Kennebunk panel denies demolition request for historic 15 Portland Road

The Town of Kennebunk Historic Preservation Commission voted 4–1 on Jan. 14, 2026 to deny a property owner’s request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the house at 15 Portland Road and replace it with a new building.

The commission’s decision followed presentations of structural assessments and discussion of the building’s historic value. Vice Chair Barbara Fleshman summarized archival material tying the property to Capt. Thomas Lord and noted the house was listed as a contributing property in Kennebunk’s 2022 National Register update, a factor Fleshman said weighed in favor of preservation.

Engineers for the owner reported significant deterioration, citing damage to the foundation and first-floor framing and mold and water intrusion; the submission noted estimated repair costs in a pre-sale inspection as approximately $360,000 to $500,000 and later structural analysis that the house may be "beyond saving," a characterization advanced by the applicant’s counsel on the owner’s behalf. Owner Croan M. McCormack’s representative, attorney Gregory Baun, argued the cost and structural condition could amount to undue hardship and asked the commission to allow demolition and replacement.

Commission members and public commenters disagreed on whether the condition required demolition. Commissioner William Snow and others questioned whether rehabilitation had been fully explored; resident and contractor Paul Bevacqua disputed the engineering report’s sufficiency and said foundation repairs and structural lifting could be feasible in his experience. Chair Frances Smith said the property functions as a gateway to the historic district, a point commissioners cited when weighing the application.

After discussion the commission moved to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion to deny was made by William Snow, seconded by Barbara Fleshman, and passed on a roll-call vote of 4–1 with John Marshman opposed. The denial means the owner may appeal through available channels; staff noted an appeal would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The hearing record includes engineering reports submitted by Dirigo Architectural Engineering, LLC and L&L Structural Engineering Services, Inc., reference materials on the house’s local history, and public comments from neighbors who said alternatives to demolition remained. The commission also discussed policy options to reduce future neglect, including minimum-maintenance ordinances and clearer undue-hardship criteria.

The Historic Preservation Commission did not adopt a motion approving demolition; the denied COA was recorded in the meeting minutes. Any further procedural steps (such as an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals) were described as the applicant’s recourse; the commission did not set a follow-up hearing date at this meeting.