[MassHistPres] Single Building LHD question

[Paul Rohr]

Gotcha.  I'm no lawyer, but this sounds like a timing issue.

Is the post-location move known + nearby enough to just draw a boundary big
enough to cover both locations?   Alternatively, would it work to pass a
building footprint LHD at the current location, along with a separate
agreement (between the City and the owner) to amend the LHD boundary to an
appropriate

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:59 PM Johnstone, Michelle <
JohnstoneM at worcesterma.gov> wrote:

> Thanks for your input! Unfortunately, it’s a little bit trickier here,
> since we need to make sure the LHD moves with the building to its newly
> divided parcel, when the building is moved. We will have to be creative!
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Rohr <paul.rohr at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:48 PM
> *To:* masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> *Cc:* Johnstone, Michelle <JohnstoneM at worcesterma.gov>; Sarah White <
> swhite at somervillema.gov>
> *Subject:* Re: [MassHistPres] Single Building LHD question
>
>
>
> *Caution:* This email came from outside the City of Worcester. Do not
> click on links or open attachments unless you are sure you recognize the
> sender and you know the contents are safe.
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.easton.ma.us/boards_and_committees/historical_commission/local_historic_district/index.php__;!!LFBeBjl1XF97oaI!NuuqwQ7YwnEJLTjK-kX3q_p4xHc-KlrHELGHts9Aqn1XSd7W_KO4eYaITCE7Q8UE-60aDQhxmQuaR04578doBgXZAQ$>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres__;!!LFBeBjl1XF97oaI!NuuqwQ7YwnEJLTjK-kX3q_p4xHc-KlrHELGHts9Aqn1XSd7W_KO4eYaITCE7Q8UE-60aDQhxmQuaR04578f6f8uc-Q$>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20240402/6efa904f/attachment.html>