Portsmouth historic building should be razed, inspector says. HDC still says no to owner.

PORTSMOUTH — The debate about whether the owner of an 1850s historic building on Daniel Street should be allowed to demolish it rages on.

Sean Peters, the owner of 95 Daniel St., says the building that used to be home to John’s Barber Shop is in such poor condition it should be torn down, rather than trying to rebuild it “from the inside out.”

But many members of the city’s Historic District Commission seem to believe otherwise, and they encouraged Peters to hire an independent historic preservationist engineer to evaluate the condition of the building.

The commission voted to continue its evaluation of Peter’s request to allow “the full demolition and reconstruction” of the historic building for at least a month.

HDC Chair Reagan Ruedig told Peters he could hire the engineer the board has used in the past “or it sounds like if you wanted to, just proceed with a restoration.”

Peters received approval from the HDC in October 2022 to try to restore the building, which was most recently appraised for $429,100, according to city documents.

It is owned by 95 Daniel Street LLC, which purchased the property for $1.3 million in May 2022, according to city records.

Peters is the principal of 95 Daniel Street LLC, according to records with the state secretary of state’s office.

Wednesday’s HDC hearing in City Hall came after commission members recently visited the downtown property.

Restoration 'not going to be easy'

Commissioner Martin Ryan said he “saw the conditions” of the building during the site visit and acknowledged restoring the building is “not going to be easy," adding he can still see it "being saved and restructured, reframed."

He reminded the development team that during the last meeting “I was asking for options. I’d be open to options that keeps the envelope on three of four sides, maybe you do something with the back of the building to make this more feasible as a project."

Ryan said the site visit wasn’t “enough to change my mind” against total demolition.

Seacoast real estate: Newington home sells for record $5.25M while still under construction

Commissioner Larry Booz said he views the building as “something fixable.”

“It comes back to my feeling either you look at Portsmouth’s history and you love it … and I’m not saying this is you, or you look at Portsmouth’s history and you see dollar signs,” he said.

“If you love it, you want to preserve it and save it,” Booz added. “I think that’s what most people want to do.”

Owner says demolition and replacing building is not a profit-making idea

Peters replied that “there’s really no profit incentive in the fact I want to rebuild this completely.”

“It’s really more of a loss mitigation thing at this point. There’s no money to be made,” Peters said. “I’m really looking at it as how can I get it done, and what makes the most sense.”

Peters said when he looks at the building and thinks about “rebuilding one wall at a time, I think we’re going to end up with the same result at the end of the day.”

“I think it’s going to cost me …a much larger amount of money to do it in that fashion,” Peters said. “And I don’t unfortunately see the benefit to the building to do so.”

More Portsmouth news: Here's school shooting threat suspect's argument for less prison time

Peters “really hoped” he could renovate the historic building, like he is doing next door at 99 Daniel St., which his LLC also owns.

“I don’t have all the money in the world. I want to make this the best project that I can and not end up in a situation where the building just sits here for another 20 years looking like it does now,” he said.

Commissioners reminded city building inspector says demolition is needed

City Councilor Rich Blalock, who serves on the HDC, stated that he was concerned “about adding cost to the applicant. Doing the walkthrough, I don’t know what we’re saving, that’s the hard part."

Blalock also referenced a report written by Portsmouth chief building inspector Shanti Wolph, who stated the building should be razed.

Wolph wrote that in order to “restore or renovate the structure to meet code compliance, a complete replacement of the structural frame is necessary.”

“Given the current state of the structure to ensure safe working environment for construction personnel, I recommend the building be razed,” the city’s chief building inspector said.

Commissioner Jon Wyckoff stated that because “the foundation has been taken down below grade, to me it’s a significant problem.”

“I’m thinking there is a lot of real serious problems with this building that can get involved,” he said.

But Wyckoff said he himself has worked to restore buildings in similar shape.

“Actually I’m really torn,” he acknowledged.

HDC members still raising doubts about demolition

Commission Vice Chair Margot Doering said the applicant’s plan when he bought the building  “was to tear it down and start with something completely different.”

“Now he finds himself sort of on the back heel trying to figure out how to achieve the same goals that he initially had when he bought the building,” she said.

Doering maintained that the only way she could make a responsible decision is to have the third party opinion.

That way they could learn if it’s possible “to take the existing conditions and turn it into a safe viable building,” she said.

“I’m not going to vote to demolish something without more information,” Doering said.

Commissioner Daniel Brown said he too would like to hear from someone “who knows restoration.”

“If he comes back and says it’s impossible, then I think it’s a simple decision,” Brown said. “Right now I can’t make a decision without that information.”

Ruedig stated having another engineer evaluate the building could help the HDC understand “how feasible it is to repair this building.”

Peters stated that he wasn’t “afraid of rebuilding something from the inside out, it’s literally what we’re doing next door right now. This one is a different story with the foundation issues."

Peters told the commission that his team would “have to think on it some more” in terms of next steps.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Portsmouth historic panel unconvinced on demolishing 95 Daniel St.