[MassHistPres] visibility

Mon Oct 15 11:45:03 EDT 2007

In Arlington, our by-law uses the terminology "subject to public view," so 
that it would include views from public parks, school yard, ponds, adjoining 
streets, private ways open to public travel, as well as public ways.  We 
follow the same policy as others with regard to ignoring, if you will, 
fences and plantings.  In practice, I think we are pretty much like 
Brookline.

J. Worden
Arlington HDC

**********

This transmittal is intended only for the use of the named recipient,
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential,
and/or exempt from disclosure.  If the reader of this transmittal is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in
error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of this message and any attachments.  Thank you.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu>
To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10

> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Visibility criteria (Ralph Slate)
>   2. Re: Visibility criteria (Dennis De Witt)
>   3. color of historic building (GmaCarol203 at aol.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:50:10 -0400
> From: Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Visibility criteria
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <47104E82.1090506 at alum.rpi.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 08:36:24 -0400
> From: Dennis De Witt <djdewitt at rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Visibility criteria
> To: MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <BF74C903-5930-430E-BF8D-ED9BBDA89628 at rcn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> 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
>> ********************************
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:23:55 EDT
> From: GmaCarol203 at aol.com
> Subject: [MassHistPres] color of historic building
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <cdd.1f3ba449.34423d0b at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> In Needham, the Historical Commission, of which I am chairman, gave
> permission to the First Parish Church to restore/renovate/repair the 
> church  Sunday
> school building , built in 1949,which is attached to the church itself. 
> This is
> not a National Register building and it is not in an historic
> district............it is one of the buildings on our historic  inventory, 
> built in 1834
> and now owned by the Unitarian Universalist  congregation. It is the 
> oldest
> religious or public building in Needham, built  partially from parts 
> salvaged from
> the meeting house built in 1774. The belfry  contains a bell cast by Paul
> Revere. The building is the strongest reminder of  the early religious and 
> civic
> life of the community.  The entire building  complex has been white
> clapboard.Now a group at the church wants the religious  education segment 
> to be painted
> yellow , while the Archival Committee of  the church wants it to remain
> painted white  The Commission is agast at the  possibility of painting 
> part of the
> building yellow but do not know if  we  have the authority to dictate a 
> color
> on one of our historic buildings. We have  never been confronted with this
> type of problem. Does the General Law referring  to the exterior of 
> historic
> buildings cover color choices if not in a local  historic district?
> Carol Boulris
> 203 Country Way, Needham, MA  02492
> 781-444-4028
> FAX:  781-444-2256
> gmacarol203 at aol.com    `    `    `
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at 
> http://www.aol.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10
> ********************************************
> 