ROCKLAND, Maine — Nearly every home along a street off Route 1 is expected to be demolished over the next week.
The 12 cottage-style homes and several sheds date back more than a century in some cases.
Applications were filed this week by David Landry of Superior Restoration to demolish the buildings on Philbrick Avenue, which is located on the west side of Camden Street. The properties all are owned by Madeline Philbrick.
Philbrick said the buildings all were built by her grandfather Eugene Philbrick. She said he moved to Rockland from Somerville, bought the land and built each of the cottages by himself.
“He arrived in a horse and buggy. It was quite a thing he did,” she said.
No one is living in the buildings, which have been vacated gradually over the past 10 years.
Landry said the decision was made to demolish the buildings because of liability concerns. The condition of the buildings have deteriorated.
The city Fire Department had considered burning the structures for training purposes back in 2006 but that plan was dropped because of environmental concerns. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection informed the city that it could not burn the structures until a thorough test was done to determine whether they contained hazardous materials such as lead or asbestos. The cost of that led the city to drop the planned burnings.
The city had tried for about 20 years, starting in the 1980s, to get a state or federal grant to extend the public sewer line up Philbrick Avenue. The city was unable to get the funding and the cost to do the work was considered by the city to be prohibitive because of the extensive amount of ledge. The cottages had septic systems, many of which had been failing over the years.
The cottages were built between 1905 and 1930 and vary in size from about 600 square feet to more than 800 square feet.
Landry said there are no current plans for developing the lots once the buildings are removed.
There are three other homes on the approximately 800-foot dead-end street that belong to other property owners.
It looks like back in there day this was a nice little neighborhood, I can see kids playing in the street, they should include a picture from back in the day when these homes were occupied.
That would take investigative reporting
Volunteering your expert services, are you? Or are you more accomplished at freelance sniping?
Relax
Frankie *would* say that.
Grow up.
Take a pill. Frankie says RELAX.
It is a pity that these houses couldn’t have been rehabilitated, by the looks of the picture most look well built but probably the cost would be prohibitive.
Maybe it would be wise to relocate and save one or more of these buildings as a reminder of the past. This initiative would have to be taken by local citizens.
Actually these were not well constructed . They have no foundations, and there was never a sewer line run up the street. The photo is deceptive. Many years ago the chimneys were removed
,leaving a big square hole in the roofs of many of them. I doubt you could pick them up in one piece to use them somewhere else.
The real question that has not been posed , is why after so many years as run down shantys, all of a sudden they are being razed. The owner is notorious for not maintaining any of the properties they own . What leverage was used to make the owner comply????????????
Hope they take photographs and record the history on this street and preserve it in the local Historical Society.
should have put in uncle henries as free for taking……hunting camps.
Have a better look on Google Maps Street View: http://g.co/maps/rcdex
I know people that are living with their families in houses that are in much worse shape than this. It’s all they can afford to rent.
Looking at the Google Maps Street View – I would have to agree with you! It seems as though they would be better serviced to fix them up a little and maybe offer them as low-income housing VS spending all the $$ they are to build new units else where in the state… Just a thought!
It is the property owner’s rights to do what he wants as long as the houses are some kind of landmark, and most people don’t want low income housing in town anyway.
I never said it was not in their right to do as they wished…. When you are talking “most people” are you referring to people specifically in Rockland or just people in general? Why would they not want low income housing in town? I am not being argumentative – I am honestly asking!
Have you been to Rockland lately? There are a lot of low income apartments in and around town. Lots of slumlords in Rockland.
I wonder how much it will cost the city to tear them down and haul away the debris (labor, landfill fees, fuel) VS giving the property with the building to someone who would agree to rehab the building. Eventually, if repaired, the new homeowners would have a home and the city would have some revenue from the property taxes.
Of course, this all hinges on whether the new owners could/would care enough to invest their time and energy to make the improvements and keep their home in decent shape. If they have no skin in the game maybe they just wouldn’t care to keep them nice.
The city will spend $0 to tear them down.
Bring your checkbook with you. Easy to say from your side of the money.
Maine State Housing justifies creating a two bedroom low income housing unit for over 250K. I would guess these structures and their septic systems could be rehabbed for quite a bit less than that, assuming the Agency BS is minimized.
That was exactly what I was trying to say based on my earlier comment!
—–
/////