[MassHistPres] Fwd: Demolition Delay Bylaw scope question

[RUTH WALES]

>
> In Lincoln, not only buildings but also structures such as the  
> permanent objects, stone walls, and abandoned foundations discussed  
> in this inquiry are included under the demolition delay bylaw if a  
> quarter or more of that structure on the property is being  
> demolished or otherwise removed. Quoting from the bylaw's current  
> definitions:
>
> 2.3     Demolition:  any act of pulling down, destroying, removing,  
> burning by arson, dismantling, or razing a building or structure,  
> or any substantial portion thereof, or commencing the work of total  
> or substantial destruction with the intent of completion of the  
> same.  Substantial portion is defined as twenty-five percent (25%)  
> of the volume of the building or structure, or twenty-five percent  
> (25%) of the roof structure.
>
> 2.11    Structure:  the combination of materials or part thereof  
> other than a building, including but not limited to a bridge, dam,  
> tower, silo, monument, stone wall, fence, path or road.
>
> To my knowledge, however, there have not as yet been any instances  
> involving the demolition of structures brought before the  
> Commission. As Skully appears to be suggesting, there may be more  
> effective tools, such as crafting into the town's bylaws  
> regulations in which the dismantling of any stone wall or other  
> designated structures in town would be reviewed by some Board or  
> Commission.
>
> Jack
>
>
> In a message dated 1/18/2007 11:31:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> ruthwales at verizon.net writes:
> FYI
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Chris Skelly" <Skelly-MHC at comcast.net>
>> Date: January 18, 2007 8:47:52 AM EST
>> To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Bylaw scope question
>>
>> I encourage local historical commissions to not expand a demolition
>> delay bylaw beyond its typical usage of preserving and protecting
>> significant buildings.  Within this context, a demolition delay bylaw
>> may not protect all significant historic resources, however, I  
>> think a
>> better approach is to investigate other bylaws or tools, rather than
>> expanding the scope of a demolition delay bylaw.
>>
>> If a bylaw such as a local historic district doesn't seem to fit the
>> bill either, perhaps an entirely new bylaw is warranted.  Cities and
>> towns have great flexibility to craft local bylaws and ordinances  
>> that
>> meet their needs for protecting the public welfare.  Demolition delay
>> bylaws aren't the only option available.
>>
>> 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  
>> knrmcguire at aol.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:09 AM
>> To: djdewitt at rcn.com; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Bylaw scope question
>>
>>
>> It's an interesting discussion point.
>> I was referring to stone walls that might exist on the lot and
>> exist either along a road which isn't designated as Scenic and/or
>> old stone walls which run perpendicular to the road, to delineate  
>> land
>> borders.
>>
>> The other element worth thinking about are exposed but inactive
>> remnants of stone foundations which suggest prior usage on the  
>> property.
>>
>> Perhaps another way to tackle these currently non-regulated items
>> is to work to refine the zoning bylaws to incorporate the  
>> preservation
>> (or reuse) of these older structures.
>>
>> The concern is that if the demolition delay bylaw is too stringent
>> there might be a movement to repeal its use.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: djdewitt at rcn.com
>> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> Sent: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Bylaw scope question
>>
>>
>> If a properly drafted DD law can be applied to something as limited
>> as an entrance portico, as I understand routinely happens in Newton,
>> why not a fieldstone wall, if the law is written to cover it?
>>
>> Dennis De Witt
>>
>>
>> On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Marcia Starkey wrote:
>>
>>> I have assumed that the jurisdiction for all or most DD bylaws is
>>> limited to
>>> buildings unless the language specifies otherwise.   Marcia  
>>> Starkey ,
>>> Greenfield
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <knrmcguire at aol.com>
>>> To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:15 PM
>>> Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Bylaw scope question
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interesting in hearing from communities that
>>>> attempt to preserve objects, stone walls, abandoned
>>>> foundations, etc as part of what is governed as
>>>> part of their implementation of their Demolition Delay Bylaw.
>>>>
>>>> Often times, it is the objects, walls and abandoned foundations on
>>>> a parcel which contribute to the historical context
>>>> to a house or other 'enclosed' structure attempting
>>>> to be saved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Roberta McGuire
>>>> Westford Historical Commission
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ 
>>>> __
>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and
>>>> security
>>>> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across
>>>> the web,
>>>> free AOL Mail and more.
>>>> ******************************
>>>> 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
>>>> ********************************
>