[MassHistPres] Penalties??

[Ellen St.Sure]

What ultimately happened to the Figarsky house?  Did the Norwich HDC have the punishment-power to force the owner to make repairs?  Giving a legal order is one thing, but if there is no monetary penalty or other punishment for disobeying it, what happens next?  I have the same problem with Demolition Delay laws: they turn out to be toothless tigers when faced with a determined owner who can, at worst, walk away from the historic house he wants to get rid of and have his way, without penalty, via Demolition by Neglect.  

Did Figarsky cave in when he lost in court and repair the house -- or not?  Is the historic house still standing 38 years later??? 

Ellen St. Sure 
Brewster Historical Commission


On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:12 AM, Jim Wald <jwald at hampshire.edu> wrote:

> Well, at this hour, off the top of my head, it occurs to me that the corresponding or negative case is well established in law, as is the more general principle of protecting an ensemble of historic resources. 
> 
> Here, Connecticut cases come more readily to mind because at least one set an important precedent, and also because I happened to be reading around in related material.
> 
> (1) 
> 
> In the important case of Abraham A. Figarsky et al. v. Historic District Commission of the City of Norwich (1976), a property owner challenged a local historic district commission in Connecticut. He had been ordered to make repairs to his house and refused to do so, preferring to demolish. The Commission denied the demolition request on the grounds that the elimination of his structure would compromise the district as a whole by exposing a view of unattractive adjacent commercial premises (McDonald's etc.) The plaintiff felt the decision constituted a taking and contended that this was "vague aesthetic legislation."
> 
> The local statue read in part:
> "In passing upon appropriateness as to exterior architectural features the commission shall consider, in addition to any other pertinent factors, the historical and architectural value and significance, architectural style, general design, arrangement, texture and material of the architectural features involved and the relationship thereof to the exterior architectural style and pertinent features of other structures in the immediate neighborhood." [emphasis added]
> The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the actions of the Commission.
> 
> http://aalto.arch.ksu.edu/jwkplan/cases/figarsky.pdf
> 
> The ruling upheld the principle that the public interest did not require that the building in question itself be of significance if its preservation contributed to the maintenance of the overall character of the district.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20140731/a66b3a79/attachment.htm>