Historic Preservation Board denies demolition request for 1891 Wisteria Street

The Sarasota Historic Preservation Board voted 4-1 on March 10, 2026, to deny a demolition application for 1891 Wisteria Street after hearing a structural assessment, staff analysis and public comment.

The board considered an application (26-FMSF-HPB-39) from property representatives who said the residence exhibits widespread structural deterioration that would require near-total reconstruction. Monica Kelly, representing the applicant, asked the board to approve demolition after the engineer's assessment concluded that the extent of deterioration "exceeds the threshold for minor repair" and would trigger Level 3 alterations under the Florida Existing Building Code. "We respectfully request approval to demolish the existing structures located at 1891 Wisteria Street," Kelly said.

Structural engineer Renato Corati presented the assessment and described advanced deterioration in multiple load-bearing systems, moisture intrusion, differential settlement and significant floor deflection. Corati summarized his conclusion: "Complete demolition and reconstruction represents the only practical, technically feasible, and code compliant solution." The engineer noted measured deflection exceeding 2 inches in some spans and documented inadequate shoring and biological growth consistent with prolonged moisture intrusion.

Preservation advocates and neighbors urged the board to require mitigation and to explore alternatives. Staff read a written statement from Erin DeFazio of the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation that criticized what the Alliance described as "demolition by neglect" and urged reasonable measures to preserve the structure on site. Neighbor Catherine Duffy told the board the South Poinsettia Park neighborhood has lost historic fabric and urged retaining at least the front façade: "There are plenty of examples of homes built in the same time period that have expanded greatly and maintained the character and charm of the homes," she said.

Staff advised the board that the application packet lacked documentation on salvage and relocation; staff's recommendation was structured around the licensed engineer's report. "If the documentation submitted by the licensed structural engineer attests to the degradation and degraded condition to the point the structure is beyond reasonable restoration measures to repair the building, then I would certainly support the demolition. If not, I would recommend that you pursue mitigation measures," staff said during the report.

After discussion about the feasibility of relocation on site, potential salvage, and precedents for administrative approvals in other nearby demolitions, a board member moved to find the application inconsistent with section 4-823(b) of the zoning code and to deny demolition. The clerk called the roll: Frangie — for; Gonzales — for; Chair Harris — against; Waldowney — for; Hart — for. The motion to deny passed 4 to 1.

The board did not adopt a preservation plan at the hearing; members asked staff and the applicant to provide more documentation on potential mitigation, salvage and relocation options. The decision preserves the building's local review status and keeps further formal demolition action subject to subsequent application and additional documentation.

The board's next steps, as discussed in the hearing, include clarifying required application materials for demolition requests, improving forms that document salvage and relocation options, and offering to help applicants identify preservation resources and incentive programs. The board adjourned after planner updates and additional administrative business.