Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants seek surgical demolition of additions at historic Bishop’s Terrace; commission approves determination
Summary
Owners and applicants described surgical removal of dilapidated additions attached to a 1790 main building (Bishop’s Terrace); staff recommended a Negative 2 determination limited to demolition (not foundation/lifting), and commissioners approved with standard erosion controls and condition to return for redevelopment work.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners and applicants requested a Determination of Applicability for 10828 (Map 10 Parcel L6) to remove dilapidated structures attached to the 1790 main building known locally as Bishop’s Terrace. An applicant introduced himself at the podium and said the intent was a “surgical removal” of added buildings while preserving the historic core. Property owner Jeffrey Lang attended and confirmed the intention to avoid damage to the historic main structure.
Staff noted the site is land subject to coastal storm flowage and that an off‑site wetland lies to the northwest, but the proposed demolition does not fall within wetland buffer zones. Staff recommended a Negative 2 determination because the demolition would remove hazardous structures without changing grades or adding new foundations; any future lifting or foundation work would require a separate filing. The commission asked for confirmation that lead‑paint testing results were uploaded to the portal; applicants and staff confirmed test results had been submitted. With no objections from members of the public who spoke, the commission moved and approved the Negative 2 determination.
Commission members commented on stabilizing the site and silt fencing already installed; staff recommended a temporary native seed mix if the cleared area remained exposed for several months to reduce erosion risk. The applicants said they had installed work‑limit fencing and intended to follow staff recommendations.

