[MassHistPres] MassHistPres Digest, Vol 82, Issue 2

[Blever3043]

Municipalites can forbid occupancy or condemn buildings in different ways.  Usually the Health Dept forbids occupancy, meaning that the building is unsafe for health reasons, not that its structurally unsound.  The same is often true for Fire Departments which issue do not enter orders on buildings considered to be too unsafe to occupy or for firemen to enter if ablaze, this can be due to flammable materials or structural reasons.  Building Inspectors condemn buildings because they are unsafe for occupants and passerbys for structural reasons.  This doesn't mean that the condemnation can't be lifted if remedied.  In Newton, the Chair of the Historical Commission or designee is to be part of a committee that reviews condemnation in the case of historic buildings.  Ultimately, the decision is up to the Commissioner of Inspectional Services and a public hearing is not involved.  The demolition delay ordinance does require that reasons be given for demolition as a reporting measure and that there be consideration of alternatives that could preserve the building and ensure public safety.  Requiring a public meeting would potentially put the public at risk if the building is truly unsafe and could leave the municipality liable in such a situation.  Its tricky because if feels as though this is a loop hole for allowing demolition, but in my experience building inspectors only give a condemnation ruling if its justified.

Brian Lever

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-request <masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu>
To: masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:00 pm
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 82, Issue 2


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. Demolition Delay vs Public Safety (Robin Ragle-Davis)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:46:22 -0500
From: Robin Ragle-Davis <robin at rrinteractive.com>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay vs Public Safety
To: MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
Message-ID: <9E16B206-EB0A-4E6D-8FA4-7F2E18A5546F at rrinteractive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

We have a demo delay bylaw in Wareham.

Lately the  town has been taking a proactive approach toward ridding  
the town of buildings that are in such disrepair they are considered  
health hazards by the Health Department. Does anyone have experience  
with this sort of thing?

It occurs to me that in such cases where a building has actually been  
considered condemned or deemed a threat to public safety that might  
bypass the hearing process?



Robin Ragle-Davis
Chair, Wareham Historical Commission













------------------------------

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres


End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 82, Issue 2
*******************************************

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20121207/e7c384bc/attachment-0001.htm>