2011-10-20-HC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Walsh stated that he has known the applicant for thirty years. 22 Butler Ave. has been the family home where the applicant and all of his siblings were brought up. The applicant lost his job in 2008. Health conditions have left the applicant with limited use of both hands and unable to drive. Mr. Hourihan had been driving an oil truck for a living but is now unable to do so and is financially desperate. The house has suffered water damage due to an unattended plumbing leak. Mr. Walsh distributed exterior /interior photographs of the premises. Mr. Walsh pointed out the unsealed attic window and soffit /eave areas open to the weather due to animals (possibly raccoons) gaining entrance. Mr. Walsh stated that the applicant believes there is no opportunity for sale as is. Mr. Walsh showed the Commission drawings prepared by the firm Churchill and Ash for a replacement dwelling. Chairman Kelland invited abutters to speak. Mr. Archibald spoke in favor of the demolition. Mr. Huber said that he has seen animal tracks in the snow and spoke in favor of the demolition. Other abutters were in favor as well questioning the rationale for 22 Butler being listed in the Cultural Resources Inventory. Chairman Kelland asked the applicant if an attempt has been made to market the existing house. Mr. Walsh responded that Mr. Hourihan has been talking with Bernie Osgood, a realtor, who has advised him that it would be difficult to sell given the condition. Mr. Walsh stated that the Commission should let his client tear it down because of financial hardship and because of the condition of the structure. Ms. Fenollosa stated that the Commission does not have a hardship exemption and that in order to comply would need a report from a licensed structural engineer or realtor. Anecdotal evidence pertaining to the condition of the structure is not sufficient to allow the demolition. Mr. Kern said that the Building Commissioner will be looking for advice from the Commission as to whether the applicant has demonstrated a bon fide effort to sell the house to someone willing to preserve it or that preservation is not likely to occur (due to condition issues). The Commission would need a report written by a qualified profession engineer or building inspector as to the house's structural assessment. Mr. Walsh asked why the Commission allowed the demolition of neighboring structures at 9 Butler Ave and 13 Camile. Ms. Fenollosa responded that those structures were not listed in the Cultural Resources Inventory and no hearing was needed. A motion was made and seconded to find the house at 22 Butler Ave. preferably preserved. The vote was 4 -0 in favor.