[MassHistPres] Chatham Bylaw issue on additons

Thu Feb 13 14:04:20 EST 2014

In the Town of Barnstable, we review all additions on properties that meet
our criteria (over 75 years old, Nat Reg listing, MHC listing) because the
addition will require some demolition to the structure.  This is without
regard for the amount of demolition.   We first determine if the property is
historically 'significant'.  This can be done by the chair of the Historic
Commission or at a meeting of the full commission.  If we determine the
building is significant, we go to public hearing to review the demolition
being requested.  If the addition is something the commission feels would be
inappropriate, we cannot insist on a design change.  We can suggest changes
that we feel would be more appropriate but the petitioner is not bound to
accept our suggestions.  If we don't want the significant property to be
changed as the petitioner requests, we can impose our demo delay of eighteen
months.  Often, petitioners will choose to modify their plans to avoid the
delay.  We can shorten the delay if we come to an agreement with the
petitioner.

Laurie Young
ovnonp at gmail.com
617-429-1354

-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of
masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:16 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 96, Issue 13

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: additions (Sarah Korjeff)

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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:50:38 +0000
From: Sarah Korjeff <skorjeff at capecodcommission.org>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] additions
To: "'Dennis De Witt'" <djd184 at verizon.net>, MHC MHC listserve
	<masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Message-ID:

<B8A78B1B9A040949B1A43F89E8DF41354B660239 at MBX-02.barnstablecounty.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Deanna,
I agree with Dennis's comments.  Design review is something that is
routinely offered by applicants in exchange for lifting the demolition
delay.  Most Cape towns have language in their demo delay bylaw allowing the
Historical Commission to lift the delay before the time period expires -
something like "if the Commission notifies the Building Commissioner in
writing that the Commission finds that the intent and purpose of this bylaw
is served..."   If the Commission finds that the replacement design involved
limited loss of historic materials and is in character with the historic
structure, they may make this finding.

Regarding the definition of demolition, many towns (including some on the
Cape) have clarified their definition to include the removal of one or more
exterior walls or partitions, removal of a roof, gutting the interior to the
point where exterior features such as windows are impacted, etc.  Other
towns have adopted regulations/procedures to specify what type of project
needs to file a demo permit.  If would be helpful to clarify this, since it
is confusing to have removal of an exterior wall constitute a "partial
demolition," but construction of an addition (which would require at least
partial removal of an exterior wall) does not.  You could choose to require
demolition permits for additions to the primary fa?ade or additions that
impact a certain percentage of other fa?ades.

Sarah Korjeff
Historic Preservation Specialist
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street/PO Box 226
Barnstable, MA  02630
508-362-3828

[cid:image001.gif at 01CF28AC.85BF33A0]

From: Dennis De Witt [mailto:djd184 at verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:05 AM
To: MHC MHC listserve
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] additions

Deanna

Brookline's demo delay law defines demolitions in terms of how much can be
removed in order to constitute a demolition - e.g. one side or the roof.  As
a result there have been attempts to game, for instance by making the
addition slightly narrower than a full side.  That can be addressed by
writing rules clarifying definitions.

In Brookline - and I would have thought generally - delay does not lead to
automatic design review, but it opens the door to review in exchange for
lifting the stay early. The delay is 18 months for NR properties and 12 for
non-NR.

Your note refers to "the historic district."  It isn't clear if that's NR or
LHD.  If LHD then the demo delay law should be moot.  No demolition of
addition can happen without approval.  Being in an LHD should trump the demo
delay law.

Dennis De Witt

On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:55 PM, Deanna Ruffer
<druffer at chatham-ma.gov<mailto:druffer at chatham-ma.gov>> wrote:

Folks I'm curious how additions are handled under demolition delay bylaws in
other communities.  Further if a demolition delay bylaw does provide
specific jurisdiction over additions does it give the Historical Commission
jurisdiction over the proposed design of the addition.  If not, how is the
jurisdiction restricted.

In Chatham, additions are exempted in the definition of demolition.
However, in the past applications for building permits for additions to
structures more than 75 years old or in the historic district have been
referred to the  Historical Commission for approval prior to issuance of the
building permit on the basis that such additions involve the removal of
exterior walls or roofs and thus the potential removal of historical
material.

This is now being questioned by some of the local builders and attorneys who
are taking the position that additions are exempt from such review.  As a
result, the Historical Commission, with the support and assistance of the
Community Development Department and a local attorney, was proposing an
amendment to the bylaw for the purpose of clarifying that additions are
subject to CHC jurisdiction.  Of concern to the Board of Selectmen is if a
proposed amendment was clarifying or expanding the scope of the demolition
delay bylaw and whether the intended clarification was actually endowing the
CHC with design revie authority over additions.

So, we are back to the drawing board.  We welcome your thoughts and examples
of adopted language specific to additions.

Deanna L. Ruffer
Community Development Director
Town of Chatham
Community Development Department
Town Annex
261 George Ryder Road
Chatham, MA 02633
(508) 945-5168 x475
(774) 212-1554 (cell)
druffer at chatham-ma.gov<mailto:druffer at chatham-ma.gov>

Kindly remember that the Secretary of State has deemed most email a public
record.

******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please
contactChristopher.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/20140213
/1c03e3fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3872 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL:
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20140213
/1c03e3fd/attachment.gif>

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

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

End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 96, Issue 13
********************************************