[MassHistPres] demolition and 'partial demolition'

[James Blauch Architect]

Good afternoon:

 

Recently, there have been quite a number of emails concerning "Demolition"
and "Demolition Delay" circulating in this forum.  I believe that some of
the comments need to be clarified (or corrected); hence this email.

The current State Building Code (SBC) is 780 CMR.  This state document is
referred to as the "SBC ninth edition" and is available on-line; and, is
applicable for all communities in the commonwealth.  This document includes
the 2015 International Building Code (2015 IBC), the 2015 International
Existing Building Code (2015 IEBC) and other International Codes; including
the state's modifications to these documents.  These unmodified 2015
International Code Council documents ARE available on-line, without any
cost.

 

There are zero definitions of "Demolition" or 'Demolition Delay" in 780 CMR.
Demolition is referred to in a few paragraphs of 780 CMR - but NO
definition.  When a Town or City references these definitions in the SBC,
this would provide, at the best, very ambiguous definitions since they do
not exist within the SBC.

 

The City of Boston addresses "Demolition" and "Demolition Delay" in the
Boston Zoning Code; specifically Article 85 which includes definitions.  I
have attached a PDF of Article 85 which I downloaded today from the City of
Boston's website.  Article 85 is for specific areas of Boston, for buildings
at least 50 years old and does NOT apply to demolition or demolition delay
in all areas of Boston.  Perhaps historic commissioners and other concerned
individuals using this forum might consider Boston's Article 85 as a
guideline to address "Demolition" or 'Demolition Delay".

 

Depending on the location of the demolition structure there may be other
permits required for the demolition (i.e. DEP for land located near a body
of water or waterway due to water runoff; etc.).

 

Sincerely:

 

James Blauch Architect, NCARB

Vice Chairman of the Silas Felton Historic District Commission in Hudson MA

Cell: 508-868-8095

Email:  <mailto:JamesBlauch_Architect at verizon.net>
JamesBlauch_Architect at verizon.net

Registered in MA & SC

 

From: MassHistPres [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of
James J O'Rourke Jr
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 10:49 PM
To: 'Skelly, Christopher (SEC)' <christopher.skelly at state.ma.us>;
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] demolition and 'partial demolition'

 

Chris:

 

As I understood Daniel's post, Medfield incorporated by reference the State
Building Code ("SBC") definition of demolition and partial demolition into
their bylaw.  The Building Commissioner and the Historical Commission must
follow the SBC definitions, whatever they may be. It appears to me the
Building Inspector's position is the right one if the applicable SBC
provision does not define a partial demolition.

 

Frankly, I would suggest that the Town "uncouple" the demolition definition
in their bylaw from the SBC. The bylaw is concerned with historic
preservation while the SBC's primary concern is safety. Most demolition
delay bylaws I have reviewed have not linked the definition of demolition
with the SBC's definition. (In November 2018 Dennis De Witt posted to
listserv a definition recently adopted in Brookline which is very good.)

 

If people disagree with my position, I would like to hear the reasons why
linking the demolition delay bylaw definition to the SBC is a good idea. I
have had some experience with the definition of "Historic Building" under
the SBC and found it to be a "moving target." The SBC is linked to the
International Existing Building Code ("EBC"). There have been several
editions of the EBC since 2012.  The one that Massachusetts adopted (the 9th
edition) is not available for free online. 

 

Jim O'Rourke, Chairman, Somerset Historical Commission 

 

From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
<mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> > On Behalf Of Skelly, Christopher
(SEC)
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 9:20 AM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> 
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] demolition and 'partial demolition'

 

Daniel, demolition delay bylaws typically have their own definition for
demolition within the bylaw itself. It is my understanding of the Medfield
demolition delay bylaw that it includes no definition of demolition or
partial demolition.  

 

If your bylaw refers to partial demolition as being regulated, then I'm not
clear how it can be entirely ignored by the building commissioner.   What is
the current language included in your definition section of the bylaw?

 

I'd start with deciding, as the commission, what constitutes a partial
demolition.  Discuss your definition with the building commissioner.
Ideally, at an upcoming town meeting, your bylaw would be changed to include
definitions for demolition and partial demolition if they aren't there now.
In the meantime, including these definitions within your operating rules and
regulations/rules of procedure would be a good idea.  Chris.

 

Christopher C. Skelly

Director of Local Government Programs

Massachusetts Historical Commission

 <mailto:Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us

  _____  

From: MassHistPres [masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] on behalf of Daniel
Bibel [dbibel at verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 8:07 AM
To:  <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: [MassHistPres] demolition and 'partial demolition'

The bylaws in the Town of Medfield (and those in a number of other
Massachusetts' cities and towns) refer to 'demolition and partial
demolition' as defined in the State Building Code ("SBC"). 

 

We have been informed by the current Building Commissioner in Medfield that
the current edition of the SBC no longer has a definition for 'partial
demolition.'  As a result, his attitude is that he will only forward to us
applications for the total demolition of structures.

 

How are other Historical Commissions dealing with this?  A large number of
the reviews which we have done over the past dozen years have dealt with
major changes to the exteriors of building, but were not total demolitions.
I would imagine this would also be true for other Historical Commissions. 

 

Daniel Bibel

co-chair, Medfield Historical Commission
 <mailto:dbibel at verizon.net> dbibel at verizon.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 149491 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20190102/1388a4fc/attachment-0001.bin>