Sanford commission upholds HPB denial for elevator/stair tower at 101 E. 1st St.; requires full resubmittal

The Sanford City Commission on Jan. 12 voted to deny an appeal of the Historic Preservation Board’s (HPB) denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for proposed exterior alterations at 101 E. 1st St., finding the applicant’s submittal lacked coordinated architectural details and complete materials specifications required for preservation review.

City staff detailed outstanding deficiencies in the revised December 15 submittal, naming missing brick sample brochures, cornice dimensions, paint and roof material specifications and inconsistent elevation drawings. Staff said structural and fire‑code comments also remain unresolved and concluded that incremental revisions would not be sufficient for an adequate evaluation of compatibility with Schedule S (the city’s preservation standard).

"The proposed tower exceeds the height of the historic building, making it the tallest in the district," staff told the commission, and noted that missing details prevented a determination of whether the design met historic‑district objectives. City attorney and staff recommended either upholding HPB’s denial or continuing the appeal only if the applicant submits a complete, coordinated resubmittal.

Applicant Steven Hebner and his team argued the elevator and stair tower design could be built and said they have engineering plans; the applicant said earlier approvals and engineering investments supported moving forward. Commissioners expressed concern that the partial and inconsistent plans presented to the commission were not the same as prior COAs or the signed and sealed plans under review by the building department.

After extended discussion on process and precedent, the commission moved to deny the appeal and uphold HPB’s denial, and added a waiver of COA application fees for a new, complete submittal; the motion passed. The commission also authorized the city to consider an administrative extension for the site development permit where appropriate. Staff directed the applicant to provide the full architectural drawings, consistent renderings and material specifications required for a fresh HPB review and a new COA application.

The decision leaves the applicant two primary routes: (1) prepare a complete COA resubmittal addressing all staff and HPB comments, or (2) revise the design substantially and file a new application under the established HPB review process.