[MassHistPres] Alternative to asbestos tile
rebecca mitchell
rufusrulesok at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 23 12:10:07 EDT 2013
Check out Forbo's Marmoleum Composition Tiles. The color selection is appropriate, the product is durable and meets a variety of Green and Sustainable standards.
Rebecca Mitchell
Stratham, NH Heritage Commission
200 Portsmouth Avenue
Stratham, NH 03885
(603) PRimrose8-7979
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:51 AM, 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. Re: Looking for alternative to aesbestos tiles (Garrett Laws)
> 2. Re: Turning an old house into an "auxiliary apartment" and
> adding a new house to the lot (dgkalman4 at cs.com)
> 3. Re: Looking for alternative to aesbestos tiles (Jill Fisher)
> 4. Re: Demo delay court challenges? (Chris Skelly)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:01:59 -0400
> From: Garrett Laws <copperandslate at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Looking for alternative to aesbestos tiles
> To: Rebecca Harris <rharris at savingplaces.org>
> Cc: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <CA+fRPN9Q4Koj1PUy3DfTMk5NO2zeU+aQJFYHyCfG7+-JfGh=QQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Rebecca,
>
> An unfading green slate would make a fantastic replacement for these floor
> tiles. The longevity of slate will greatly outlast any other well installed
> tile.
>
> Sheldon slate and Vermont Specialty Slate are two suppliers we've used for
> flooring, counters and roofing slate.
>
> Garrett Laws
> The Copper & Slate Company
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2013, Rebecca Harris wrote:
>
>> The United States Lightship Museum is in the process of restoring the Nantucket
>> Lightship/LV-112 <http://www.nantucketlightshiplv-112.org/>. The lower
>> decks are covered with green, red, and black versions of rubberized
>> asbestos tiles that need to be replaced. As they obviously can?t use new
>> asbestos tiles, they are looking for suitable alternatives. They would
>> like to get as close as possible to the original colors, dimensions (9 1/8"
>> X 9 1/8"), and pattern (example in attached photo). All told, they will
>> probably need more than 4,000 sq. ft.
>>
>>
>>
>> All suggestions for materials, sources, or manufacturers are welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Rebecca
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rebecca Harris | **Field Officer*
>> P 617.523.0885 x44223 F 617.523.1199
>>
>> *NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION*
>> *Boston Field Office*
>> 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02109
>> www.PreservationNation.org <http://www.preservationnation.org/>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Garrett
>
> The Copper & Slate Company, Inc.
> Fine Roofing and Exterior Finish Carpentry
> 238B Calvary Street,
> Waltham, MA 02453
> (781) 893-1916
>
> Work 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=206210316541901083869.00049065ef8543e1ef9c3&ll=42.40115,-71.126862&spn=0.125241,0.289421&t=h&z=12
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20130722/33f05a8e/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:50:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: dgkalman4 at cs.com
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Turning an old house into an "auxiliary
> apartment" and adding a new house to the lot
> To: marisa-ah at comcast.net, masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Message-ID: <8D0551B05E332D4-1E98-385F at Webmail-d105.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Is it possible to change the zoning of the land to allow for the property to be considered freestanding condos rather than single family homes?
>
> David Kelman
> Keller Williams Realty
> 617 388 0793
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marisa Morra <marisa-ah at comcast.net>
> To: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2013 12:53 pm
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Turning an old house into an "auxiliary apartment" and adding a new house to the lot
>
>
> Hi All,
> e here in Weston have a proposal in front of us that I wondered if anyone has
> ealt with before. We have an owner who has a 2+ acre lot that is long and
> arrow, hence non-conformong, with a c. 1860 house and barn & a c. 1910 stone
> arriage house. The lot did not proof out as a flexible subdivision to be
> ivided as they wanted, so now they are applying to take the 5 bedroom house-
> emove 3 bedrooms, and have it count as an auxiliary apartment, and build a big
> ew house on the same lot. The building inspector has told them that this is
> heoretically possible, but would need many variances. We on the Weston Historic
> ommission are horrified, but have already imposed a 6 month delay, and this
> ouse is not in a "district" . We feel this would set a bad precedent for houses
> nd lots in the same situation, of which there are many in Weston.
> as anyone ever had this "auxiliary apartment" scenario presented to them?
> Any thoughts on how to deal with it, once our demo delay time frame has expired?
> Thank You,
> arisa Morra
> o-Chair, Weston Historic Commission
> *****************************
> or administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
> hristopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE
> IST.
> assHistPres mailing list
> assHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> ttp://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> *******************************
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20130722/4cbfabba/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:43:50 -0400
> From: Jill Fisher <jillfisher47 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Looking for alternative to aesbestos tiles
> To: Rebecca Harris <rharris at savingplaces.org>, Listserve MassHistPres
> <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <SNT133-W146C50125A6DB7960E2CACC6E0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Rebecca - You might check out the product "Marmoleum" - a linoleum product that comes both in sheet & tile forms. It was used in a Frank Lloyd Wright home restoration project in the Midwest (can't recall the house or place just now). But it may have something that approximates the vintage look you are after.
>
>
>
>
> Jill Fisher, AICP
> Larson Fisher Associates
> PO Box 1394
> Woodstock, NY 12498
> 845-679-5054
> jillfisher47 at hotmail.com
>
> www.larsonfisher.com
>
>
> From: rharris at savingplaces.org
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:32:27 +0000
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Looking for alternative to aesbestos tiles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The United States Lightship Museum is in the process of restoring the
> Nantucket Lightship/LV-112. The lower decks are covered with green, red, and black versions of rubberized asbestos tiles that need to be replaced. As they obviously can?t use new asbestos tiles, they
> are looking for suitable alternatives. They would like to get as close as possible to the original colors, dimensions (9 1/8" X 9 1/8"), and pattern (example in attached photo). All told, they will probably need more than 4,000 sq. ft.
>
>
> All suggestions for materials, sources, or manufacturers are welcome.
>
> Many thanks,
> Rebecca
>
>
> Rebecca Harris |
> Field Officer
>
> P 617.523.0885 x44223
> F 617.523.1199
> NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
>
> Boston Field Office
>
> 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02109
>
> www.PreservationNation.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******************************
> 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/20130722/e0cc6849/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:42:34 -0400
> From: "Chris Skelly" <skelly-mhc at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo delay court challenges?
> To: <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Message-ID: <010101ce87aa$7ca60c10$75f22430$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Ralph, There was a court challenge to demolition delay right from the start
> in the 1980s. It is interesting as it involves the Cambridge Historical
> Commission and requiring the building inspector to comply with the city
> ordinance. I would note the section below about the home rule amendment to
> the state constitution. Due to Massachusetts being a home rule state since
> 1966, no state enabling legislation is required for a demolition delay
> ordinance such as the MHC model. I would also point out that the attorney
> general?s office reviews local bylaws. Of the 134 demolition delay
> bylaws/ordinances in Massachusetts, the vast majority are from town
> government and were approved by the attorney general?s office. I can
> provide additional material for you on this subject. Please feel free to
> give me a call. Chris.
>
> Christopher C. Skelly
>
> Director of Local Government Programs
>
> Massachusetts Historical Commission
>
> 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125
>
> Ph: (617) 727-8470
>
> Cell Phone: (413) 834-0678
>
> <mailto:Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us
>
> <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcidx.htm>
> http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcidx.htm
>
> *******Stay Informed on Historic Preservation Topics by joining the
> MassHistPres Email List. Visit
> <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres>
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres for more
> information. ******Contact MHC for more information on regional training
> workshops and educational DVDs for Local Historical Commissions and Historic
> District Commissions. ******The Local Preservation Update is MHC's
> e-newsletter. For more information on any of the above, please contact me.
>
>
> *********************
>
> SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 87-1522
>
>
>
> CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, MID CAMBRIDGE
> NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMISSION, and CAMBRIDGE RENT CONTROL
> BOARD, Plaintiffs vs. JOSEPH J. CELUCCI, as he is the BUILDING COMMISSIONER
> for the CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, Defendant
>
>
>
> MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
>
>
>
> This is a motion for summary Judgment- In the underlying action, plaintiffs,
> the City of Cambridge ("City"), the Cambridge Historical Commission
> ("Commission"), the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood District Commission ("NDC")
> and the Cambridge Rent Control Board ("Board") seek declaratory relief in
> the form of an order to compel the City of Cambridge Building Commissioner
> ("Building Commissioner"), Joseph J. Cellucci, defendant, to comply with
> ordinances of the City of Cambridge regulating the demolition of buildings.
>
>
>
> The parties agree and the court finds there is no genuine issue as to any
> material fact. What remains at issue is whether as a matter of law the
> Building Commissioner must provide the plaintiffs an opportunity to review
> and approve or reject an application for demolition pursuant to City of
> Cambridge Code, Ordinances 965, 966, and 1002 (see Appendix), prior to the
> Building Commissioner's issuance of a demolition permit. (This issue remains
> and is likely to be repeated even though the demolition of the building
> giving rise to this controversy has already occurred and no application for
> a demolition permit is pending. Despite the absence of a current
> controversy, both parties agree that the issue is not moot. This court
> concurs. See Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital v. Hagbeg;, 374
> Mass. 271, 274 (l978), Karchman v. Worcester, 364 Mass. 124, 136 (1973))
>
>
>
> Defendant contends that these city ordinances are subordinate to the
> preemptive authority of the state building code which sets up a
> comprehensive scheme to regulate the construction, demolition and alteration
> of buildings within the Commonwealth.'' G-L. c. 143 ??93-100. As provided
> in that statute, the Building Commissioner is empowered on the local level
> to enforce the building code, G.L- c- 143 ?3 & 3A. The city ordinances in
> controversy limit the Building Commissioner's discretion and establish more
> restrictive criteria for the issuance of demolition permits (see Appendix).
> Accordingly, defendant holds that the specific provisions in the ordinances
> conflicting with the state building code are invalid.
>
>
>
> Each of the ordinances subject to this controversy are designed to promote
> specific objectives the City has sought to regulate. The City's authority to
> pass these ordinances is firmly established in the Home Rule Amendment,
> Mass. Const. Art. 89 ?6 and the Home Rule Procedures Act, G.L. c. 43B.
> There is no challenge to the validity of these ordinances other than those
> provisions allegedly in conflict with the state building code.
>
>
>
> City Ordinance 966, which incorporates Ordinance .926 authorizes the Board
> to regulate the rental housing market in the city. No controlled rental unit
> may be removed from the market unless the Board after a hearing grants a
> permit. City of Cambridge Code, Ordinance 966 ?l?. Removal from the market
> includes demolition. City of Cambridge Code, Ordinance 966 ?l(b)(4)(ii).
> Therefore, the Building Commissioner's discretion to issue a demolition
> permit cannot be exercised until the Board first determines whether the unit
> can be removed from the market.
>
>
>
> The power to control rents must include by implication the power to make
> reasonable regulations governing removals from the rental housing market.
> Flynn v. Cambridge, 383 Mass. 152, 158 (1981). The court finds and rules
> that this portion of the ordinance is reasonably related to the regulation
> of rental housing in the city. The cooperation of the Building Commissioner
> to delay issuance of a demolition permit until after the removal permit is
> granted by the Board is necessary to keep interested parties from
> circumventing the Board's regulation and thereby undermining the purposes of
> the ordinance. Moreover, the ordinance does not affect the Building
> Commissioner's discretion to deny a demolition permit once the Board has
> allowed a removal permit. The Building Commissioner may make his own
> assessment independent of the Board's determination. Therefore the
> ordinance is not in conflict with the discretionary authority provided the
> Building Commissioner in G.L. c. 143 ??3 & 3A.
>
>
>
> The Court finds the same conclusion after examining City Ordinances 965 and
> 1002. The former applies to buildings fifty years or older, the latter
> applies to buildings located within designated neighborhood conservation
> districts. Both ordinances protect buildings which distinctly represent
> architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the city.
>
> City of Cambridge Cole, Ordinance 965, ?2-147 (J)(l) and Ordinance 1002
> ?2-147(k)(1). To these ends, the Building Commissioner is required to
> forward a copy of each application for a demolition permit to the Historical
> Commission or when appropriate, the NDC, to determine if the building is one
> which reflects the attributes the ordinance seeks to preserve. City of
> Cambridge Code, Ordinance 965 ?2-147 (j)(3.2). If a building is considered
> to be preferably preserved, no demolition permit will be issued for six
> months to allow the respective commission an opportunity to find a party
> willing to purchase the property and preserve, rehabilitate or preserve it.
> City of Cambridge Code, Ordinance 965. ?2-147(J) (3.5). If no one is found,
> a demolition permit will be granted by the Commission provided other
> provisions of the ordinance have been met.
>
>
>
> The Court finds and rules that the provisions in Ordinances 965 and 1002
> which delay the issuance of demolition permits until after the Historic
> Commission and/or the NDC has taken steps to preserve the structure are
> reasonable and necessary. The Building Commissioner's interpretation of the
> state building code is not challenged by either ordinance. Without
> defendant's cooperation the success of these ordinances will be seriously
> threatened.
>
>
>
> Therefore, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion for summary
> Judgment is allowed.
>
>
>
> ORDER
>
> For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion
> for summary Judgment is ALLOWED and defendant is ordered to comply with City
> Ordinances 965, 966 and
>
> 1002.
>
> Katherine Liaqos Izzo
>
> Justice of the Superior Court
>
> Dated: March 18, 1988
>
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of slater at alum.rpi.edu
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:45 AM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Demo delay court challenges?
>
>
>
> Have any communities had their Demo Delay laws challenged in court?
>
> The Springfield Historical Commission Springfield is trying to draft a Demo
> Delay ordinance; we proposed legislation based on the MHC's Demo Delay
> model, and sent it to the city's law department for review.
>
> An attorney there told us that he didn't think that the law would survive a
> court challenge because it is not based on an underlying state ordinance
> (such as MGL 40C). He completely rewrote the ordinance in such a way that he
> thinks it could be rooted from MGL 40C.
>
> I'm surprised at this because it is my understanding that over 100
> Massachusetts cities and towns have Demo Delay ordinances similar to the MHC
> model.
>
> I have to figure that such laws would have been tested in the courts years
> ago. The attorney was concerned that the law, as written, would be
> considered an unauthorized taking of private property.
>
> If anyone has experiences to share, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ralph Slate
> Chair
> Springfield Historical Commission
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20130723/81f5b3b6/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 89, Issue 24
> ********************************************
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list