[MassHistPres] Penalty for Alterations without a Certificate fromhistoric district commission

[Dennis De Witt]

Not in the same class of issues but Brookline required the removal of  
a fancy plastic fence which was build w/o permit (fences require  
permits here).  The owner was a person not accustomed to be thwarted  
and it took time and the threat of $300 fines.

Dennis De Witt


On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Chris Skelly wrote:

> Hi Betty, Historic District Commissions, after reviewing a retroactive
> application for a certificate, can conclude that the change was
> inappropriate and require the alteration to be removed or replaced.
>
> I'm not sure if anyone has responded to your question with specific
> examples from Massachusetts.  If you have received some, I'd be
> interested in seeing them.
>
> I believe the South Dennis Historic District Commission required the
> removal of a new roof after it was found inappropriate.  I recall
> Edgartown HDC also requiring vinyl siding removal.  Perhaps someone  
> else
> on the list can elaborate  Chris..
>
> Christopher C. Skelly
> Director of Local Government Programs
> Massachusetts Historical Commission
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of
> Dcolebslade at aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 4:12 PM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Penalty for Alterations without a Certificate
> fromhistoric district commission
>
> Can a historic district commission require an owner who has altered a
> building without a Certificate in the historic district to "return the
> building to
> its original configuration" on the basis alone that it was done
> illegally?
> What if the alterations have been done in such a way  that the changes
> are
> potentially worthy of a Certificate?   Have any commissions done that?
>
>
>
> Can this return to its original configuration be a specific  "penalty"
> that
> would be announced in the Guidelines?  That is, is there  anything in
> Chapter
> 40C that would prevent this penalty?  The purpose of  this "penalty"
> would be
> deterrence to others.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Betty Slade
> Westport
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
> WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************
>
>
>
> LEGAL NOTICE
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> **
> ***********************
> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or  
> entity to
> which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and  
> exempt
> from disclosure under
> applicable law. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or  
> copying
> of this communication
> is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
> immediately by return email
> and delete the original message and all copies of the message and any
> attachments to it.
> The Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth does not accept any
> liability for viruses.
> Please ensure that adequate virus protection is in place before  
> opening
> any attachments.
> ********************************************************************** 
> **
> **********************
>
>
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact  
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO  
> THE WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************