Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Vs Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks demolition of 8 Green Street citing mold and structural risk; neighbors urge preservation
Summary
At a contentious concept review on May 26, the owner of 8 Green Street said mold, flooding and a rubble‑stone foundation make the historic dwelling unsafe and urged demolition; neighbors and preservation professionals urged repair and warned against demolition by neglect, leaving the commission without a decision.
An extended concept review at the May 26 meeting of the Princeton Historic Preservation Commission produced no formal decision about 8 Green Street, where Nomad Development LLC asked for guidance on demolishing a circa‑1898 dwelling and building a new house with an accessory dwelling unit.
Owner and developer Jal Sayurbshirl said independent reports document extensive mold, water damage and a rubble‑stone foundation without conventional footings. He said health concerns stemming from mold exposure and the results of a recent flooding event make the house uninhabitable and that professional assessments concluded repair would be costly; he asked the commission for guidance on demolition criteria.
Sarah Quinlan reviewed the municipal ordinance and staff memorandum: demolition in a historic district is approved only if a structure cannot be put to reasonable use or if preservation imposes a financial hardship. She noted the commission may require an independent structural inspection at the applicant’s expense and cited National Park Service guidance on stabilization and mothballing vacant buildings as alternatives to demolition. Staff also found the house to be a contributing resource whose demolition would create an adverse effect on the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District.
Neighbors and local preservation architects strongly opposed demolition. Several speakers—neighbors at 7 and nearby Green Street addresses and a preservation architect who said they followed Secretary of the Interior standards—argued the building could be stabilized, treated for mold, and restored. They flagged a recent precedent of restoration (20 Green Street) as evidence that a complex, costly restoration is possible and urged the commission to prefer preservation over demolition by neglect.
Commission counsel and the applicant’s attorney discussed legal standards and the potential for independent testing. The applicant said he would consider independent engineering and medical documentation of health impacts; neighbors said remediation and conservation specialists could remove mold and restore the structure. The commission indicated it was not prepared to approve demolition during the concept review and suggested further concept discussions and potential required documentation (structural and industrial‑hygiene reports) before any demolition application would be considered.
No final action was taken; the commission encouraged continued dialogue, staff follow‑up, and stronger documentation if the applicant seeks demolition permission.
