[MassHistPres] State sanitary code vs. historic districts

[Chris Walsh]

Its an interesting use of the a code that is really aimed at rental
property and not single family houses: the section of the Sanitary Code
that is being used is probably 410.020 definitions " a condition which
may endanger or materially impair the health or safety and wellbeing of
an occupant.... or.... A condition making a unit unfit for human
habitation... both refer to the Board of Health- and in particular the
section 410.503 -b & c cite work after August 28th 1997 needing to
conform.  Perhaps  a meeting with the BOH to find out what their issue
is could help- If they are pushing the Building Commissioner to take
action then meeting with them and coming to an understanding is
important; if the BC is taking it on himself- the BOH could deny him the
cover.
The Sanitary code references Chapter  3409 Historic Structures of the
building code in the definitions then doesn't mention it again-  a great
example of ambiguity in our laws - which gets worse with the phrase ...
any such guardrail replaced or constructed after August 28th 1997 shall
be not less than....   so the issue might be that repairing a guardrail
in the historic pattern with new wood COULD be interpreted  as a
replaced guardrail! Thus the make it meet modern code.
A couple of basic questions: is this a new Building Commissioner? Is the
enforcement directive coming from further up the chain of command? Is
there a history of problems?
This is really a political problem and not one that will easily be
solved without a degree of flexibility on both sides.  The critical word
here is "dispute"; Historic Commissions have no real enforcement
provisions except through the building department so a bad relationship
with them is a disaster. The HDC here seems to be in a position that
-while correct, might be impossible to contain. My suggestion is that
the chair of the HDC needs to ascertain if there is a specific issue
that triggered this aggressive response or just the standard " need to
convince" the Building Commissioner that historic issues are worthwhile.
Meetings with the BC perhaps with the facilitation of the mayor or
council to mend fences or get to know each other's issues would seem to
be in order-
I would caution about pulling rank or insisting that the BC is wrong.
Their natural inclination to see HDC members as snobs and difficult is
hard enough to overcome.  These guys are under a lot of pressure these
days of decreasing budgets and they have been given an impossible job by
the ever increasing layers of  ambiguous legislation.  More and more the
problem is with liability... if a child  goes over a historic rail and
is injured or killed who loses their job? who goes to jail?
Massachusetts has a robust "Existing Structures" Chapter 34 section of
the building code with a section on Compliance Alternatives Section
3406.0 and I would resort to exploring  that avenue first before the
hitting anyone over the head with 3409- Historic Structures - it will
show the BC that you are willing to understand his point of view- which
makes it easier for them to understand yours.


Chris Walsh, AIA
Framingham

Ralph Slate wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience regarding state sanitary code versus
> historic district regulations? We are in an internal dispute between
> the city's historic commission and the city's building department, and
> while our law department has issued an opinion that when a conflict
> arises between the state Building Codes and historic district, the
> historic district regulations shall prevail, our code enforcement
> department is now claiming that it is enforcing porch railing height
> under the state Sanitary Code, which was not addressed in our legal
> opinion,
>
> Since most historic railings do not meet current code heights, code
> enforcement has been citing homeowners in historic districts,
> threatening them with $50 daily fines, and the homeowners respond
> quickly to such a threat, and make the changes without getting
> historical commission approval. And that sets up a bad situation,
> because we tell the homeowners that really tall railings are not
> appropriate for their structures, and the homeowner feels jerked
> around by the city.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ralph Slate
> Springfield, MA
>