Maplewood council upholds historic-preservation denial; demolition permit for 3432 Commonwealth stays denied

The Maplewood City Council on March 24 upheld the Historic Preservation Commission's decision denying a demolition permit for the 1910 house at 3432 Commonwealth Avenue, after hearing testimony from commission members, city staff, the property owner and neighbors.

City Attorney Jim Hetlidge opened the appeal hearing by summarizing the standard the council must apply under the city code: the council may "reverse, modify, or affirm" the commission's decision based on the same factors in sections 28-4 and 28-6 that govern demolition certificate reviews, he said.

Ray Crater, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission and a licensed architect, testified that the commission reviewed the criteria in section 28-4 and found the house exemplified aspects of Maplewood's architectural history and that no evidence was provided at the commission meeting to show the structure's disrepair rose to a level justifying demolition. "We weren't there to consider what may be built on the site and whether it was an appropriate structure," Crater said; the commission considered only the demolition application and, relying on code factors, recommended denial.

Brian Herr, Maplewood's building official, said he attended the commission meeting and told the applicant the city could not issue a demolition permit after the commission's recommendation.

Appellant representatives disputed the commission's conclusion. Land-use attorney Mike Doster said the owner would present evidence on whether rehabilitation was practicable and whether rehabilitation would yield a reasonable economic return. Ed Fosnott, representing Taylor Properties and the property's owner, told the council his firm had submitted a detailed renovation budget totaling $2,284,670 and photographs of extensive interior and exterior damage. "This property meets that standard," Fosnott said, referring to the code's subsection on structural deterioration and economic practicability. He said the company bought the property for $85,000 and that projected post-repair value of $252,000 would not justify the cost of renovation.

Residents and local board members spoke during public comment. TJ Howard, who said he sits on Maplewood's design-review and preservation committees, urged council to allow the experts to weigh in; others criticized the Board of Adjustment's posting of materials and argued for more transparent notice.

During deliberations council members questioned whether the commission had received the same evidence the appellant presented at the hearing and discussed whether remanding the matter back to the Historic Preservation Commission would be appropriate. A motion to remand the appeal back to the Historic Preservation Commission failed on a roll call vote (No: Page, Wylie, Garcia, Homa, Maddox; Yes: Faulkingham, Greenberg).

After failing to remand, the council considered a motion to grant the appeal and issue a demolition permit. That motion failed on roll call (Yes: Faulkingham, Greenberg; No: Wylie, Garcia, Homa, Maddox, Page), so the commission's denial and the city's refusal to issue a demolition permit remained in effect.

City Attorney Hetlidge summarized the immediate legal effect: the applicant does not have a demolition permit and retains options available under local process and law, including rehabilitation, sale, or pursuing other administrative remedies. The council closed the hearing and moved on to other business.

The council did not adopt any changes to the code or conditions on future appeals at the March 24 meeting; members signaled interest in reviewing Board of Adjustment notice procedures and in ensuring the Historic Preservation Commission has the opportunity to review any new material the applicant presents.