Manchester Residents Seek Stay to Save Historic Firefly Building From Demolition

Manchester Residents Pause Demolition of Historic Firefly Building

A 120-year-old building at the corner of Highland Avenue and Depot Street in Manchester, Vermont, remains in limbo as three local residents seek a 30-day stay from the state’s Environmental Court to prevent its demolition. The court has already approved a permit for the building’s removal, but the residents are exploring an alternative: relocating the historic structure, which most recently housed the Firefly Restaurant. Manchester journal reported that the legal saga, which has stretched over months, hinges on this new request for a pause, with a decision from the court expected in the coming days or weeks.

The building’s fate is tied to a larger vision for the Depot Street corridor. The owners plan to clear the site for a proposed Valvoline auto service facility next door, but the town’s Development Review Board previously denied a permit for that project. While the Environmental Court has separated the two cases, the immediate battle is over the Firefly building itself. The three residents—Kris Slethaug, Robin Lane, and Terry Lindsey—argue that demolishing the building would violate Manchester’s Land Use and Development Ordinance and harm the character of the Town Center district.

A Last-Ditch Effort to Save a Landmark

The residents’ request for a stay is not a final stand but a strategic pause. Their primary goal is not to block development indefinitely but to explore moving the Firefly building to another location. They have already discussed this possibility with Mark Greenberg, the property owner, who has expressed openness to the idea if it can be practically accomplished.

“Although we are disappointed with the Environmental Court’s decision, one of our main priorities now is to avoid the destruction of the Firefly building itself, including exploring its relocation at a later date,” Slethaug said.

Greenberg confirmed his support for the plan. “Yes, I’ve agreed to that if they want to do that,” he said. “I’m fine with that. I made that offer a year ago. They picked me up on it. I don’t know how they do it from a practical standpoint.”

The residents are backed by David Mears, an attorney with the Montpelier-based firm Tarrant, Gillies & Shems, who is representing them in their appeal. Mears clarified that his clients are actively working on a formal proposal to present to Greenberg. “Mr. Greenberg would get the building off his property, and then the building could be preserved someplace else in town,” Mears said. “I know that my clients are definitely interested in exploring that opportunity and are going to make a proposal to Mr. Greenberg to that effect.”

The Bigger Picture: Character vs. Commerce

For the residents, the fight over the Firefly building represents a larger struggle to preserve the soul of their community. The building is one of the oldest in the district, with a history that predates the Firefly Restaurant, encompassing a previous life as the popular Taco House nightspot. Its potential loss is seen as a threat to the area’s vibrant, independent identity.

Robin Lane, one of the appellants, articulated the stakes beyond the bricks and mortar. “It is the integrity of a functioning historic mixed-use neighborhood, its independent businesses, its creative community, and the character that makes this place distinctive,” she said. “We have an opportunity to envision something different: to preserve the Firefly’s potential through renovation and thoughtful repurposing of the existing building and its lot, rather than surrendering this important piece of our neighborhood to another corporate development.”

The opposition, however, is rooted in practical and economic realities. While the Town of Manchester has submitted findings supporting the Development Review Board’s initial decisions, its attorney, Merrill Bent, has declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings. The core counter-argument is that a modern auto service facility, while perhaps architecturally jarring, serves a functional economic need that a historic building, even if relocated, does not. The residents acknowledge this tension, noting that their opposition to the Valvoline project is separate but connected. They plan to continue working on alternatives that better align with the town’s character, even if the Firefly building itself is ultimately lost.

The proposal to move the building is a complex logistical challenge. Vermont has a history of successfully relocating historic structures, a process that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and requires specialized expertise and equipment. The success of such a venture often depends on community fundraising, available land, and a viable new use for the building. It remains an open question whether the three residents and their supporters can mobilize the resources and expertise needed to make it happen.

Terry Lindsey, whose Tilting at Windmills art gallery sits directly across the street from the Firefly building, put the effort into a broader context. “I’m not sure if our efforts will be fruitful but I love Vermont and care for the future of Manchester,” she said, reflecting the deep personal and civic investment driving this fight. The decision from the Environmental Court in the coming days will determine if they even get the chance to try.