Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners Urge Independent Review as National Grid Seeks Demolition for 10 New Wales Street
Summary
Commissioners and preservation advocates discussed a demolition application and minimum‑maintenance enforcement for 10 New Wales Street and condition concerns at 5 Campbell Street. The Historic District Commission delayed decisions and commissioners suggested independent preservation engineering review and outreach to other CLGs and preservation
The commission discussed ongoing minimum‑maintenance and demolition matters for two waterfront properties — 10 New Wales Street and 5 Campbell Street — and urged additional preservation-focused review after an engineering report from National Grid recommended demolition for one structure.
Angus (commissioner) summarized the recent HDC meeting and said National Grid’s structural engineer concluded the building at 10 New Wales Street was not restorable and recommended demolition. Angus said commissioners should review the meeting video for the company engineer’s remarks and that the HDC is seeking legal and preservation guidance.
Nut graf: Commissioners and local preservation professionals said the HDC should consider an independent, preservation‑minded engineering assessment and consult other Certified Local Governments (CLGs) or preservation partners rather than rely solely on the utility’s internal engineering report. Several speakers described local craftsmen and preservation contractors who could evaluate repair options if the property owner permits site access.
Commissioner Diane (speaking from memory of long-term observation) said she preferred the first Francis Street alternative in the earlier agenda item; later in the discussion about New Wales Street she urged that owners not be permitted to “walk away saying that we can't afford to do it” for a building she described as “a classic building” and part of the harbor’s historic setting. Preservation advocates at the meeting suggested the HDC could require additional documentation under its bylaw authority (citing language on minimum maintenance and evidence collection) and that the HDC may have authority to require an independent inspector not paid by the applicant.
Speakers described obstacles to independent review: private property access requires owner permission, and some preservation inspectors would need explicit authorization to enter National Grid property to assess conditions. Commissioners proposed contacting other CLGs and preservation organizations (examples mentioned: New Bedford, Fall River) and using the HDC/HTC procedures to require documentation the commission deems necessary.
No demolition occurred at the meeting. Angus and others said the HDC held the minimum‑maintenance matter pending town counsel advice and that the HDC intends to explore options including an independent preservation engineer, outreach to state preservation partners and possible use of the commission’s authority to require additional evidence.
Ending: The commission agreed to monitor the HDC process, explore preservation‑minded engineering reviews and reach out to legal counsel and peer CLGs for guidance; no formal action to authorize demolition was taken at this meeting.
