[MassHistPres] Dartmouth HC: Question about Demo By-law

[robert at townisp.com]

DHC demo by-law (and, I believe, boilerplate language for many communities
within Mass) reads:

 

"Upon a determination by the Commission that any building which is the
subject of an application is a preferably preserved building, no building
permit for new construction or alterations on the premises shall be issued
for a period of up to six (6) months from the date of that determination
unless a shorter period is agreed to by a majority vote of the Commission.
No permit for demolition of a building determined to be a preferably
preserved building shall be granted until all plans for future use and
development of the site have been filed with the Building Commissioner and
have found to comply with all laws pertaining to the issuance of a building
permit or if for a parking lot, a certificate of occupancy for that site."

 

Dartmouth has a 6-month demo delay period, and (before my time) we at DHC
worked with a (willing) homeowner of an early 1700's farmhouse to get a demo
delay, to do 3D imaging, and some other interesting work with the help of
some architectural historians at URI and Roger Williams. The 6 months came
and went, and the demo permit is in front of the Dartmouth Building
Department.

 

The homeowner states that they do not have plans in hand for subsequent use
of the site. They will likely build a new home, but they do not wish to have
their hands forced (I am paraphrasing) by needing to have developed plans
ready to go, prior to demolition. 

 

The by-law as written seems to allow DHC (or any town's historical
commission) to force action on the part of their Building Department - to
force them to deny issuance of a demo permit. I met with the Dartmouth
Building Department and they stated that if a demo application is found
acceptable for non-historical reasons (ie, no other reason than the DHC
bylaw), they were bound by state law to issue a demo permit - ie, they could
not act as the enforcer of the DHC by-law.

Have others encountered this situation? How was it resolved? We have
another, much larger site which has completed its 6-month delay, and we want
to make sure we don't set a poor precedent.  Thanks for any guidance!

Robert Mahowald

Chair, DHC

robert at townisp.com <mailto:robert at townisp.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20241012/c540482d/attachment.html>