It may have been a difficult decision, but the Saco City Council was right in denying an appeal by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, seeking to stop demolition of the former Bay View Convent.

The Commission’s charge is to see historic landmarks are preserved, and it pursued this goal faithfully in the case of the former resort hotel. However, it is an advisory board and has no standing to make decisions or grant appeals like the request to halt demolition.

At issue was whether the Servants of Immaculate Heart of Mary would be able to move forward with tearing down the building in preparation for the planned Estates at Bay View. Developer Tim Swenson reached an agreement to purchase the property last year, and intends to develop 14 residential lots.

The Estates at Bay View project received a contract zone from the city enabling it to develop the 14 housing lots in exchange for $100,000 toward the construction of a sidewalk on Bay View Road; assurance of public access rights to the beach; construction of a public bathroom on the south side of Bay View Road; and improvements to a city parking lot on the corner of Seaside Avenue and Bayview Road. The developer will also give the city a 3.6-acre parcel of resource protection land on the west side of Seaside Avenue for passive recreational use and municipal parking, according to the agreement.

Although we think the commission is entitled to deference on recommendations concerning historic preservation, it is unrealistic to expect the City Council to undo all the work that has gone into this plan, or give up all the amenities ”“ especially shore access ”“ that it has secured.

The building was built in the 1870s, according to Sister Cecile Labrecque, and the sisters bought the building in 1948. But since then, additions have been put on all four sides of the building, a foundation has been built and the roof was opened to make way for an elevator shaft. The mansard style roof is not architecturally significant, she said.

The sisters wanted to renovate the building in the 1980s to create a health care facility and the request was denied by the city, according to Sister Claire. Part of the reason, she said, was that there were fire safety concerns, as the building is a wooden structure. According to Swenson, the building has significant asbestos problems and would cost millions to properly renovate.

It’s not apparent what viable commercial use could be found for the building. Requiring its preservation against the wishes of the owner would have raised the possibility of long term deterioration of the property. Preservation of historic buildings is ideal, but sometimes it’s not commercially possible.

Because the sisters were not willing to register the building on the National Register of Historic Places and since the building was not designated as such prior to the contract zone approval, the Council was left with few options.

To avoid a similar situation in the future, the Historic Preservation Commission should work to come up with a list of buildings within the city it wishes to see preserved and work on strategies to help preserve the city’s history before it’s too late.