Milton officials debate fate of Mulberry Street house

A boarded up house on Mulberry Street was the topic of discussion Sept. 13 by the Milton Historic Preservation Commission, which ruled that it has no authority over whether the property owner can demolish the house. 

Joseph Sopczynski, owner of 210 and 214 Mulberry St., told the commission that he wished to demolish the house because it is in very bad shape. He said he had already removed windows that contained asbestos, which is why it is boarded up, and about 100 pigeons have taken up residence inside. In addition, the front stoop of the house has been removed and ivy has grown all the way up the side.

“It’s an eyesore,” Sopczynski said. “I’d like to demolish it so it will be gone.”

Sopczynski said he plans to rebuild the home at 214 Mulberry St. while leaving the lot at 210 Mulberry St. empty. When he went through both houses, he found the 214 Mulberry house was in better shape and was much harder to demolish than the 210 Mulberry house because the house is dug into the ground and has a deep basement. 

However, complicating the situation is an old agreement between the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington and the historic preservation commission from 2014 that moved the house from 127 Broad St. to 210 Mulberry St. The agreement stated that the house would not be demolished unless it was moved, but that agreement was not recorded with the recorder of deeds and the historic survey of the property lists the house as being demolished. Sopczysnki said to his knowledge, the diocese used the house at one point, but he does not know how it came to be in the condition it is. 

Project Manager Tom Quass said while the house is not a contributing historic property, Town Manager Kristy Rogers wanted the commission to review Sopczynski’s request and see if they could settle it. 

The other problem for Sopczynski is that Milton has strict regulations in place for demolishing a home in the historic district, including having a structural engineer come look at the house. And while the historic preservation commission does oversee changes to buildings within the historic district, committee member P.D. Camenisch said, “Our committee has no authority to give you permission to tear it down.”

The commission agreed that the house is an eyesore, but also agreed with Camenisch that it has no authority to allow Sopczynski to raze it. Camenisch made the motion that the town solicitor determine whether the house is viable and can be demolished, a motion that passed unanimously.

Committee member Barbara Wagner said, “It’s a legal issue, not our issue.”