[MassHistPres] Help: Question about Applicability of Demo Delay Bylaw for Demo of a Barn's Stone Foundation

[Dennis De Witt]

There seem to be two separate questions, the answers to which would depend very much on your DD law and your rules and regs:

Q1) Is the building significant?  In Brookline it would be; that part would be simple.

Q2) Does what is being proposed rise to the level of partial demo, assuming you have a partial demo provision.
Here is the definition from Brookline’s bylaw
h. “Demolition” – (a) the act of pulling down, destroying, removing or razing a Building or a significant portion thereof, by substantially removing or substantially covering one side or removing 25% or covering 25% of the exterior walls of the building, or substantially removing or substantially altering the roof, (ii) moving a Building from its site with no permitted new location for said Building; (iii) in the case of a Building within Section 5.3.5(b), substantially gutting (as defined by the preservation Commission per section 5.3.14) an interior space that has generally been open to the public and is integral to the historic character of the building; (iv) in the case of a building within Section 5.3.5(b), the systemic removal, effacement, or destruction of the exterior architectural elements which define or contribute to the historic character of the Building, or (v) commencing any of the foregoing work. “Demolition” as used herein shall be deemed to include Demolition by Neglect.

If the building is on the NR it seems like sub-section iv) might apply.

And here is what the Rules & Regs say about that:
Section 3. Systematic Removal, Effacement, or Destruction of Exterior Architectural Elements on National Register properties
Section 5.3.2.h.iv of the General Bylaw states that with respect to a building listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, “Demolition” includes “the systematic removal, effacement, or destruction of the exterior architectural elements which define or contribute to the historic character of the Building”. That shall include, without limitation:

a) Stripping the exterior surfaces off of more than 50% of the building, but excluding like-kind repairs or replacements and excluding the replacement of window sash combined with like-kind replacement of any affected window trim.

b) Installation of synthetic siding, including without limit, panning and aluminum or vinyl clapboards and/or polymer stucco, in a manner that causes the covering over and/or removal and/or modification of a substantial portion of the following, provided that they are original or contributing features:

i)  Window and door trim, including cornices and drip caps; including the shortening of stools (windows); and the removal of side lights and transoms (doors);

ii)  Cornice and eave ornament, such as entablatures, rakes, brackets, dentils, and rafter tails;

iii)  Porches and porticos, including posts, columns and handrailing;

v)  All other decorative trim, such as pilasters, quoins, and corner boards.

vi)  Replacement of slate roofing material on the sides of mansards.

vii)  Replacement of roofing features such as dormer trim, balustrades and cupolas.

viii)  Removaloramputationofchimneysinexteriorwalls

ix)  Changes to sizes and proportions of window opening

c) Repairs to the building without the application of artificial siding but involving similar systematic removal or effacement of a substantial portion of such features. 

So, could this be called partial demolition or systematic destruction of a defining character, per this particular bylaw and R&Rs?  Note that it says "That shall include, without limitation”  emphasis added.  I’d be inclined to think so in Brookline’s context.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 5:10 PM, Alicia Primer <amprimer at msn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello
>> Weston’s Demo Delay bylaw references the inclusion of any part of any building, any part of which was built pre 1945. I’d imagine that Sudbury’s is similar. If the Commission determines that the barn is Significant, it would stand then to reason that the Demo Delay could be imposed to protect the very foundation of that building. 
>> As an aside, during my years on the Weston HC, we voted many times to designate outbuildings Significant. They are more endangered even than our historic houses and important to the fabric of our towns. 
>> Good luck. 
>> ALICIA PRIMER via iPhone 
>> Home: 781-899-5597
>> Cell: 781-771-9510
>> Groton Long Point: 860-536-0035
>> 
>> 
>> “The greenest building is the one already built.” Carl Elefante
> 
> 
> ALICIA PRIMER via iPhone
> 
> 
> From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> on behalf of diana warren <dewwarren at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 4:47 PM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Help: Question about Applicability of Demo Delay Bylaw for Demo of a Barn's Stone Foundation
>  
> The Sudbury Historical Commission is deliberating whether or not a type of partial demolition is subject to our Demolition Delay Bylaw. We would appreciate feedback from others on this listserv. 
> 
> The property in question (MACRIS SUD.58) is an 18th Century Federal house with an old stone foundation  - with several outbuildings including a "barn".  The structure in question is the barn - its stone foundation is to be removed and replaced with a poured concrete foundation, but no work on the body of the structure qualifies as a partial demo. The inventory only provides information that the barn "...is not as old as house" and "...is not original but was built with wood from an old New Hampshire barn". 
> 
> Does the demolition of the current foundation require that it be subject to the demo bylaw? 
> 
> It seems that if the structure itself is found to not be "historically significant" then even though the foundation may be determined to be an old foundation, perhaps original to a structure previously sitting on top of it, then the removal of the barn's stone foundation would not be subject to the Demo bylaw? On the other hand if the barn structure were to be determined by the Commission to be historically significant then the demo bylaw would apply?
> 
> Diana Warren
> Sudbury Historical Commission 
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20211022/af62b309/attachment-0001.html>