Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues demolition request for 511 Upland Road after mold, safety dispute; asks applicant to bring experts
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board continued consideration of a demolition application for a contributing detached accessory structure at 511 Upland Road after conflicting structural reports and a mold specialist's addendum that the building may be beyond feasible remediation; the board asked the applicant to return with the mold expert (and other supporting evidence) at the April hearing.
The Historic Preservation Board voted to continue a demolition application for a deteriorated detached accessory structure at 511 Upland Road so the applicant could present additional expert evidence about mold remediation and life‑safety concerns.
Designer Architects' Walter Hide (listed on the record as Walter Hide/Hyde) told the board the single‑story mission‑revival garage/guest house shows extensive mold, fire damage and insect decay, and sits within a utility easement with an FPL pole close to the structure. "It's one of the worst cases I've ever seen," he said when summarizing the mold and deterioration evidence; he supplied two structural‑engineering letters and a 127‑page mold assessment.
Staff initially reported the building official had reviewed the documentation and concluded the structure was structurally repairable, but deferred to the mold expert on feasibility. The applicant provided a mold addendum during the meeting stating remediation would not be feasible; staff told the board that change left them in a different position than when the report was published.
Board members expressed concern that the city had not independently inspected the property and asked the applicant to bring the mold expert and any additional supporting evidence to the April hearing so the board could evaluate feasibility and life‑safety claims. One board member who had visited the site said much of the building fabric appeared to be non‑original and concluded repair would likely be more costly than rebuilding; another noted the owner recently purchased the property and urged extra caution before permitting demolition of contributing resources.
The board made a motion to continue the case to the April meeting and to request that the applicant bring the mold specialist and any additional documentation (including, at the board's discretion, a 3‑D scan or further material evidence) to clarify salvageability and safety. The motion passed following discussion and a tie‑breaker vote.
Next steps: the applicant will be asked to supply the mold expert and additional documentation at the continued hearing; staff, the building official or other experts may be asked to appear to clarify salvageability recommendations.
