Tracy Brannstrom
MONTPELIER — A flood-damaged historic building on Montpelier’s Elm Street is coming down.
The city’s Development Review Board decided the loss of the structure at 144 Elm Street was justified by the promise of new housing, according to a written decision issued Aug. 21. The board is requiring the property owner to photograph and create a historical record of the building before demolition, and to build at least six housing units there.
The demolition could be the first of several such requests as the city grapples with flood-damaged historic buildings, the city’s Planning and Zoning Administrator Meredith Strobridge Crandall told the review board at a hearing for the proposed demolition on Aug. 3.
The six-unit minimum is far below the 22 units of workforce housing planned for the 1.32-acre property near the intersection of Elm and Spring streets, according to the project application. Lucky Boardman spoke at the review board hearing on behalf of 144 Elm Street Apartments LLC, the property owner, and Vermont Rental Solutions, the applicant. The owning company bought the property last year from Resurrection Baptist Church.
The development itself is not yet permitted, although a Public Works permit has allowed service-line stubs to be installed at the property for future water and sewer connections, according to Public Works Director Kurt Motyka.
Because the roughly 6,500-square-foot existing building sits in Montpelier’s downtown historic district, its demolition required Development Review Board approval. Its oldest section is a two-and-a-half-story, timber-framed Italianate house dating to about 1870, with a belfry, church wing, and other additions added around 1960 as the property was converted for church use.
The building was heavily damaged during the July 2023 flood and has been vacant since, with mold and other deterioration.
Under rules that were amended several years ago, the Development Review Board can approve the loss of a historic building if it determines that the public benefit of the proposed project outweighs the loss.
In its decision, the board found that the building is too damaged for rehabilitation. It cited the property’s flood risk and Montpelier’s goal of adding at least 75 housing units to the city per year. The decision also allows the existing 18-space parking lot to remain as the property’s primary use while plans for housing move forward.
In addition to requiring a future housing development, the decision requires the owner to have professional photographs taken before demolition and provide them to the city for a historical record. The owner also must return to the Development Review Board within two years to review the property’s compliance with city regulations.
The application for demolition has been through several layers of city review since June. The Design Review Committee voted 4 to 1 in July to approve it. The Historic Preservation Commission agreed the building is too damaged to rehabilitate as a whole, but found its original portion, particularly the front facade, still has historic value.
Robert McCullough, vice chair of the Historical Preservation Commission, told board members on Aug. 3 that the front 10 to 12 feet of the building could be salvaged and integrated into the new development as a design feature. The foundation beneath that section is sound, he said, and similar approaches have been used in parts of the South. He acknowledged it “isn’t an ideal preservation treatment by any means,” and said there are no hard numbers on the cost, although he estimated the added work at about $200,000 to $300,000. He added that grants would be hard to come by.
Boardman put the cost closer to $500,000. He said his company would be willing to save the front section of the building if funding were available, but the added expense would not be justified for a workforce housing project involving a building valued at about $340,000. He said the biggest issue is the need to remove, store, and reinstall the façade.
“You can’t half demo something and build around it,” he told the board.
The Development Review Board ultimately did not require the owner to save the facade, but the Historic Preservation Commission has a broader concern about the cumulative loss of historic elements along Elm Street as flood-damaged buildings are rehabilitated or demolished, McCullough said.
When asked by a review board member whether saving part of the building was simply an aesthetic choice, McCullough said: “It’s aesthetic in the sense that it salvages what this building contributes to … the 19th century streetscape, which is a little more than just aesthetics. It’s the overall environment, the built environment.”
McCullough said the city should consider ways to help property owners address funding concerns around preservation and make rehabilitation more feasible.
The decision to allow the building’s demolition opens a 30-day appeal period beginning Aug. 21.
“This is the first of what may be, over the next few years, several requests to demo flood-impacted historic buildings,” Strobridge Crandall told the Development Review Board. “We have several others in the city that, just, nobody has come forward yet to do any major work on them.”
