[MassHistPres] Visibility criteria

[Ralph Slate]

The state law (MGL 40C) states that historic commissions have 
jurisdiction over "such portion of the exterior of a building or 
structure as is open to view from a public street, public way, public 
park or public body of water" - aka visible from a public way. In 
Springfield, we generally have treated this as meaning that the rear of 
a building is not controlled by our commission. Do any other commissions 
take this stance?

My interest in this stems from the application of that policy when the 
visibility is limited due to a temporary feature, such as a fence, 
shrubs, or even another house (unfortunately, losses of historic 
structures in Springfield are not uncommon).

For example, if someone had a stockade fence that predated the formation 
of the district, and they wanted to put an addition on their house which 
would not be visible due to the fence being in place, would the addition 
be exempt from control even though the fence could be removed at a later 
date? Or, instead of a fence, what if the visibility was limited by 
screen planting such as arborvitae? Obviously the commission could order 
that a fence could not be taken down, but if screen plantings die, I 
don't think a commission can order their replanting.

In researching this, I noticed that the town of Concord has adopted 
slightly different language from MGL 40C. Their language says "such 
portion of the exterior of a building or structure as is designed to be 
open to view from a public street, way or place". Their law is much more 
clear, because the feature doesn't have to be visible, it only has to be 
designed to be visible.

Thanks,

Ralph Slate
Springfield Historical Commission