Bowdeya Tweh

btweh@enquirer.com

The former Dennison Hotel's owner and historic preservation advocates will wait a little longer before they know whether the Downtown Cincinnati can be demolished.

The Historic Conservation Board voted to adjourn a special meeting Thursday without a vote after four hours of deliberation. Only five of the board's seven members attended the meeting and the motion to adjourn was approved after one board member, Judith Spraul-Schmidt, said she would have to leave before both sides had enough time to complete oral arguments.

After spending a few minutes in executive session, the board decided that instead of having a potential tie vote or deliberations lasting long into the evening, the rest of the meeting would be continued at a later date.

Downtown-based Columbia Development Group, owner of the Dennison, wants the city's blessing to move ahead with demolishing the 124-year-old building at 716 Main St. The building sits inside of the city's Main Street Historic District and along Cincinnati's streetcar line. The independent panel has the authority to allow demolition to move forward or the deny Columbia's plans.

The city's historic preservation staff, historic preservation groups such as the Cincinnati Preservation Association and Cincinnati Preservation Collective, and hundreds of residents in and outside of Cincinnati oppose demolition.

In Thursday's four-hour meeting, the board only got to hear testimony from those called by attorney Fran Barrett, who represents Columbia Development Group. Sean Suder, an attorney representing historic preservation groups, was able to cross-examine those witnesses, but there was not enough time to call up his witnesses.

Is the Dennison a sign of more historic teardowns?

The meeting at City Hall also adjourned before the board heard public comments on the demolition proposal. More than 75 people attended the meeting, which had already been rescheduled from late April to allow attorneys to prepare their arguments to the Historic Conservation Board.

In the packed City Council chambers, several advocates for preserving the former hotel wore burgundy "Save the Dennison Hotel" shirts with a picture of the structure on it.

The hearing started with Urban Conservator Beth Johnson presenting the city's case to the board on why Columbia's petition for demolition shouldn't be approved.

Johnson said in documents submitted to the city, Columbia did not prove the structure couldn't be reused in an economically viable manner. Columbia didn't analyze whether it could obtain state or federal historic preservation tax credits or other public incentives, which could change project feasibility. Johnson also said Columbia has never attempted to put up the building for sale or lease, preventing an opportunity to test whether the property could be redeveloped.

Barrett called about eight witnesses to testify on Columbia's behalf, a few of whom agreed with the company's position that the building could not be redeveloped in an economically viable manner.

Lance Brown, an executive vice president at Fairfield-based Beck Consulting, completed a feasibility study on Columbia's behalf, which determined the building couldn't be reused. Brown said he analyzed all potential reuses allowed within the property's zoning and he honed in on five for his Dennison analysis: a boutique hotel, market-rate apartments, condominiums, offices and first-floor retail only. Based on his calculations, after reviewing estimates of building renovation costs, he determined that all paths would be infeasible for private investors.

However, Suder asked Brown if he was aware of any Downtown redevelopment projects that had 100 percent of its money coming from private sources. Brown said no.

"The burden is theirs to prove economic hardship," Suder said. "We will bring our rebuttal to the board as soon as we can reconvene. Hopefully, we can meet within the next couple weeks."

Barrett told The Enquirer earlier this month the company is prepared to appeal any decision that blocks demolition. That means the building's fate may ultimately rest with the city's Zoning Board of Appeals and, potentially, judges in state court.