The city seems to have backed down from its proposal to landmark the inside of an historic Beacon Hill building as extensive renovations continue and preservationists warn there soon might not be much left to save.

The Boston Landmarks Commission was originally slated to vote on the controversial landmarking of 46 Beacon Street during its May 28 meeting, but that vote was abruptly canceled and replaced with an hour and a half of closed-door executive session discussion.

The initial reason given was “pending litigation,” which the commission confirmed in a followup statement.

“As part of its review of the petition, the city’s Office of Historic Preservation continues to engage with the property owner on how best to assess the current condition of these interior spaces. Legal concerns about a potential designation have been raised by the counsel to the current property owner. The Boston Landmarks Commission met in executive session to discuss those concerns,” said a spokesperson.

Co-owner Jim Keliher says he hasn’t officially filed any legal challenges, although he’s never hid his confidence that he’d win a court battle if the commission does go through with the landmark designation.

“I think their lawyer and other staff members brought up that they don’t have legal standing to enforce a 47-year-old petition,” he said. “We told them they don’t have standing back in the April hearing.”

There have been a couple examples in the past of building interiors being granted landmark status, but both of those were done with the consent of the owner, which Keliher is decidedly not offering here.

While the commission deliberates, extensive renovations continue unabated inside the building. The owners cite a long list of serious issues like black mold, water damage and asbestos. Keliher says they’re preserving some elements like mantles, but other distinctive features like the carved wooden ceilings of the music room were too mold-ridden to save.

Preservationists have accused Keliher of fabricating issues to justify uprooting historic architecture and converting the property into residences. Martha Brest is a resident leading the landmarking charge and helped organize community funding for an April study that resuscitated the building’s decades-old landmark case.

She wants the commission to landmark the building even if there’s no historic interiors left to avoid setting a precedent of racing a landmark designation.

“Back when I took pictures in August, there was nothing wrong. All the panels were in place, I didn’t see water anywhere. I don’t believe for one minute that damage could happen right after it was sold. Everyone I know who’s been inside that building says it looks like they just took a hose and sprayed water around it,” she said.

A third-party inspection to verify the claims is yet to materialize, despite the landmarks commission being invited in late September. That offer was first lost internally to commission crossed wires, then delayed by an incorrect claim that visiting would violate the open meetings law, and now is waiting on site safety waivers that apparently remain unsigned.

Catherine Oko, the pastor of the Korean Unification Church that owned the building previously, said she wasn’t aware of any black mold or extensive water damage, but did confirm Keliher’s assertion that the roof had frequent leaking issues with internal gutters.

In the end, the extent of damage to the house may be a moot point given city government seems far from confident it can reach inside a private property and landmark it against the owner’s will. If the commission does eventually decide it has that power and wants to defend it in court, there’s every chance interior renovations will already be complete or well underway.

Keliher says workers have finished extracting the asbestos from the basement and are close to completing the removal of all molded material, though water issues will take the removal of the roof and as such require an exterior permit.

“They had months to buy up the property if they wanted to preserve it,” he said. “It’s private property, someone’s going to have to pay us serious money if this gets landmarked. They’ve already tied me up for ten months. I hope they all have good lawyers.”