Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Designation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic-board debate over 208 West Houghton ends in postponement after split votes
Summary
After hours of testimony and competing motions, the Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board postponed a final decision on whether 208 West Houghton should remain designated “significant” or be downgraded to “contributing,” requesting additional documentation about the timing of multiple additions.
The Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board on July 14 postponed a final decision on the historic status of 208 West Houghton Street after a lengthy presentation, public comment and split votes.
Staff presenter Amanda told the board that a deeper review of the record and a site visit prompted staff to recommend keeping the property’s status as "significant," with an explicit exclusion for a 2001 nonhistoric portal addition. The applicant and the applicant’s consultant disagreed. Consultant John Murphy said the property was mischaracterized in the 1982 survey and in later quick surveys and that the structure now reads as a composite of accretions rather than a clearly territorial-period house.
"The way I see this building, I do see it as a contributing building in its composite character, but I do not see it as a significant building," Murphy said, urging the board to consider downgrading the property.
Applicant representative Craig Hoops argued the building has lost historic integrity through repeated roof changes, window and door replacements and other alterations. "The historic fabric that is left is merely the footprint," Hoops said.
Neighbors and other public commenters urged preservation. Stephanie Benonato, who identified herself as related to the Romero family that historically owned many houses on the street, asked the board to retain the building’s significant designation and to preserve the historic fence. "I do hope that you will keep it significant," Benonato said.
Board members debated the weight of the archival evidence, aerial photographs and earlier staff survey forms. One motion to adopt staff’s updated recommendation to maintain the building as significant (excluding the 2001 addition) failed on a voice/roll call vote. A subsequent motion to downgrade the property to contributing also failed. A third motion — moved by Member Simmons and seconded on the floor — to postpone final action until the applicant provides clearer sequencing evidence for the various additions (including photographic and permit documentation) passed on roll call: yes — Simmons, Beachside, Cherry and Degnan; no — Benvenuto.
The board’s action postpones a definitive status change and asks the applicant to document when the 1935, 1950 and 2001 alterations occurred and to provide any additional archival or permit evidence that might resolve the conflicting survey notes. The board said it expects the applicant to return with the requested materials; the hearing was continued rather than decided.
What’s next: The case will return to the board once the applicant supplies the historical sequencing evidence requested by the board. Until then, no change in designation will be finalized.
