features will be salvaged and how reconstructed elements will avoid adding ornamentation absent documentation.
Commissioners discussed precedents and the difficulty of drawing a line between extensive repair and a de facto replacement; some members said the house still reads as an historic form in the streetscape and urged exhaustive analysis, while others said the level of deterioration and the fact that much original fabric has been removed make reconstruction reasonable. Staff and commissioners asked the applicant to provide a written cost comparison that shows the expense to make the existing house habitable and code-compliant versus the cost to replicate the existing form through new construction, and to document what elements could be salvaged.
No demolition approval was granted at the meeting; staff asked the applicant to supplement the submission with a rehabilitation-cost estimate, documentation of historic fabric remaining, and clearer materials/specification notes for a potential reconstruction.
