[MassHistPres] Visibility criteria

[Dennis De Witt]

Ralph

We assume all greenery and wooden fences are temporary and do not  
effect visibility.  (Existing masonry walls do affect visibility)

We consider the visibility of the building, as is, not based on what  
will be visible after construction.

We definitely review the visible rears of buildings -- which often  
are visible from the next street over between houses.

However, we are much more permissive re rear changes and additions  
(vs those towards the front) especially those deemed less or  
minimally visible.  90% of major changes tend to be on the rear anyway.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline


On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:50 AM, Ralph Slate wrote:

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