Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves amended demolition certificate for chimney at 25–31 North River Street after contractor warning
Summary
After extended debate about an unexpected structural 'breach' uncovered during demolition, the City Council approved an amendment that leaves the remaining chimney taller than originally planned; some members asked for a structural‑engineer sign‑off before a permanent cap or before occupancy.
The Batavia City Council voted to amend the certificate of appropriateness for chimney demolition at 25–31 North River Street, approving a higher remaining stack after contractors said removing more would expose a larger structural breach.
City staff (speaker 14) told the council the chimney breach proved larger than shown in the original engineer report and that demolition contractors recommended leaving the stack roughly 19–20 feet to preserve structural integrity. Contractor Jeff Olson (speaker 5) spoke from the meeting floor: "This is the smart thing to do. It's the safe thing to do. ... We're going to make it worse if we go any farther." Several alderpersons pushed back, saying the original structural report had recommended a lower elevation and asking that the property owner obtain a new engineer opinion before the installation of a permanent cap or before occupancy.
Members weighing liability and process said the city’s role was limited to permit approval and historic‑preservation oversight, but several councilors urged a stamped structural confirmation as a "belt‑and‑suspenders" check. One councilor argued the timeline created confusion: "We were told that this was an imminent matter that had to be handled all the way down to the ground," reflecting frustration at earlier communications about the approved demolition height. City staff and legal counsel noted the property owner retained the original structural engineer and could be asked to obtain an updated opinion; staff also suggested that the Certificate of Occupancy process will require a thorough inspection if the owner seeks to re‑activate the building.
The ordinance (2026‑034) was moved, seconded and approved at the council meeting. Council members who requested a new engineer sign‑off said they preferred the review occur before a permanent cap is installed; others said a short, practical contractor report or a quick engineer review may be sufficient and urged not to delay weather‑sensitive work.
The debate highlighted competing priorities: protecting public safety and the long‑term integrity of the building, while avoiding additional costs or delay that staff said had already burdened the property owner during multiple contractor changes.
