[MassHistPres] Historic Commission vs. Building department

[GRETCHEN SCHULER]

And to add this.  It is my understanding from a building commissioner that
the "required demolition of a building due to safety issues" is a serious
matter as if the property owner does not act in 7 or 10 days (I forget what
I was told) then the municipality is supposed to undertake the demolition to
rectify the unsafe condition.  Perhaps we should pursue this to see if true
as it may make survey boards only require demolition in bona fide unsafe
situations.

Gretchen Schuler
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sullivan, Charles M." <csullivan at cambridgema.gov>
To: <slater at alum.rpi.edu>; <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Historic Commission vs. Building department


> 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
> ********************************
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************
>