Unfortunately the LUZ Committee unanimously voted to DENY our appeal and ALLOW THE DEMOLITION. The decision was not based on hard facts.
Just as the HPC did, the LUZ Committee appeared to rely upon the Historic Planning Staff report and the Engineer's letter. They asked me no questions whatsoever. Before CM Love voted, he stated he's known Joel a long time. Does that mean because he's know him a long time means he just takes staff recommendation? The Staff Report also suggested removal of the rear damaged structure and mothballing; that was never even on the table.
Staff Report recommended to allow the demolition; that decision was based in part on the following:
- A site visit during which, based on the photographs, only the damaged portion of the structure was viewed
- An opinion letter from an Engineer.
- A single repair estimate.
- A letter from the owner stating the structure was a danger.
Was an Engineering Report submitted that detailed the current structural assessment? NO
Was an estimate to restore provided? YES
Was the estimate accurate? NO - the estimate provided was to restore it to a triplex, which would not be allowed.
Based on the lack of hard evidence provided, I really should not have had to provide anything, but I did.
- I reminded the Committee that removal of the damaged rear area could be removed.
- I reminded the Committee that the property could be sold or donated to someone who would restore it.
- I quoted Section 602.4 of the 2014 Florida Building Code Existing Structures that states, "For repairs in an historic building, replacement or partial replacement of existing or missing features that match the original configuration, height, size and original methods of construction shall be permitted." This means the structure is NOT required to be brought up to current building codes.
- I quoted from the Wood and Timber Assessment Manual that discussed how to evaluate burned light framing and charring.
- I provided photos that proved the exposed wall studs in the damaged rear addition that burned were not charred at all - only the lath was charred.
- I provided photographic evidence proved only one of the ceiling joists had charring.
- I provided photographic evidence of a completely restored structure on Walnut Court that suffered severe fire damage.
- I provided photos of another structure that suffered just as much if not more fire damage in April 2015 and the letter that Baker Klein wrote saying that structure should be saved by removing the rear addition. In both cases the letters were based on a visual inspection only; no structural assessment was done. So why does Ionia have to come down and E 3rd does not? Because the firm was asked to write a letter to save E 3rd and to write a letter to support demolition for Ionia.
- I shared with the Committee what the engineer told me during our site visit: "If the owner wants to pay me to do a structural analysis on it, I may, I may not."
There should have been a Structural Assessment/Inspection conducted that included load calculations and the actual inspection of the wall studs. The engineer admitted she did not do any of that; no wall coverings were removed to determine the extent of fire damage behind plaster walls (because chances are there was no damage and that would not support the OPINION that the house needed to be demolished).
Did I provide my own engineering structural assessment? No. And neither did the owner. Citizens should not have to prove the structure should be saved; the owner should have to prove the structure cannot be saved.
It is more difficult to obtain HPC approval to repair windows or doors or build a new house than it is to obtain approval to destroy a contributing structure....and that's a shame.
