[MassHistPres] Demolition Delay

[Henry Cooke]

This was essentially the issue that we just contested in Randolph 
with the demolition of our c.1726 Stetson Homestead.

Randolph has had a demolition bylaw for more than a decade, and like 
most, it has a provision that allows the building inspector to order 
demolition of a building determined to be an imminent hazard to 
public health or safety.

The matter was further complicated by the fact that the town owned 
the building, all correspondence flowed through the Town Manager, the 
Historical Commission was tasked with its restoration, and a five 
member building committee was established in 2009 by the outgoing 
board of selectmen to oversee the project - so there were multiple 
chains of authority, but no clear cut hierarchy of authority, except 
when it suited the executive branch, and communications that were 
sporadic at best.

When the town accepted the house, town meeting voted a CPA fund grant 
for the cost of initial architectural studies and stabilization 
repairs to the roof of the house. The Historical Commission bid out 
the roofing project, but was stopped by the committee because they 
didn't have a funding and management plan for the restoration and 
operation of the house. The commission tried to explain that the roof 
was a critical component, and without it, the rest was meaningless. 
This continued for many months until this spring, when a complaint 
was made and the building commissioner issued a citation to the Town 
for structural deficiencies to the house, but didn't specify the 
number and nature of those deficiencies. The Commission twice 
requested this information.

Six weeks after the initial citation, the demolition order was given, 
without any hearing with the Historical Commission as required by our 
demolition bylaw. The reason cited for the demolition was the 
structural instability of the building, even though a recent review 
by a structural engineer indicated that it was relatively sound.

The chairman of the commission sought outside legal counsel to stop 
the demolition on the grounds that proper process was not followed in 
both the issuing of the citation and the failure to apply to the 
Historical Commission for a determination prior to issuing the demo order.

In the meeting that followed between the town manager, inspector, 
town attorney, town council member, the chair of the historical 
commission and his attorney, and the fire chief, the matter of 
authority was discussed, and the TM, BI and town attorney all 
asserted that the final authority relative to a public safety issue 
resided solely with the building inspector, and that it was not 
necessary to apply to the historical commission in this instance.

Since the structural stability of the building was a source of 
contention and the basis for the demolition order, it was decided to 
have a third party structural engineer re-inspect the house and 
report to the building inspector with their findings. This was done, 
and two engineers visited the building with the building inspector 
and fire chief, and both gave similar reports that concurred with 
that of the building inspector, that the building was unsafe and 
needed to be either totally rebuilt or demolished., which was ordered 
and carried out yesterday.

At least in the case of Randolph's oldest house, "safety" and the 
building inspector trumped the town bylaw.

Henry Cooke
Chairman, Randolph Historical Commission

>I recently asked our local building inspector about historic 
>demolition done in the name of safety - whether a structural 
>engineer might offer input, for example.  He told me that state law 
>leaves demolition for safety entirely in the hands of the local 
>building inspector.
>
>However:
>
>1. I have never checked the state laws to be sure.
>
>2. We have never had a serious dispute over this issue in Medfield, 
>so push has never come to shove.
>
>Has anyone in this group ever checked the state laws relating to 
>demolition in the name of safety?
>
>In your reply, please include my original message. AOL users please note!
>
>David Temple
>David F. Temple, Inc.
>300 South Street
>Medfield, MA 02052
>508-359-2915
>
>
>--- On Fri, 6/24/11, Rhayw12345 at aol.com <Rhayw12345 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>From: Rhayw12345 at aol.com <Rhayw12345 at aol.com>
>Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay
>To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 12:45 PM
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I am in need of some advice in regards to a situation the Medford 
>Historical Commission is facing in regards to a property currently 
>under demolition delay. I want to find out if other Historical 
>Commissions faced a similar situation and how they handled it.
>
>We received an application from a homeowner who owns a circa 1860 
>Italianate dwelling with a large 25'X25' carriage barn in the Second 
>Empire style. The applicant wishes to tear down the carriage barn to 
>put up a prefabricated dwelling. As the structure is older than 
>1900, we had review. We researched the structure, prepared a MHC 
>form B and determined that demolition would be significant. A six 
>month demolition delay has been imposed on the structure.
>
>Since the imposure, the commission laid out a set of clear progress 
>steps the homeowner would need to take in order to determine there 
>is no viable alternative to demolition. We began by asking why they 
>could not keep the structure on site, and ruled that out based on 
>evidence submitted by the owner. We then asked them to list the 
>building for sale to move on a site, such as this. The owner chose 
>craigslist for two weeks with no response. We again asked them to 
>list it here, but since asking the following situation arose:
>
>The homeowners, in an attempt to push for demolition, hired a 
>private engineer to prepare a report which notes significant 
>deficiencies in the structure. This report, filed to the building 
>department, has triggered their review. Also, while this occurred, 
>the homeowners learned that since their house had been subdivided 
>(their own doing), the parcel with the carriage house is no longer 
>is insured. They have since indicated they will now allow nobody to 
>move the structure, nor document it (I know I just posted something 
>here, we are still pushing as that is ludicrous to not even try) 
>because they are now liable for anything that occurs. With both of 
>these factors, the building department feels the building should 
>most likely come down, and will probably order the homeowner to do 
>so at some point. The homeowners have completely ceased all attempts 
>to look for mitigation to demolition and have dug in that now, 
>demolition is the only answer.
>
>Have historical commissions faced a similar situation with 
>homeowners who have done such things? How do you handle the 
>insurance issue? How about the building department? They are citing 
>the state building code (as our bylaw only allows for demo if there 
>is no alternative, and that's nothing a fence can't cure). Also, 
>what do commission's do if homeowners cease trying to work with 
>their board? I understand a homeowner is well within their rights to 
>wait it out. I am sure some of you would be interested on it here 
>(unfortunately, I feel bad as I cannot really disclose too much 
>information here) plus this is a broad network, so I sure it could 
>reach out to someone in the business of taking old things.
>
>As far as I read our demolition bylaw, a historical commission can 
>really only be concerned with mitigation efforts. Any activity or 
>concern for the building from a safety level will only be handled 
>from the building department. As the burden falls on the homeowner 
>to satisify the Commission, we have more than been helpful thus far 
>and to see the conversations cease is unfortunate. At this time, I 
>believe, they are asking us to lift the demolition delay, which 
>would be against everything we just worked the past three months for 
>to save (and were not even a month into our demolition delay just FYI).
>
>I would be interested in hearing responses. I am sure others would 
>be interested as well, but if not, you can always reply to me off 
>list, but I am sure this will be a good topic! We are having a 
>meeting on Monday, so the more information I can gather before 7PM 
>then, would be awesome!
>
>Thanks!
>Ryan
>
>
>
>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>******************************
>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
>********************************
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3723 - Release Date: 
>06/24/11 02:34:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20110624/ea946475/attachment-0001.htm>