Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northampton Historical Commission finds 32 Clark Avenue not preferably preserved, citing severe structural and health hazards
Summary
After a public hearing, the commission determined 32 Clark Avenue is not 'preferably preserved' under the city's demolition-review ordinance, citing major structural deterioration, persistent moisture and mold, termite and foundation damage, old knob‑and‑tube wiring and a narrow rear setback that raises fire concerns; the finding passed on a 6‑vote tally.
The Northampton Historical Commission voted on June 8 that 32 Clark Avenue should not be determined "preferably preserved" under the city's Demolition Review Ordinance, clearing the way for the property owners to pursue demolition and reconstruction options subject to any delay provisions in the ordinance.
Homeowner Jar Sar and a co‑presenter described extensive and longstanding problems inside the house. Sar told the commission that multiple builders and architects advised that a deep, historically sensitive renovation would be financially impractical and that, “if we want to build an energy efficient house ... the only path forward that would be financially feasible to do would be to demolish the current structure.” He documented high basement humidity, active water intrusion, termite and sill damage, cracked foundation masonry with daylight visible through gaps, obsolete knob‑and‑tube electrical work and a 70‑year‑old gas system that no longer burns efficiently.
Commission members asked detailed questions about the building’s condition and its context on the lot. They noted the house sits about 1.9 feet from the rear property line in one place and that an adjoining structure at 15 School Street sits similarly close, creating approximately a 5‑foot gap between the buildings and elevating fire‑spread risk. The applicants provided architectural and inspection photographs and described attempts to remove asbestos and temporary repairs that are now failing.
After deliberation the commission voted to determine the house "not preferably preserved." The chair announced the tally as six in favor and declared the motion passed. The commission explained that such a determination can trigger a demolition‑delay process under Chapter 161 of the city code; any delay or additional review will be handled according to the ordinance and planning staff procedures.
The homeowners said they plan to move forward with a replacement project that would hold a similar footprint but be built to current storm, energy and setback standards.
