639 Desire St.

Staff Recommendations: 

Located at the corner of Desire and Royal streets, 639 Desire Street is a ca. 1855 center hall frame residential building surmounted by a hipped roof with dormers. The building received several unsympathetic alterations over time including an enclosed front porch. The main building is flanked at the rear by a two-room accessory building with several diminutive additions. Overall, both buildings maintain their original shape and form, creating a readable mid-nineteenth-century residential landscape. 

In August 2022, an HDLC Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) was issued (permit #22-16051) for the structural renovation an installation of additional dormers at the building. The approved renovation work involved reconstructing the enclosed front façade of the building, returning the building to a more historically appropriate iteration. The work has also proceeded through Part 2 of the Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program. In February 2023, a Stop Work order was placed at the property for wall demolition exceeding the approved scope of work. The excessive demolition was noticed by the HDLC Inspector and was not self reported. 

The approved drawings (below) included selective wall demolition for new openings at the main residential building as well as the accessory building. The inspection revealed that significant wall demolition had taken place, far exceeding the approved scope. As seen in the inspection photographs (below) significant areas of existing wall studs and posts were removed at the main building. Although the total percentage of removal is unclear, the restructured wall area exceeds more than 50% of the existing. Nearly all the existing wall structure at the accessory building was removed. 

Following extensive conversations with the architect, it was noted that both buildings had extensive termite damage and wood rot, prompting the removal of unsalvageable material. On site documentation (below) shows the extent of the termite damage and overall demolition. According to the architect, the existing wall structure was comprised of very little historic material. The main building included larger 4x4 studs with 2x2 studs in between for receiving lath. A drawing below indicates the area of 4x4 studs that were removed (in red) versus those that remain in place (in green). In general, the HDLC reviews wall demolition as all portions of the existing wall structure. It is clear however that areas of the existing wall structure at the main building were not original to the building and were substandard due to rot and termite damage. 

Wall demolition at the accessory building was much more extensive in terms of existing material removed. Although minimally visible from the street due to a brick wall, alterations were reviewed and approved for the building by the HDLC. Wall demolition for new openings at all elevations was approved. The scope of demolition also included the removal of several unsympathetic and non-historic additions at the rear wall of the accessory building. The architect noted that as wall demolition proceeded, it became apparent that the existing wall structure could not support new openings for the building and required removal. Furthermore, the rear Chartres Street facing elevation shared a foundation with the existing additions that were removed, causing additional issues at the rear wall. Pictures of the wall structure at the accessory building (below) show a mixture of original/historic material as well as modern material and many non-original openings. 

Several similar cases of excessive wall demolition have come before the HDLC NO Commission recently. It is apparent that termite-eaten and rotted wood cannot support buildings receiving significant structural renovations without sistering. However, when demolition work is completed without the guidance of the HDLC Staff, historic material is lost. The provided documentation shows a combination of damaged wall structure and non-historic material present at both buildings. Overall, the realized work far exceeded the demolition that was approved. Staff recommends retention of the wall demolition. Staff leaves it at the discretion of the Commission if a fine is appropriate for this situation.