[MassHistPres] owner request to demolish property based on condition

Tue Jan 25 17:03:34 EST 2011

@Garrett:  How about by restoring the 1630 cape as original while renovating the 1875 additions with all the modern gee-whiz fixin's?

@Nancy:  If the inheritors of this property don't understand or care about the intrinsic value of an original 1630 cape associated with the Standish family, then they should have firmly pressed upon them the notion that they could always sell it to someone who does, and use the proceeds to build something more pleasing to them somewhere else.  There is ample legal precedent for the public purposes and interests inherent in historic preservation trumping short-term profitability for the historically-impaired.  I'm finding it hard to care about what pleases or doesn't please them.  If their only concern is financial, they can always sell the property.

If your community has adopted the Community Preservation Act, that would be a potential source of funding to undertake whatever was needed.  I would not even exclude eminent domain if you can enlist your legislative body, but would consult first with your town counsel (lawyer).

By hook or by crook, prevent the demolition and loss of this building.  You have a lot more power and moral authority than you might suppose.  Use it.

Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Amherst Planning Department
4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall
Amherst, MA  01002
(413) 259-3040
tuckerj at amherstma.gov<mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Garrett Laws
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:37 PM
To: slater at alum.rpi.edu
Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] owner request to demolish property based on condition

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<mailto: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<mailto:Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us> directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu<mailto: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<mailto:Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us> directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu<mailto: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/20110125/40ae5f85/attachment-0001.htm>