[MassHistPres] Fire Rating

[rcsmitharch at verizon.net]

There is such a thing as fire treated clapboards that could be pieced in, but it sounds as though the building inspector is trying to force the replacement of entire walls with fire resistant materials.

 

Richard Smith

Swampscott historical Commission

 

From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Ward Hamilton
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 10:45 AM
To: Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu>
Cc: Masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Fire Rating

 

I believe that the indication from Mr. Tubin of Plymouth was that the "[d]ecision is based on setbacks and proximity to other properties." I am interpreting that to mean that, in situations where buildings are very close to each other, the building commissioner is requiring the use of composite materials instead of wood.

 

The building commissioner is legally empowered to make such determinations, although he cannot specify which materials are to be used. It may be helpful for him to identify what those standards are (i.e., buildings less than 15 feet apart). It would be wise to engage him in a dialogue to determine what the standard is that he's applying. 

 

I also stand by my earlier position that the HDC need only approve the replacement of materials that are failing. If the backs or sides of two houses are only a few feet apart, and the applicant has rotted clapboards to replace on the elevation(s) of the building in close proximity to the neighbor, the scope of work allowed should be limited to the failing materials only.

 

This is especially true with respect to the primary facade of the building. Paint coating failures, particularly due to lack of maintenance, do not warrant siding replacement. A failure to maintain paint coatings, which in turn allows for the deterioration of the cladding and architectural woodwork of the building, may be construed as demolition by neglect. 

 

This is similar to the use of wooden roof shingles. Some building commissioners require that all new wooden shingles are factory-treated with fire retardant before installation. In my experience, most do not. But it is their call.

 

 



Ward Hamilton 
Chairman
Melrose Historical Commission 

 

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:59 AM Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu <mailto:slater at alum.rpi.edu> > wrote:

Does the building commissioner need to provide a technical rationale to require homeowners to use fireproof materials? I can understand such a requirement in a community where houses are attached to each other, but what about a neighborhood of freestanding Colonial or Victorian houses? Can a building commissioner simply rule that all siding must be fireproof out of a personal preference, or based on a claim that global warming is making wind-driven fires more likely?

Thanks,

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA




On 1/20/2022 5:54 AM, Ward Hamilton wrote:

Other than new construction, it would seem that this concern would only become an issue when the applicant wants to secure a permit to replace the wooden clapboard cladding on the wall(s) of the building. It is rare for the condition to be such that even half of the clapboards warrant replacement.  

 

The correct, preservation approach is to replace pieces of cladding that have failed (rotted, bowing, unable to hold paint coatings) with new ones. Even if the failures extended from the foundation to four or five feet above grade, one wouldn't allow the remaining historic building fabric to be replaced. 

 

This may cause the following objection: "The building commissioner is requiring us to use fireproof materials, such as HardiPlank, and they don't match the wooden clapboards, so we have to do the whole thing." Not so fast, you say.

 

The building commissioner has the right to force owners to use new materials that are fireproof, but he doesn't have the right to compel owners to remove existing materials that are in fair, serviceable condition and replace them even if that's what the owner wants.

 

You have the power to limit the scope of work to the materials that are failing and require in kind replacement materials. In kind, meaning size (dimensions and profile), exposure to the weather (the reveal) and composition (in this case, wood). You may consider substitute materials that will be painted for a variety of reasons, including the demands of the building commissioner. 

 

However, the onus is on the owner to present substitute materials that will work with the abutting, existing building fabric. HardiPlank doesn't work? Come back with something else. Can't find something else? Keep looking.

 

What you may find is that, even if they do find a product that replicates the profile of a cedar clapboard, they don't want to use them. After the whole side of the building is painted, the new flat, smooth materials stand in contrast to the older materials. They were hoping for everything to look new or at least consistent. 

 

That is not an acceptable justification for total replacement of the wall cladding materials. Your commission has the ability to limit which materials may be replaced, and what they are replaced with, as long as they comply with the building commissioner's sole requirement that they be fireproof. 

 



Ward Hamilton 
Chairman
Melrose Historical Commission 

 

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 4:30 PM Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu <mailto:slater at alum.rpi.edu> > wrote:

Is there a building code requirement in Massachusetts to prohibit wooden siding under certain circumstances? If not, then is it permissible for a local building commissioner to enact such a prohibition?

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA

On 1/18/2022 3:42 PM, Michael J Tubin wrote:

We have been receiving more applicants that are being told by our new Building Commissioner he must consider fire rating when approving siding materials, based on his interpretation of MGL Chapter 40c section below.

 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, repair or replacement of any exterior architectural feature within an historic district which does not involve a change in design, material, color or the outward appearance thereof, nor to prevent landscaping with plants, trees or shrubs, nor construed to prevent the meeting of requirements certified by a duly authorized public officer to be necessary for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition, nor construed to prevent any construction or alteration under a permit duly issued prior to the effective date of the applicable historic district ordinance or by-law.

 

Decision is based on setbacks and proximity to other properties, we are being required to allow property owners to use Hardi Plank cement siding. This is very frustrating when trying to keep historic materials on buildings. We are trying to push a compromise that will allow public view façades to be original materials and non-public view façades to be non-historic fire rated materials. Has anyone else run into this situation? Any materials other than Hardi Plank that would meet fire safety requirements?

 

Michael Tubin

Plymouth

 

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu> 
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

 

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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/20220120/6718430f/attachment.html>