[MassHistPres] Historic Commission vs. Building department

[Sullivan, Charles M.]

The operative phrase here is "nor construed to prevent the meeting of requirements certified by a duly authorized public officer to be necessary for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous
condition." This language is (or should be) in every preservation ordinance.

The Board of Survey (in Cambridge, at least) consists of the fire chief, the building commissioner, and an outside structural engineer, and has the authority to enter buildings, assess their condition, and order repairs or demolition to alleviate public safety hazards. In emergency situations, the fire chief and the building commissioner have the authority to act independently.

In the 1970s and '80s Cambridge still had an appreciable number of abandoned buildings, but the Historical Commission insisted on reviewing applications for demolition under the demolition delay ordinance that went into effect in 1978. When some property owners began to solicit the attention of the Board of Survey, hoping to bypass the Historical Commission, we convinced the City Council to appoint the Executive Director of the Commission as the fourth (but non-voting) member of the board. I was then able to accompany the board on its site visits and participate in their deliberations. This let me present a preservation point of view, but also enabled me to understand how the board's decisions were justified when circumstances required it.

It's a dangerous thing to interfere with public safety decisions; the trick is to ensure that they are justified.

Charles Sullivan


________________________________
Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director
Cambridge Historical Commission
831 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Mass.  02139
617 349-4684 voice, 349-3116 fax


-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]On Behalf Of slater at alum.rpi.edu
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:57 AM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: [MassHistPres] Historic Commission vs. Building department


There is a clause in MGL 40C, Section 9 that says: 

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary
maintenance, repair or replacement of any exterior architectural feature
within an historic district which does not involve a change in design,
material, color or the outward appearance thereof, nor to prevent
landscaping with plants, trees or shrubs, nor construed to prevent the
meeting of requirements certified by a duly authorized public officer to
be necessary for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous
condition, nor construed to prevent any construction or alteration under
a permit duly issued prior to the effective date of the applicable
historic district ordinance or by-law."

In Springfield, our city officials are interpreting this to mean that a
three-person structural survey board can order the demolition of a
property that they deem to be structurally unsound, even though the SHC
has voted to deny demolition. They have also used this power to order
the demolition of abandoned buildings (which they deem "fire hazards")
without even notifying or petitioning the SHC.

Has any other community met with such a situation? Does the clause above
give code enforcement departments trump power over historic district
guidelines, for example, most original porch railings do not meet code,
can the code enforcement department order that a homeowner bring their
property up to code?

Thanks,

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA

******************************
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
********************************