[MassHistPres] Single Building LHD question

[Paul Rohr]

A technique we've used here in Easton is to designate a measured subset of
the original lot for the relevant LHD boundary.  For details, see the
insets on the expanded map here:


https://www.easton.ma.us/boards_and_committees/historical_commission/local_historic_district/index.php

The study committee I chaired back in 2010 originally used this approach to
include the viewscape around the H. H. Richardson-designed Ames Gate Lodge
(1880, EST.23) in the town's first LHD.  That building serves as the
entrance to a vast estate and has been on the National Register since the
1970s.  During negotiations with the family who's owned that land since the
Lodge was built, agreeing to these boundaries preserved the option for
future generations to someday add alternate access elsewhere along the
streetfront to accommodate modern vehicles.

During the 2013 expansion of the Ames LHD, a subsequent study committee
followed a similar approach within a larger lot containing the Immaculate
Conception Church (1902, EST.30), Rectory (~1850, EST.520), and Garage
(~1920, EST.579).  After "lengthy debate" at Town Meeting, the final
boundaries chosen were shrunk to exclude the church so the rest of the
district expansion could pass.

Would a similar approach work for you, or is some more creative lawyering
needed?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:17 PM Sarah White via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> We have a couple of buildings in Somerville whose LHD boundaries only
> extend to the exterior footprint of the building (note that these are two
> municipally-owned buildings on a civic campus -  the entire campus parcel
> is not an LHD). While typically LHD boundaries include out to property
> lines, there is nothing in 40C that prohibits what you propose. There is
> nothing in 40C, for that matter, that prohibits a public way from being
> part of an LHD.
>
> I think that finding a creative solution such as the one being proposed,
> even if it includes moving the building slightly on the lot (which should
> be documented), is essential these days when we both need more housing and
> don't need to be throwing tonnes of material into landfills from a
> sustainability perspective. As long as there are no zoning violations
> created, sounds like you are moving in the right direction.
>
> *Sarah White, **MDS-HP*
> Senior Planner
> Planning, Preservation, & Zoning Division (PPZ)
>
> *Se habla español*
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> on behalf of
> Johnstone, Michelle via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:59 AM
> *To:* masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Subject:* [MassHistPres] Single Building LHD question
>
>
> Hello!
>
>
>
> We have encountered an odd LHD situation here in Worcester. We have a ca.
> 1858 Italianate mansion that was proposed for demolition to make way for
> new townhouses last summer, and under the city’s demolition delay
> ordinance, the twelve-month delay was upheld by the Historical Commission.
> In the interim, the Historical Commission has initiated a preliminary study
> report of the property as a single-building local historic district.
>
>
>
> It is a former funeral home that contains a large asphalt surface lot on
> the parcel, and the city nor the Historical Commission have any desire to
> have purview on anything on the site other than the building itself, as
> they understand the need for additional housing. Although the property
> owner is opposed to the creation of the district, they have offered to move
> the building over a bit on the lot so that they can still build the planned
> townhouses and retain the original building. What the owner and their
> council are most concerned about is the potential that the HC would be
> overly critical of the new construction that is planned next to the
> original building. So, we are trying to find a creative way to only include
> the portion of the lot on which the building is sited to give them the
> peace of mind that their new construction designs cannot be denied by the
> HC, and in doing so hopefully encounter less resistance in the effort to
> permanently protect the building.
>
>
>
> What are your thoughts on this? I am thinking that there must be a way
> that we can condition the boundary of the district to include only the
> building, even if it's moved, as long as it remains *on the existing
> parcel* or any subdivision of the existing parcel that includes the
> existing building. If we don’t find a way to creatively condition the
> boundary of the district, there is a very real probability that the
> proposal will be shot down at City Council.
>
>
>
> Any and all suggestions welcome!
>
>
>
> *Michelle H. Johnstone *
>
> Senior Preservation Planner
>
> Department of Planning & Regulatory Services – Executive Office of
> Economic Development
>
> City of Worcester | 455 Main Street, Rm 404, Worcester, MA 01608
>
> P: 508-799-1400 x31410
>
> C: 774-622-0695
>
> E: johnstonem at worcesterma.gov
>
> www.worcesterma.gov
>
>
>
> *City of Somerville Public Records Notice*
>
> *Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined
> that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within
> one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240402/a8ea5e46/attachment.html>