Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to inspect 179 Elm Street after debate over whether 1952 house 'contributes' to historic district
Summary
Architects and applicants argued the 1952 Elm Street property lacks distinguishing architecture and is deteriorated; neighbors supported replacement. The board requested a site visit and a preservation consultant opinion before making a recommendation on demolition.
Architect Nate Bailey of Hurrah Architects presented an informal demolition discussion for 179 Elm Street, which the presentation described as a single‑story, slab‑on‑grade house built in 1952. Bailey said the property shows multiple later additions and substantial deterioration and argued it does not embody the distinctive characteristics used to define contributing resources in the city’s historic‑district nomination.
"Age is not a criteria," Bailey told the board while summarizing National Register guidance that a property must meet at least one of the register’s criteria (events, persons, design/construction, or information potential) to be considered contributing.
Neighbors who flank the parcel told the board they support removal. One neighbor, Susan Moorhead of 173 Elm Street, told the board she does not believe the house "contributes to the district in its current state" and supported replacement with a design that would better reflect the street.
Board members did not vote on demolition. Instead, they requested a site visit and asked the applicants to secure a preservation‑specialist opinion (for example via the State Historic Preservation Office or an independent consultant) that addresses whether the property meets the district nomination’s definition of contributing resources. The board noted that the district’s nomination lists 35 contributing properties and nine non‑contributing, and emphasized that the removal of one building should be considered in the context of the district’s overall integrity.
Next steps: staff will coordinate a site visit and the applicant is expected to provide the preservation consultant’s report to the board before any formal demolition vote or recommendation.
