[MassHistPres] rules for handling certs of non applicability

[Ralph Slate]

Hi Nancy --


This provision of MGL 40C from Section 8 may help:


A commission may determine from time to time after public hearing that certain categories of exterior architectural features, colors, structures or signs, including, without limitation, any of those enumerated under paragraph (a), if the provisions of the ordinance or by-law do not limit the authority of the commission with respect thereto, may be constructed or altered without review by the commission without causing substantial derogation from the intent and purposes of this chapter.


[This says that the commission may determine - after a public hearing - that certain things can be constructed or altered without review. This means the commission can hold a public hearing and say "we agree that if a homeowner installs pipe hand railings in a certain way, that is work that may be done without review by the commission]


The section further says:
Upon request the commission shall issue a certificate of nonapplicability with respect to construction or alteration in any category then not subject to review by the commission in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

[This means the work would now fall under non-applicability]

Now couple that with Section 11:


A commission shall determine promptly, and in all events within fourteen days after the filing of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability or a certificate of hardship, as the case may be, whether the application involves any exterior architectural features which are subject to approval by the commission. If a commission determines that such application involves any such features which are subject to approval by the commission the commission shall hold a public hearing on such application unless such hearing is dispensed with as hereinafter provided.

[This states that no hearing is required for certificates of non-applicability.]


The last piece of the puzzle is that the commission can vote to delegate its responsibility to determine whether an application meets the criteria for non-applicability to another party - for example, staff, or the chair.


In Springfield, we have streamlined the installation of hand railings precisely this way - we published detailed guidelines that say "if you construct handrails a certain way, then we consider this a non-applicable change". When someone submits an application, the staff person does a cursory review to see if the proposal meets the guidelines, and then forwards it to the chair or vice-chair, who makes the official determination and signs and issues the certificate of non-applicability. We had previously held a public meeting where we discussed and voted that we were going to exempt hand railings constructed in that particular way from review, and that the chair or vice chair were delegated the responsibility to make that determination on behalf of the commission. 


Ralph Slate 
Springfield MA



On Wed, 15 May, 2019 at 8:13 AM, Nancy Dole <nlouisedole at gmail.com> wrote:
 

To: mhc preservation listserv

Hi Everyone,
We want to change the way we handle certs of non applicability so that we can issue them to owners who apply for maintenance that involves no changes in design or materials in a more efficient way. At present, we post a meeting and vote that they do not require our permission per bylaw. Apparently many other districts have a simpler process where staff or an appointed member can approve such applications without a meeting and a vote.
We are told that Salem does that, with the appointed person notifying the members via email in case anyone feels a hearing is required. 
Please let us know how your district handles this, so we can write a rule/regulation to submit to the Town Clerk, including examples of other districts so that she will feel more comfortable with the process. She is concerned that it would be a violation of the open meeting law. 
We are interested in what you consider non applicable and allowed, other than maintenance. We are also interested in learning what other districts list as not requiring a public hearing, but can be voted on in a meeting and granted or denied abutters to be notified and given 10 day opportunity to request a public hearing if desired.


Thank you so much!
Nancy Dole, Secretary and Member
West Tisbury Historic District Commission  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20190515/3c37cfe7/attachment.html>