RSS
Milford wrong to allow historic home to be demolished
Last Monday night, the Milford Historic District Commission No. 1 abdicated its trust. It voted to allow the demolition of a landmark house in the district -- the Sanford/Bristol House at 111-113 North Street.
Local historic districts were created by state law to preserve and protect significant historical and architectural resources. The Sanford/Bristol House, with its five small shed dormers, is a significant landmark in the district. Instead, the commission caved in to the arguments of the present owner that the house was “beyond repair.”
The translation of that is that restoration would be more costly than he would like.
The structural engineer who viewed the property stated that “in view of the damage, deficiencies, and neglect, it does not appear viable or practical to restore the structure’s integrity without replacing most, if not all, of the elements.” He also stated that to do this would effectively demolish the “entire superstructure.”
As city historian, I have heard this claim too many times to believe it. There is nothing wrong with replacing damaged or deteriorated structural members. I walked through the house last January, and the framework of the house was standing firm. There was nothing about the place that made me fear that it would fall down about me, as claimed by one of the commission members.
True, the sills of a house that old will probably have to be replaced, as has been done with many houses that old, but replacing structural members will not effectively demolish the entire superstructure as alleged.
I should add that the area is also a part of the River Park National Register Historic District. This should mean something. The message from the Historic District Commission is, unfortunately, that if someone who owns a house in such a district wishes to replace it, all they have to do is to allow it to deteriorate and then argue that it is “beyond repair.” This sets a bad precedent. The commission members should be ashamed of themselves for abdicating their trust and responsibility.
Richard N. Platt Jr.
Milford
City Historian
Local historic districts were created by state law to preserve and protect significant historical and architectural resources. The Sanford/Bristol House, with its five small shed dormers, is a significant landmark in the district. Instead, the commission caved in to the arguments of the present owner that the house was “beyond repair.”
The translation of that is that restoration would be more costly than he would like.
The structural engineer who viewed the property stated that “in view of the damage, deficiencies, and neglect, it does not appear viable or practical to restore the structure’s integrity without replacing most, if not all, of the elements.” He also stated that to do this would effectively demolish the “entire superstructure.”
As city historian, I have heard this claim too many times to believe it. There is nothing wrong with replacing damaged or deteriorated structural members. I walked through the house last January, and the framework of the house was standing firm. There was nothing about the place that made me fear that it would fall down about me, as claimed by one of the commission members.
True, the sills of a house that old will probably have to be replaced, as has been done with many houses that old, but replacing structural members will not effectively demolish the entire superstructure as alleged.
I should add that the area is also a part of the River Park National Register Historic District. This should mean something. The message from the Historic District Commission is, unfortunately, that if someone who owns a house in such a district wishes to replace it, all they have to do is to allow it to deteriorate and then argue that it is “beyond repair.” This sets a bad precedent. The commission members should be ashamed of themselves for abdicating their trust and responsibility.
Richard N. Platt Jr.
Milford
City Historian
posted by Matt DeRienzo at
10:23 PM
2 Comments:
OK Mr. Platt, offer your own money to pay for all of the necessary repairs. I'm sure the owner would have no problem keeping the house if you or anyone else was willing to get it into liveable and up to code conditions. Otherwise, you really have no say in the matter.
to anonymous---
Dear sir or madam--just so you understand, this house is NOT in the condition it is claimed to be in. It is a historic structure listed on a NATIONAL register. This means the owner is expected to follow suit and maintain the house and property, up the the standards of the historic district guidelines, and state set historic guidelines. There are state and National tax credits, and there used to be historic grants to help people maintain their historic properties--but we can argue all day about how the Bush administration raped and pillaged such programs.. The point is when you buy a house like this one IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT it is with the intention of keeping the home historic. This house was torn apart by the previous owner, and left to deteriorate-The current owner HAD to know this and HAD to see the condition before purchasing the home!!! EVERY mortgage company demands a home inspection before closing to find structural and other damage--obviously this DID NOT HAPPEN-it was bought as a cheap land investment, and the house built will most likely also be sold! And even if it is not-it will NEVER fit into the historic district and NEVER be accepted by ANYONE in Milford and beyond. And so you know, there is a DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT ordinance--in which you CAN be FINED for allowing a property to decline---so the current owner a "savvy businessman" saw his opportunity, the historic district committee was NOT up to task to evaluate the situation, with only one member who lives near by and in a historic home by the way, able to make a real assessment and he did so by voting NO to the demolition request. It has nothing to do with money, the current owner KNEW the situation and condition before buying the property--there are FAR too many people in town that well know, and know the house intimately, from the bowels to the ridge line. So by bashing the City Historian, Richard Platt Jr. you are showing your ignorance to many an issue in Milford. You should be thankful you live in any proximity to such an amazing person, beg his pardon and ask him for the real story--the man has seen houses come and go over the years, and some have been saved, the ones that were not he fought for--the irony is different houses---same old stories--- Developers, investors, builders, your tricks are known, the old tired lines of condition, mold, water damage etc, etc, we have heard it ALL before, seen it all before and frankly this is not going to happen to such an important house, NOT ON MY WATCH--open up an issue of Early American Life Magazine and read storied about people buying houses abandoned for 30 years with animals and trees growing through them, who have lovingly restored them to a home now featured in a national publication! This house can easily be restored, but it can NEVER be replaced!!!! Also anonymous listen to Mr. Platt, you WILL learn something, and frankly you need the education.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home