[MassHistPres] National Register District Proposal

Fri Nov 4 11:19:35 EDT 2011

Jim,

I assume you are referring to the East Orleans HD? Unfortunately, your neighbor is confusing and lumping together four different types of historic designations/programs.  National Register listing, in and of itself, either as part of a district or individually, in no way adds restrictions or reviews to a property.  It is an honorary designation. A Local Historic District, on the other hand, requires that changes to a property that are visible from a public right of way (no interior work) must be reviewed by the local district commission. Interior work is not reviewed as part of a local historic district. Most commonly, when interior work is reviewed by MHC, it is the result of a Preservation Easement or a project having received Preservation Project funds from MHC.  Currently, any project in Mass. involving state or federal funding (any project - whether NR listed or not) is required to go through Environmental Review process with MHC (Chapter 254 and Section 106) so that MHC may comment on the project impact to historic resources.  Two public meetings were held in Orleans to answer questions and discuss concerns with residents regarding NR listing - one with an MHC representative. The impact of the NR district was clearly defined and residents were receptive. Don't know if attachments work here but I will try to attach some materials that would be very informative to those who are confused about the ramifications of NR listing. 

Chris

TREMONT PRESERVATION SERVICES
21 MARKET STREET
IPSWICH, MA 01938
978-356-0322

On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu wrote:

> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
> 	masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Fwd: National Register District Proposal (James Hadley)
>   2. Re: S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of state	projects
>      that have an adverse effect on historic	properties	in MHC's
>      Inventory (Anne Louro)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:30:31 -0400
> From: James Hadley <jameswhadley at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Fwd: National Register District Proposal
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP17993938CD7BDE4324436C0D5D50 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Meanwhile, on Cape Cod, I have received this missive from the wife of a member of the BOS. It was copied to all BOS members. This person thwarted our earlier, well researched proposal for a NRHD, which had the support of the MHC, and was ready to start neighborhood approval
> I would appreciate any and all responses to this, and will forward responses to the letter writer and the BOS members.
> Thanks,
> James W Hadley
> Chair, Orleans Historical Commission
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> To: "Hadley, James" <jameswhadley at hotmail.com>
>> Cc: "Susan Christie" <schristi at gis.net>, "Dave Dunford" <d.dunford at att.net>, "Margie Fulcher" <margie.fulcher at verizon.net>, "John Kelly" <jkelly at town.orleans.ma.us>, "Myra Suchenicz" <msuchenicz at town.orleans.ma.us>, "Sims McGrath" <smcgjr at gmail.com>, "Town Clerk" <commail at town.orleans.ma.us>
>> Subject: RE: National Register District Proposal
>> 
> 
>> James,
>> 
>> Jon gave me a copy of your meeting minutes dated 19 October.  I must respond to item #3 regarding the proposal for a National Register Historic District.
>> 
>> I really have to correct the statement that we were ill-informed.  I have reams of comprehensive research on NRH Districts in other places.  Additionally, I have correspondence between myself and State and Federal officials.
>> 
>> National Register Historic Districts DO indeed come under the purview of the National Park Service.  It is not an allegation.  It is a fact.  Individually, a residence within the district is not going to have a representative from the Federal government come down and monitor the property except in a case where Federal monies are applied.  This is a sticky wicket that none of the people I spoke to in Boston or in Washington could answer clearly.  This is how it works.  If we are in a National Register property and we apply for Federal funds for repairs, then they do monitor and compel certain actions.  My sister-in-law's sister lived in a National Register Property in NH and they even told her what kind of wallpaper and hardware she could use inside her home, so this is not alleged, this is anecdotal.  There are other instances in my files.
>> 
>> My concern was based on the fact that as a neighborhood, if a body such as the Historical Commission decided to apply for Federal funds to do a project covering the district, no one could clearly state whether that brings us under the control of the Feds.  Until such time as I get some kind of documentation that an outside force cannot come in and put that onus on my property, I will fight this.  It's simply unfair for people who don't live in this area to make an arbitrary decision that will affect our property.  It constitutes a land-taking in my opinion.
>> 
>> If you want to call this hostility to the proposal, sobeit.  I would be more than willing to sit down and have a factual discussion with someone from the Federal government about the facts of the matter.  From what I understood in the past, the reason for Main Street being so designated was because there were too many alterations to the Academy Ocean B&B for it to qualify on its own, and the District designation was supposed to 'save it.'  That seems to be a moot point since it has changed hands.
>> 
>> The irony is that there are some valuable historic properties that are not on Main Street that will not be saved by this proposal.  Those of us who do own historic homes do our best to maintain their character in a manner consistent with their past use.  I'd like to understand why we have been singled out since there aren't that many remaining historic properties left along here.  I would think the Commission would try and find a way to target individual properties in town.
>> 
>> Please be advised that I will fight this.  I was not adverse to a local town run Historic District, but I am vehemently opposed to bringing in the Federal government.  We don't need it.
>> 
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111103/7ea4936e/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:01:41 -0400
> From: "Anne Louro" <Anne.Louro at newbedford-ma.gov>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of
> 	state	projects that have an adverse effect on historic	properties	in
> 	MHC's Inventory
> To: "mfenollosa" <mmt.fenollosa at verizon.net>,
> 	<masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID:
> 	<F336167D7206864FBF37B13B6A8FE4D8066B6943 at nbeis.NewBedford.priv>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Attached is the link to the New Bedford Standard Times Editorial on this
> subject:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111103/OPINI
> ON/111030314
> 
> 
> 
> Anne Louro
> 
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of mfenollosa
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:00 PM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] S.2053 A Bill to Reduce MHC's review of
> state projects that have an adverse effect on historic properties in
> MHC's Inventory
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add to Michael's post (he hit "send" about a minute before I was
> going to!)  with apologies for the length of this post...
> 
> The bill is being fast-tracked through the Massachusetts Senate and will
> severely restrict the Massachusetts Historical Commission's  regulatory
> oversight on historic properties throughout the Commonwealth.  As the
> law (Mass General Laws Chapter 9, Section 27C) now reads, MHC has the
> ability to comment, and cause the applicable state agency or private
> developer to eliminate, minimize or mitigate, adverse effects on any
> projects, if the project is listed on the State Register of Historic
> Places or, most importantly, if the property is on any town Inventory of
> historic assets.  The State Register only includes National Register
> properties and those in local historic districts, so many, many other
> locally-deemed significant properties would NOT be reviewed if this
> legislation were to go into effect.  In Lexington, for example, we have
> some 1300 properties on our Inventory; only a tiny fraction are on the
> National Register. The vast majority are located outside our local
> historic districts.  And as we all know, it is not easy or quick to set
> up local historic districts or get properties listed on the National
> Register.  Worse yet, the proposed legislation appears to have
> retroactive effect -- forever!
> 
> So, for example,under the proposed law, the MHC would not be able to
> comment, as it has done countless times, when a utility wanted to
> enlarge or reconfigure a steeple on  an inventoried church to
> accommodate a cell tower.  Or a state agency wanted to expand a road
> that would destroy the setting of a historic property.  Or a private
> developer wanted to build a housing project that would result in the
> demolition of historic resources after any applicable demo delay period
> had run.  Or a civilian airport wanted to tear down a hangar that had
> historic significance and could be repurposed.  The MHC has not always
> been effective in getting the results we would prefer, but they have
> been important allies when it's "only" local preservationists trying to
> stop big projects.  State involvement brings credibility to local
> action.
> 
> The legislation is the result of an unhappy developer on the south shore
> whose project was "derailed" by MHC review.  The developer wanted to
> build a large industrial facility on a property on PreservationMass's 10
> Most Endangered list a couple of years ago -- Peace Haven, a 600-acre
> site along the Taunton River in Freetown, just north of Fall River's
> city boundary, whose historic significance dates back to King Philip's
> War in 1675. Its archeological resources from this time and earlier are
> amazing and documented at the State Archives. Though no historic
> buildings are still remaining, the incredible landscape, cultural and
> archeological history make this a rare treasure in that part of the
> state.  An article from yesterday's Herald describes the situation (from
> the developer's point of view):
> http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x780401655/Rodrigues-bill-targeting-Hi
> storical-Commission-clears-another-hurdle 
> 
> As noted in the Herald article, the legislation has been referred to the
> state Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight,
> chaired by Lexington's Senator Ken Donnelly. And there appears to be no
> opposition to its passage. 
> 
> So please consider contacting Senator Donnelly and/or your own
> legislators, and ask interested colleagues to do so as well, to voice
> your objections to this proposed bill.  You can do it by e-mail:
> http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J25 will get you to the
> committee, http://www.malegislature.gov/ will get you to a list of
> everyone else in the legislature, and clicking on the name will give you
> the e-mail address.  It would be helpful to note projects where the MHC
> has made a difference in preserving historic assets through their
> participation and oversight.
> 
> The text of the proposed bill is set forth below, with my red
> highlighting.  Many thanks for anything you can do to help!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marilyn Fenollosa
> 
> 
> Bill S.2053
> 
> 
> An Act relative to certain projects referred to the Massachusetts
> historical commission for consultation
> 
> 
> By Mr. Rodrigues, a petition (subject to Joint Rule 12) (accompanied by
> bill, Senate, No. ) of Michael J. Rodrigues, David B. Sullivan, Steven
> Howitt, Marc R. Pacheco and other members of the General Court for
> legislation relative to certain projects referred to the Massachusetts
> historical commission for consultation. Tourism, Arts and Cultural
> Development.
> 
> 
> SECTION 1. The first paragraph of section 27C of chapter 9 of the
> General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby
> amended by striking out the fourth sentence and inserting in place
> thereof the following 3 sentences:- If a determination of adverse effect
> has been made on any property, site or structure listed in the state
> register of historic places, the state body undertaking the project or
> the private entity proposing the project shall adopt all prudent and
> feasible means to eliminate, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.
> If a determination of adverse effect has been made on any property, site
> or structure not listed in the state register of historic places, the
> state body undertaking the project or the private entity proposing the
> project shall consider, but need not adopt, the commission's
> recommendations to eliminate, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects
> the commission has determined to exist, if such recommendations are
> issued within 30 days of such determination. Under no circumstances
> shall such a state body or private entity be required to adopt the
> commission's recommendations relative to a site or structure not listed
> in the state register of historic places. 
> 
> SECTION 2. This act shall apply to projects referred to the
> Massachusetts historical commission, pursuant to section 27C of chapter
> 9 of the General Laws, on and after the effective date of this act. This
> act shall apply to such projects referred to said commission, pursuant
> to said section 27C of said chapter 9, before the effective date of this
> act if: (i) either a determination relative to adverse effect or the
> results of consultation or consideration following a determination of
> adverse effect is pending on the effective date of this act; (ii) said
> commission has issued recommendations to the state body undertaking the
> project or the private entity proposing the project but such
> recommendations have not yet been adopted on the effective date of this
> act; or (iii) projects for which a copy of an environmental notification
> form prepared pursuant to section 62A of chapter 30 is provided to the
> Massachusetts historical commission, or for which a project notification
> form is filed with said commission, pursuant to section 27C of chapter 9
> of the General Laws. 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/2011 11:47 AM, Steinitz, Michael (SEC) wrote: 
> 
> Dear MassHistPres Listserve Members:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to call you attention to Senate 2053.  Go to
> http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S02053  to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, the bill would reduce the Massachusetts Historical
> Commission's review of state projects that have an adverse effect on
> historic properties (buildings, districts and sites) that are in MHC's
> Inventory but not yet listed in the State Register of Historic Places,
> by permitting the project proponent to ignore MHC's recommendations for
> preservation or mitigation.  The bill would also be retroactive to any
> previous state project reviews that MHC has done in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> It is presently in the Joint Committee on State Administration and
> Regulatory Oversight.  Letters, email and phone calls in opposition to
> the bill should be directed to the two chairmen and your local state
> senator and rep if they are committee members.  Go to
> http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J25  for contact
> information for the chairmen and committee members.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Fall River Herald News, the Committee might schedule a
> hearing for this bill as early as next week, since the formal
> Legislative session will end in mid-November.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steinitz
> 
> Director 
> 
> Preservation Planning Division
> 
> Massachusetts Historical Commission
> 
> 220 Morrissey Blvd
> 
> Boston MA 02125
> 
> 617-727-8470
> 
> 617-727-5128 (fax)
> 
> michael.steinitz at state.ma.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ******************************
> 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 message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4592 - Release Date:
> 11/02/11
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111103/0d445f10/attachment.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> 
> 
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 69, Issue 6
> *******************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111104/3ff98cad/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: there is a difference.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1418357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111104/3ff98cad/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111104/3ff98cad/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MHC NR Q&A.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 491024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111104/3ff98cad/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20111104/3ff98cad/attachment-0005.htm>