Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner says he will demolish Firefly building; preservation advocates urge delay and review
Summary
Depot Street LLC requested permission to demolish the Firefly building at 575 Depot Street; the owner insisted demolition is his decision while local historic-preservation advocates and a gallery owner urged further review and cited town-plan goals. The Town Attorney noted the flood-hazard rules exempt removal of structures.
Depot Street LLC presented an application (ST-2025-97, Tax Map 37-50-33.00) to demolish the building known in testimony as the Firefly building at 575 Depot Street. Owner Mark Greenberg was sworn in and told the board the demolition is his decision and separate from a prior Valvoline proposal.
"I own this property and it is my decision that this building is coming down," Greenberg said, adding that if the board does not permit it he will allow it to deteriorate. He characterized the structure as not historic and not located in the town's historic district.
Preservation advocates including Dick Smith, a former Manchester Historical Society president, countered that the building has been on the corner for roughly 150 years and contributes to the character of the Depot streetscape. Smith handed out materials to document his view and argued the structure warrants consideration for state historic registration and for inclusion in any proposed expansion of historic-district boundaries. "The tearing down of the building, an historic property, is contrary to the Manchester Town Plan and would destroy the historic core," Smith said, citing elements of the Town Plan and the Design Advisory Overlay District.
Tilting at Windmills gallery owner Terry Lindsey testified the adjacent gallery relies on the Firefly building to shield her storefront from noise and other impacts and said demolition could increase traffic noise at her front door. Consultant Kris Slethaug and other presenters urged the board to consider broader streetscape impacts under Section 4.3 (Town Center District) and related site-design standards.
Town Attorney Susanne Armor reviewed ordinance definitions of "Historic Structure" and told the board that a structure typically must be listed on an inventory or registry to meet that definition. On flood-hazard questions, Armor cited the ordinance's Flood Hazard section 5.3.11(1), noting that the removal of a building is listed among uses exempt from regulation under the town's flood hazard provisions.
The hearing included contested factual claims about historic status and floodplain rules; the minutes record the testimony but do not show a final DRB determination at the Jan. 7 proceeding. Public commenters requested the board consider delaying demolition while state or local historic-review options are pursued.
