[MassHistPres] Fire Rating

[Anne Lusk]

Dear Mr. Sullivan,
  Thanks for this explanation and the case for keeping and repainting the
asbestos siding to lessen risk of fire.  The owner had a mold problem in
the basement and has had plumbing failures on other floors.  The exterior
walls between the two cottages are close, there is a tree in front, and
there is a triple decker behind the cottage and another triple decker
adjacent to the cottage.  I don't think that side has a gutter. Thus, the
space between the cottages receives no sunlight and little air and may get
moisture from the inside and out. I would worry about the health of a
painter scraping a house that is covered in old asbestos siding with
peeling paint and mold.  The house is at 7 Hart Street in Brookline. The
latest Streetview picture is from 2018 and the mold has worsened.  The
cottage contributes to the history of Hart Street, even if the siding has
to be painted asbestos, and provides additional affordable housing in
Brookline.  I have been only trying to learn of an affordable way that the
owner could improve the safety and exterior appearance of the cottage.
With appreciation,
Anne

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:05 PM Sullivan, Charles M. <
csullivan at cambridgema.gov> wrote:

> Unlike asphalt, vinyl, or even Hardiplank, asbestos siding is a forever
> material that ordinarily requires little or no maintenance. The shingles
> are primarily cement; the asbestos binder is not hazardous as long as they
> remain intact. During removal, however, appropriate mitigation measures
> must be taken.
>
>
>
> While asbestos siding is not particularly attractive or appropriate,
> maintaining it in place may be the best financial decision for the
> homeowner. If the underlying moisture problem isn’t remedied, the mold will
> always return – and perhaps worse than before on a less permanent material.
> In this particular situation it also offers superlative fire protection
> against combustion from the adjoining property.
>
>
>
> Unless the original clapboards and trim can be restored or replicated (in
> my experience, the majority of clapboards will be in recoverable condition
> if the siding is carefully removed), the preservation value of residing
> with Hardi materials will be minimal, while the expense will be
> significant. If the asbestos siding is left in place it will protect the
> original siding forever (more or less).
>
>
>
> Charles Sullivan
>
> ____________________________
>
> Charles Sullivan, Executive Director
>
> Cambridge Historical Commission
>
> 831 Massachusetts Avenue
>
> Cambridge, Mass.  02139
>
>
>
> *From:* MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> * On Behalf Of *Anne
> Lusk
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 10:04 AM
> *To:* Ward Hamilton <melrosehistcomm at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [MassHistPres] Fire Rating
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>      Here is a question for all of you related to siding and fire
> retardance. A cottage on Hart Street in Brookline, which we were not able
> to have designated as a Local Historic District, is covered with
> asbestos siding that is now also covered with mold.  The cottage is just
> far enough away from the adjacent cottage for a worker to squeeze  between
> the houses. The other cottage has vinyl siding.
>
>    The owner of the cottage with asbestos siding rents the house and has
> said that he will consider re-siding. It would be worthwhile to find
> funding for him to put attractive siding on the cottage as we would like to
> again explore having the Hart Street Local Historic District. What siding
> would all of you recommend?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anne Lusk, Ph.D.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:44 AM Ward Hamilton <melrosehistcomm at gmail.com>
> 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> 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
>
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!Ovb8woRzzEtSA02vDDhOefnhEduMhycQL3KL5ttWHCO-JyrEI74yzHgVbn1S4DA_NmzBZ6w$>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!Ovb8woRzzEtSA02vDDhOefnhEduMhycQL3KL5ttWHCO-JyrEI74yzHgVbn1S4DA_NmzBZ6w$>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!Ovb8woRzzEtSA02vDDhOefnhEduMhycQL3KL5ttWHCO-JyrEI74yzHgVbn1S4DA_NmzBZ6w$>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20220120/115c27fd/attachment-0001.html>