0:10Central to the meeting was the deliberation over whether the 1890 carriage house should be deemed “preferably preserved,” a designation that would allow the commission to impose a demolition delay of up to 12 months. The property’s owner presented the structure as severely compromised, highlighting issues such as the building “beginning to twist” and lacking a proper foundation. Contractors had assessed the building and concluded it was “not worth saving,” further influencing the commission’s decision-making process.

Discussions during the hearing also reflected on the historical context of the carriage house, with references to historical documents such as the Sanborn maps from 1916 and 1930. The house’s original role in the area’s agricultural history was acknowledged, and a commissioner noted modifications made to accommodate larger vehicles as cars became popular. Despite the recognized historical significance, commissioners grappled with the economic and practical challenges of preservation. The owner emphasized a commitment to maintaining the family property, which has been in their family for nearly a century, contrasting this with concerns over student-owned properties nearby.

21:54The debate extended to the potential impact on the historical integrity of the site. Members expressed concern about the visibility of the structures from the road and suggested that any new construction be set back to preserve historical sightlines. However, it was noted that the removal of the carriage house would not alter the site, as the main house and a previously restored barn would remain intact.

Amidst these discussions, the commission acknowledged its limitations under existing bylaws. As the deliberations continued, a motion was proposed to determine the structure “not preferably preserved,” allowing for the demolition to proceed. A roll call vote followed, and the motion was carried, meaning the demolition would not be delayed.

Following the carriage house discussion, the meeting addressed procedural matters, specifically regarding a memorandum of agreement related to the Jones Library. This document, set to be a focal point in future discussions, was not on the current agenda, prompting considerations for additional meetings before the planned April session. The urgency of the agreement’s deadline was emphasized, with members agreeing to compile individual comments via email for further review.