Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Delay 11 Newton topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southborough panel declines to deem outbuilding at 11 Newton Street historically significant
Summary
At its Sept. 15 meeting the Southborough Historical Commission voted not to find the rear outbuilding at 11 Newton Street historically or architecturally significant, clearing the owner to pursue replacement under the town building department and inspectional services processes.
The Southborough Historical Commission voted Sept. 15 that a rear outbuilding at 11 Newton Street is not historically or architecturally significant, meaning the commission will not trigger a public hearing under the town’s demolition-delay bylaw. The vote was 2–1 with one abstention.
The commission’s determination applies only to the small garage/outbuilding at the rear of the property, not to a larger historic barn at the street that was previously altered, Chair Kevin Miller said. “The point of tonight’s discussion is simply to determine … if the commission believes that the building has historical and or architectural significance,” Miller said during his presentation of the application.
Why it matters: a determination of historic significance would have required the commission to schedule a public hearing within 45 business days and could have led to a finding that the structure be preferentially preserved and a delay of demolition for up to nine months while potential buyers or preservation options were explored. Because the commission voted that the outbuilding is not significant, the applicant may proceed with the building department’s ordinary permitting and inspectional-services process.
Commissioners discussed visual and material evidence tying the outbuilding to older construction techniques. Miller reviewed the town’s MACRIS (Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System) entry for the East Southborough Center area and noted the main house and the large barn are recorded there; the small outbuilding under review does not appear in the inventory narrative. He pointed to photographic evidence of heavy timbers and matching brick foundation details as material that could indicate age, but said the MACRIS inventory did not mention the rear structure.
Commissioner Annie Pfaff said she was not convinced the outbuilding should be deemed significant based on the available photos and materials and said she would vote no. “I am not convinced just based on, you know, the lumber and some of the bricks … that it would be historically or architecturally significant,” Pfaff said. Commissioner Grant Farrington said he was undecided and preferred a site visit before a final determination; he seconded the motion to move the item to a vote. Commissioner Kelly O’Brien recused from the vote, explaining she works in the town building department.
The applicant, Paul Nevin, identified himself as a long-time licensed contractor and the property owner and described the building as heavily deteriorated and a long-standing nuisance on the property. “When I bought this property, that particular thing was about chest height in beer bottles and beer cans and couches and human feces … It was disgusting,” Nevin said, describing graffiti, animal infestations and structural damage. He said his family wants to replace the structure with a two-car garage and ADU and noted he has owned the property since April 2010.
Discussion versus decision: commissioners emphasized that the commission’s role at this stage was limited to the significance determination under the demolition-delay bylaw; enforcement of past work and building-code compliance is the responsibility of the building inspector, Miller said. If the commission had found the structure significant, the next step would have been a public hearing within 45 business days; a subsequent finding of preferential preservation could have delayed demolition for up to nine months if no buyer or rehabilitation plan was found.
Outcome and next steps: the roll call produced one yes (Grant Farrington), two no votes (Annie Pfaff and Kevin Miller) and one abstention (Kelly O’Brien). The commission therefore did not deem the rear outbuilding historically or architecturally significant. Miller confirmed that inspectional- services and the building department still retain authority over building permits, code compliance and any enforcement stemming from previous work at the property. The applicant was instructed to follow the normal permitting path with the building department.
