At the heart of the meeting was a debate over the proposed demolition of a historic house on Reed Street, which had reportedly suffered extensive flooding damage. The application sought a certificate of approval to demolish this contributing structure within the National Register and local historic districts. The staff report provided to the board outlined the property’s significance, noting it was one of the few remaining frame vernacular structures from the 1920s, unique for its single-story gable front and integrated porch design.

Flood damage was a factor in the application, with reports indicating that four feet of water had inundated the site, exacerbating existing issues such as lead paint, mold, and termite damage. One participant described the condition as “beyond” feasible repair. However, the board noted that some damage might have been caused by neglect rather than the flood itself, raising the issue of “demolition by neglect.”

Robin Hancock and Tony Martin, representing the property’s ownership, explained their initial intentions to improve the house with new windows, a roof, and paint. However, they acknowledged they had not previously assessed the economic feasibility of such repairs. The board was concerned about the lack of immediate remediation following the flood, with one member expressing disbelief that mold and damage had not been promptly addressed, contrasting it with their own experience of swift flood recovery.

The board scrutinized the cost estimates provided, questioning whether they accurately reflected flood-related repairs or included unrelated maintenance issues, such as plumbing for new bathrooms and kitchens. A participant argued that the flood was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” suggesting it was the culmination of a series of problems, not the sole cause of the building’s condition. The estimated cost for a new foundation alone was approximately $423,000, which, when added to the purchase price, raised doubts about its justification based solely on flood damage.

Further complicating the decision was the need for compliance with lead paint mitigation protocols, regardless of whether the structure was renovated or demolished. The board emphasized that any new construction should align with the neighborhood’s cultural and historical character, stressing the importance of maintaining the area’s charm despite the challenges posed by flooding and structural viability.

Concerns about potential illegal renovations in the area and the absence of proper maintenance prior to the flood led to a broader discussion on the responsibilities of property owners and the implications of purchasing properties without a comprehensive inspection. The phrase “buyer beware” was invoked.

Ultimately, the board voted unanimously against the demolition application, citing a lack of detailed information on future plans and the need for further evaluation of repair costs.

Following this debate, the meeting briefly addressed another application for the certification of approval to add awnings to a contributing structure. However, due to the applicant’s absence, the board agreed to defer the discussion to the next meeting.

In the final matter of the meeting, the board conducted the election of officers, opting to retain the current chair and vice chair positions. Each motion was seconded and approved, confirming the continuation of the existing leadership structure.