[MassHistPres] Demo review procedures
William and Sheila King
basking at comcast.net
Thu Mar 6 08:49:29 EST 2008
Cambridge's demo delay ordinance, adopted in 1978 (we think the first in the
State) and substantially unamended since, applies to any "significant
building" (as defined) that our Historical Commission determines that it is
in the public interest to be "preferably preserved" or rehabilitated rather
than to be demolished. If a building (defined as a "combination of
materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property") is determined
to be "significant" (i.e. a "building ... which is in whole or in part
fifty years or more old and" [which is in an historic district or listed on
or the subject of a pending application for listing on the National
Register, OR-- KEY WORDS APPLICABLE TO MOST OF OUR DEMO DELAY CASES-- which
the HC FINDS] "either: a. Is importantly associated with one or more
historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural,
political, economic or social history of the City or the Commonwealth. or
b. Is historically or architecturally significant in terms of period, style,
method of building construction or association with a famous architect or
builder either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings.," THEN
the question for the Commission becomes whether that "significant building"
is "preferably preserved". If so found, then the ordinance provides that no
demo permit may be issued for the "preferably preferred significant
building" for six months and until all permits for the proposed replacement
have been issued.
Note at the outset that demolition of any building that is in an historic
district (and also any that is in one of Cambridge's four neighborhood
conservation districts) is subject to review under the "alteration"
provisions applicable to those districts; so the comments that follow would
not necessarily track our review of a demo case (of which there have been
virtually none) in any such district.
Our demo delay ordinance therefore requires two basic findings. The first
is as to whether the subject of the proposed demolition is a "significant
building." The definition quoted above makes such determination relatively
easy. Cambridge is blessed with an excellent recorded history of all
buildings in our built environment and an excellent staff, and as a
practical matter the staff passes initial judgment on demo applications as
to whether a "building" might fall within the definition of a "significant
building." If staff does not so determine, the ordinance permits a demo
permit to be issued forthwith; many garages, accessory buildings and other
sore thumbs, as well as some notable buildings less than 50 years old, have
disappeared after this initial staff determination. If the staff's initial
determination is that the building may be "significant," then it prepares a
memo to our Commission explaining why. The Commission makes its
determination after a public hearing on the demo application.
The second finding necessary to trigger the delay is that a "significant
building" is "preferably preserved." Our ordinance contains no definition
of this phrase, so our procedure is that, after the staff report on
"significance" (and usually before a vote by the Commission), we review the
applicant's plans for what would replace the significant building. While we
do not apply the same standards that we would if the building were in an
historic district, we do focus on the value of the history of the building,
of its setting on the street and consistency of style. Being a virtually
100% built City, we generally favor retaining a significant building rather
than having an empty lot occupy its site for an indefinite period. We do
consider the history of the development in the area where the subject
property is located (even if clearly not an area likely to be considered for
historic or neighborhood conservation district designation). Picking up on
the ordinance reference to "in the public interest" we do sometimes consider
factors other than the design of the replacement; for example, we have made
determinations that it is not "preferable" to "preserve" a buildiong that we
have found "significant" when the proposed replacement is, say, an
affordable building intended for large families. Not infrequently, members
of the Commission have criticized particular features of a proposed
replacement and voted that the existing structure is "preferably preserved"
to the proposed replacement that has the criticized features, but would not
be if redesigned; and this dialog has resulted in several cases where an
applicant who does not want to wait out the delay period coming up with a
more appropriately designed replacement.
We take separate votes on the determination as to whether a building is a
"significant building" (usually basing that finding on "the reasons
summarized in the staff report", which of course track one or more of the
requirements of the ordinance), and then whether that "significant building"
is or is not "preferably preserved" in the context of the proposed
replacement.
>From the above, you can tell that Cambridge looks at the building as a whole
in its determination as to whether a building is "significant" and
"preferably preserved". Larger for us, and unfortunately not yet fully
resolved, is the issue of how much change to the current structure is
required before "demolition" of that structure is deemed to be involved. We
have had some instances when the alterations to what would undoubtedly
qualify as a "significant building" have been so severe as to remove all
character defining features, and indeed to change the architectural style of
the original building, which have not been treated by the building
department as involving "demolition." At present, the triggering of a
review under our demo delay ordinance depends upon whether our Inspectional
Services Department considers that a demo permit is required under the
building code.
William B. King,
Cambridge Historical Commission
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcia Starkey" <mdstarkey at crocker.com>
To: <Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov>; <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>;
<blever3043 at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo review procedures
> Isn't a historic building the sum of its parts = integrity..adding up to
> its ability to convey information as a historical document? As a basic I
> use the NPS online and MHC guidebooks. The question is what can it afford
> to lose without losing its integrity. Its like "when is a --- not a ----"
>
> Marcia Starkey, Greenfield
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: blever3043 at aol.com
> To: mdstarkey at crocker.com ; Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov ;
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo review procedures
>
>
> For the purposes of discussion we can assume that it is. My conceptual
> dilemma is that if you are trying to preserve a building and find parts of
> it subject to demo delay and others not, you could end up with a very
> strange looking building. Whereas if the entire building is found to be
> preserved, you are more likely to preserve it intact, than being concerned
> with specific sections. Does removal of a dentil cornice on a Greek
> Revival constitute demolition and if so would your commission subject only
> the cornice to a demo delay? This is not in a district. In my mind the
> determination of whether or not a building should be preserved is based
> upon the entire building, though some parts might be more significant than
> others. I don't think demo delays were design to save pieces of
> buildings. Another hypothetical would be if a right facade of a building
> was found not preferably preserved (not subject to delay) but the front
> facade was found to be preserved (subject to del
> ay) what happens. Altering one side will likely impact the other. Do
> changes on the right side have to be invisible from the front? Does
> anybody work their ordinances like this and if so do you find it
> beneficial?
>
> Thanks for all the help,
>
> Brian Lever
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcia Starkey <mdstarkey at crocker.com>
> To: BLever3043 at aol.com; Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov;
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Sent: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 9:53 am
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo review procedures
>
>
> Is the porch minus the rest of the building historic?
> Marcia Starkey
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <BLever3043 at aol.com>
> To: <Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov>; <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo review procedures
>
> >
> > Thanks, Newton does consider partial demos, but what I am looking for
> is > how
> > others work their ordinances, I am well familiar with Newton's. In
> > particular I am trying to find out if other communities find portions
> of a > building
> > or specific architectural features "preferably preserved" as in >
> instituting a
> > delay based upon their removal or alteration. For instance: in Newton
> if > a
> > porch was found to be important to a significant home and was up for
> > demolition, the determination would be made that the porch should be >
> preserved not the
> > whole building, as that is what is being altered. As I understand it in
> > most communities the entire building would be found to be preferably >
> preserved,
> > a judgement based upon the building's significance not a porch, window,
> > or
> > shingle. I am concerned about the prospect of creating different legal
> > statuses for different portions of a building. Would you find one wall
> > significant
> > and not another or have 1/2 of a house subject to a delay and not >
> another?
> > This is in regards to a city wide demo review not a local district. >
> Thanks
> > for the input.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
> >
> (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
> > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
> > ******************************
> > 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
> > ********************************
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list