[MassHistPres] hardiplank

[John Worden]

In clarification of my earlier post, I should have made it more plain that 
in the cases where we allowed Hardiplank, it was new construction of garages 
to the rear of pre-existing historic properties.  I do not think that we 
would allow it on an historic building (at least I wouldn't).

John 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: Sunday, July 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6


> 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. Re: Hardiplank In Historic Districts (Carol Carlson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:57:15 -0400
> From: Carol Carlson <carolmcarl at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Hardiplank In Historic Districts
> To: rhayw12345 at aol.com
> Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <48765B8B.6060801 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Ryan:
>
> The Bedford HDC recently approved (4-1 ~ I voted no) hardieplank
> material for the entire exterior siding on a block of stores/apartments
> to be built in the center of town.   The main reasoning for approval was
> that this will be totally new construction (the old block is coming
> down),  not something we must preserve, and that hardieplank doesn't
> need painting as often as wood.    However, I agree with you about
> taking into consideration the surrounding area and how the material fits
> the site.
> I do not think the Bedford HDC would approve hardieplank for historic
> buildings, and I advise you not to set such a precedent.
> Good luck
> Carol Carlson
> Bedford HDC
>
> rhayw12345 at aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning Everyone
>> The Medford Historical District Commission would like to get everyone's 
>> opinion on the following subject.
>>
>> We have two homeowners (the house has been divided into condos) who had 
>> the desire to take their circa 1890's shingle style house and restore the 
>> exterior to the best of their ability. One of the homeowners is the 
>> architect, who brought in drawings for the building. He originally 
>> proposed to remove all the aluminum siding and reuse the wood underneath 
>> which he believed was in good enough condition from his investigation 
>> work. We approved his work.
>> ?
>> He has since returned to us with the problem that much of the house's 
>> original wood is in poor condition and needs to be replaced due to 
>> cracking, cupping, and numerous patching and nail holes from the siding. 
>> Because of this the homeowners wish to replace all the siding on the 
>> house. The homeowners have priced both?wood (which every home in the 
>> district?is already) and the hardiplank material. ?The homeowners are 
>> claiming a $13,000 price difference between wood and hardiplank material, 
>> however, this would be the first house to have the item allowed as a 
>> whole construction building material. The commission worries about the 
>> allow for one, allow for all rule where if we allow one homeowner to 
>> build in this material, we will be setting a precedent for all the other 
>> homes in districts city wide for similar substitute materials.
>>
>> The other issue the commission has is that our bylaw states that 
>> materials clearly need to relate to the existing neighborhood, which has 
>> been, to this point, wood.
>>
>> Our questions for you are, have other commissions approved this in their 
>> districts? How generally do preservationist feel about this material. I 
>> am a purist and feel that preservation is not about a dollar figure but 
>> about preserving those structures, places, etc significant to our nations 
>> history. No figure can ever be put to that. Your opinions would be 
>> appreciated quickly as possible, as we need to make a decision on the 
>> subject soon.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Ryan D. Hayward
>> Medford 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
>> ********************************
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6
> *******************************************
>