Demolition request denied on Phila Street
Panel: Only one of five criteria met
The city’s Design Review Commission unanimously denied a request by the owner of 65 Phila St. to demolish the house.
Both 65 and 69 Phila St. had been included in the request for demolition, but a lawyer for the owner announced during the meeting Wednesday the owner is under contract to sell 69 Phila and removed the house from the application.
The application drew much attention from Phila Street neighbors, the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation and other city residents since the owner, Helen Case LLC, applied for demolition in December. Public opinion was mostly opposed to demolition and critical of what they described as the owners’ longstanding neglect of the houses.
Helen Case is a company created by local real estate agent Helen Simpson and her husband, Case Simpson. The couple bought the properties in 2002 and 1995. Earlier this year, the DRC found the houses to be both architecturally and historically significant. Both structures are in the Eastside Historic District.
Both 65 and 69 Phila were built in the 1850s and bear Italianate-style wide eaves with decorative brackets, slim columns supporting the porch roofs and dentil molding. Tamie Ehringer, chairperson of the Design Review Committee, said Wednesday studies show the houses are salvageable despite being in disrepair.
There was little discussion Wednesday among the board members, who have been looking at the application for months. After first appearing on the DRC agenda in December, the owners withdrew the application several times before it was finally up for a vote Wednesday.
Ehringer asked the board to consider five criteria to determine if the application to demolish should be granted: have the owners made good faith efforts to preserve the structure, have the owners shown sufficient evidence they tried to find a buyer, have the shown whether or not the houses could be used for purposes other than a residential dwelling, have the owners shown they would not have the prospect of a reasonable return on their investment in the house, and have the owners presented a post-demolition plan for the property.
The board voted the owners had only met the fifth criterion.