Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks DRC guidance after demolishing contributing garage at 303 Adams Street without COA
Summary
Owner David Swift told the DRC he demolished a circa‑1940 accessory garage without a Certificate of Appropriateness and asked how to proceed. Staff said retroactive approval requires meeting one of three criteria and recommended documentation; commissioners noted rebuilding in‑kind is an option but warned enforcement is possible if retroactive approval is denied.
David Swift and his project team appeared before Franklin’s Design Review Committee after a contributing circa‑1940 accessory garage on his property at 303 Adams Street was demolished without a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Swift told the committee he had the structure removed because of low clearances and safety concerns around an adjacent pool; he said he should have pursued formal review and now seeks a path to remedy the violation.
Staff told the DRC that demolition of a contributing structure requires commission findings under one of three criteria — loss of integrity (so removal won’t harm the district), unreasonable economic hardship, or structural instability shown by a professional report — and that because the building has already been removed, the commission cannot inspect it to make those determinations. Staff therefore asked the applicant to assemble documentation, historic photos and any structural or condition reports that could support a retroactive finding.
Commissioners said the loss is regrettable but noted the commission can require the structure to be rebuilt in‑kind (same location and measurements) if it determines replacement is appropriate; alternatively, if the DRC or commission concludes the demolition was unjustified, the case could be referred to city enforcement for follow‑up. Several commissioners emphasized that voluntary demolition without review undermines the public process and removes the community’s chance to evaluate alternatives.
Brandon Priddy, representing the applicant, said the team will pull archival images and digital scans and try to assemble a record of the building and the decisions that led to its removal. Staff confirmed a notice of violation has been issued and the matter will return to the commission for a retroactive determination.
Next steps: the applicant will provide documentation and scans for the commission to review; the DRC will forward a recap and the case will be scheduled for a formal retroactive approval hearing where the commission will vote to approve replacement, require rebuilding or refer for enforcement.
