Earlier this month, I wrote about the flawed DRB process in St. Albans which threatens both the integrity of our claim to an historic downtown and the character of my very own neighborhood.

Last week there was a preliminary decision in the appeal process, that only addressed our request for a stay of demolition.  Reporting on the decision solely from Sandy Fead’s (the developer’s attorney) perspective, the Messenger  led with the headline, “Judge O.K.’s Demolition of Owl Club,” which significantly mischaracterizes the Judge’s ruling.  In order to correct that misunderstanding, I have replied with the following:

I have to correct a mis-framing of the Judge’s decision with regard to our

request for a Stay of Demolition on the Smith House (Owl Club).

Contrary to the headline, the Judge has not “okayed” demolition.  In fact,

he cautioned Connor Construction more than once about the risk to which they

would be exposed, should they decide to go ahead with demolition and new

construction before the case is actually heard in its entirety next summer.

This was by no means a final decision on any of the issues in the appeal.

It simply denied our request for a Stay based on the evidence we were able

to provide, so far, with regard to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation.

We have the opportunity still to present new evidence to counter what we

believe is the highly exaggerated cost quoted by the Connor’s witnesses.

We understand why the Connors’ attorney, Sandy Fead, was eager to shape the

decision in the public imagination as he has; but we remain unconvinced that

the building should not be restored; and, judging by the strength of a local

petition drive, which asks the City to intervene on behalf of the house, I

believe that a growing number of Franklin County residents agree that the

building should be saved.  

At no time did the Connors’ experts disagree with us that restoration is

possible.  The only question is the cost; and the merits of saving the

building, whatever the cost, have not been discussed.

It is our belief that the intangible values the City has recognized in

historic properties, which prompted the adoption of special rules governing

the redevelopment of those properties, demand that more than a simple

economic metric be applied to the question of rehabilitation.  Next summer,

we intend to make that case to the Environmental Court.

In his courtroom remarks, Judge Durkin has already clearly indicated that he

understands that the DRB failed to enforce its own rules.  His decision with

regard to the stay requires that Connor Construction satisfy the

documentation requirements under the law, so we are confident that he will

give equal deference to the rules governing redevelopment of the property.

We would have liked to see the Judge remand the entire decision to the DRB

in order to allow them the opportunity to prove that, if given a second

chance, they could do the job properly; but it is not surprising that he

might lack confidence in their ability to do so.  He has therefore indicated

that he will himself act in the capacity of the DRB, going forward.

We have every confidence that Connor Construction will respect the Judge’s

admonishments against premature demolition.

In the interim between now and the trial, we urge that every effort be made

by the City, the Museum  (as guardian of local history), and perhaps the

library, BFA or other public actors, to arrive at an alternative that will

at once respect the building’s significance to local history and the

downtown viewshed; and will rededicate the site to a public purpose

befitting its heritage.