[MassHistPres] owner request to demolish property based on condition

[Garrett Laws]

Ralph,

How do you factor in the difficulty of creating a new structure that will
make people want to keep it in the future...design, materials, workmanship
etc.?

Cheers,
Garrett

The Copper & Slate Company, Inc.
Fine Roofing and Exterior Finish Carpentry
238B Calvary Street, Waltham, MA 02453
(781) 893-1916

What we do:
http://picasaweb.google.com/copperandslate

Where we've worked over the years:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=100752233045636062690.00049065ef8543e1ef9c3&z=15


On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:25 PM, <slater at alum.rpi.edu> wrote:

>  I treat hardship as a two-part test. It sounds like the first part of the
> test may have been met -- the structure has problems specific to it, and not
> other properties (repairs need to be made).
>
> The second part is weighing the cost of appropriate repairs to the
> detriment of the district if the appropriate action is not taken. If the
> property is very significant to the town and district, then that is a higher
> burden to meet someone rehabbing a garage at the rear of a parcel. Higher
> costs may be inconvenient, but they must be a hardship to qualify for the
> certificate, and if the homeowner is indicating that they have funds to
> build a new house on the same lot, then they must have some funds to
> rehabilitate the property.
>
> What I would do is to try and find out how much they have budgeted for the
> new structure, and use that as a basis for rehab. Let's say they want to
> build a house costing $300,000 on the lot, then they have $300,000 to bring
> the property up to code. The fact that some of that $300,000 would have gone
> into granite countertops is not relevant, it is money that is potentially
> available.
>
> I would ask for multiple detailed quotes for rehab -- again, try and weed
> out the "nice to have" improvements like the granite countertops and go with
> "must have" costs.
>
> Now if you get multiple credible estimates that rehab is going to cost $1
> million, and the value of the property afterward would only be $500,000,
> then that is a genuine hardship, in my opinion. But if the value of the
> rehab is close to the value of the property, even if it is a little bit
> over, then it is not a hardship to rehab.
>
> Remember, the ability to not maximize profit is not a hardship. The fact
> that their small old house is not worth as much as a larger new house is not
> a hardship, even if repairs are needed. I would also use $0 as the cost
> basis for their property if they inherited it, meaning that they should be
> able to expend as much as the house is worth when finished.
>
> Ralph Slate
> Springfield, MA
>
>
> <-----Original Message----->Hi everyone.
>
> >
> >We have had an owner application for a certificate of hardship to allow
> >them t o demolish a house they own in the district. I will just copy
> >here the minutes from the meeting this evening, and ask for comments.
> >
> >
> >Applicant came to discuss the situation with the family homestead, she
> >and her brother are the current owners, as of 1998. They want to
> >demolish the house and build a new house in the same location, and would
> >begin that process by requesting a certificate of hardship, based on the
> >age and condition of the existing structure. The original house is a
> >cape circa 1630, built by Josiah Standish, one of the original settlers
> >of West Tisbury, and the son of Miles Standish, a well known figure in
> >American history. The additions to the original structure were built in
> >1865 by applicant's great great grandfather. The house has great
> >significance in the town&#8217s history, and is a town and island
> landmark.
> >But it is in severe disrepair, and the current owners are not able to do
> >the work needed to preserve it. Demolishing it and building a new home
> >would be their preferred solution.
> >
> >It is not clear if a hardship that is unique to the property and is not
> >applicable to the rest of the district, which is required by our bylaw,
> >could be that it is older than any other structure in the district and
> >is in such disrepair that it is not worth fixing.
> >
> >One of our members suggested we do some research to see how other
> >districts have handled the issue of a house that is of great historic
> >value to a district, but is beyond repair and/or too costly for the
> >owners to repair. We decided to contact the Mass Historic Commission
> >Mail Server List, and raise the issue.
> >
> >There was discussion by the members as to whether the original 1630 cape
> >was more historic than the 1875 additions, which were add-ons, and if
> >those add-ons could be demolished and not replaced, while the original
> >cape could also be demolished, but be replaced by a replica.
> >
> >The decision was made to schedule a site visit for Saturday the 29th at
> >10:30 am. The members of the Historic Commission as well as any other
> >interested parties are welcome to attend.
> >
> >Another meeting will be scheduled for February 7th.
> >
> >So I am doing as requested, and writing to ask if any of the other
> >districts have had applications like this, and how they were resolved.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Nancy Dole
> >West Tisbury Historic District 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
> >********************************
> >.
> >
>
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20110125/4b240a9f/attachment.htm>