From jenn at barrettplanningllc.com  Fri Jul 17 10:09:54 2026
From: jenn at barrettplanningllc.com (Jennifer Doherty)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:09:54 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Examples of Historic District Commission Rules &
	Regulations?
Message-ID: <CAAvoqEOWEie024F6bJ-Kcz_piBzU+OEpKP6v7N44wZJyq3-BcA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,
I'm looking for examples of local historic district commission rules and
regulations that cover your commission's operations - election of officers,
terms, attendance issues, etc. Does your commission have a set you're
especially proud of? Please send them along!
Thank you,
Jenn


-- 
Subscribe here <https://jbedoherty.substack.com/> for *Preservation Across
the Commonwealth*, a bi-weekly newsletter about historic preservation
happenings in Massachusetts

Jennifer B. Doherty
Preservation Planner
Barrett Planning Group LLC
350 Lincoln Street, Ste 2503
Hingham, MA 02043
Office: (781) 934-0073
Cell: (508) 209-7443
jenn at barrettplanningllc.com
www.barrettplanningllc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260717/fddd50d8/attachment.html>

From pkelleher at Salem.com  Tue Jul 21 10:50:31 2026
From: pkelleher at Salem.com (Patricia Kelleher)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:50:31 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] Preservation in a Changing Climate Conference 2026
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR16MB30532F2C7DDFD8AEE7A48BCFA7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR16MB30538BC9CD27E379A2313575A7F92@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB30532F2C7DDFD8AEE7A48BCFA7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>



[cid:68cc7a29-8c73-4827-a8a3-eb9ad3e99401]


The City of Salem and Salem's Preservation in a Changing Climate Partners are excited to announce the sixth annual conference focusing on addressing climate impacts to the region’s historic resources.


Preservation in a Changing Climate 2026

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Morse Auditorium at the Peabody Essex Museum

161 Essex St, Salem, MA


$50 early bird registration (until Friday, August 14)
$65 after August 14
Students: $10 special rate for the first 10 students; $30 for students (valid student ID required)



Building on past Preservation in a Changing Climate Conferences, this year’s event aims to advance mitigation and adaptation strategies that address impacts of climate on historic buildings, landscapes and neighborhoods. The conference will include a full day of case studies, conversations and panel discussions and a keynote from Lori Ferriss, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Built Buildings Lab and an internationally recognized expert on leveraging existing and historic buildings for equitable climate change mitigation and adaptation. Lunch will be provided by PEM and a closing reception will be held at the National Park Service Armory Visitor Center.

You can view the program schedule here<https://www.preservingsalem.com/preservation-in-a-changing-climate-2026> and register to attend the event (first come first served).

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN

REGISTER HERE<https://www.pem.org/events/preservation-in-a-changing-climate-conference-2>




Patti Kelleher

Preservation Planner

City of Salem | Department of Planning & Community Development

98 Washington St., 2nd Floor | Salem, MA  01970

978-619-5685 | pkelleher at salem.com<mailto:pkelleher at salem.com>

www.preservingsalem.com<http://www.preservingsalem.com/> | www.salem.com<http://www.salem.com/>

*Staff liaison to the Salem Historical Commission & Salem Community Preservation Committee



M 8-4 Office

T 8-4 WFH

W 8-4 Office

TH 8-7 Office

F 8-12 WFH

 [cid:5e854cc2-04c4-4219-a298-e72b0e2a2751]

WARNING: Fraud Alert Regarding Fake Application Fee Requests

The City of Salem has been made aware of a fraudulent scheme targeting applicants with fake requests for application fee payments.

These emails and invoices are NOT from the City of Salem.
The City of Salem will never send invoices via email. All legitimate application fees are handled through OpenGov or in person at the Department of Planning and Community Development.

Do not pay any invoices or respond to these fraudulent emails.
If you have received a suspicious email or have any questions about legitimate application fees, please contact the Department of Planning and Community Development directly at (978) 619-5685.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260721/3ef8e6d9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 258080 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260721/3ef8e6d9/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 507282 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260721/3ef8e6d9/attachment-0001.png>

From susanjamiebennett at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 14:16:57 2026
From: susanjamiebennett at gmail.com (Susan Bennett)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:16:57 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern
Message-ID: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>

An arts center in Lexington that leases a 1904 town-owned building in the
Munroe Tavern Historic District on Massachusetts Avenue has proposed to
build a "performance pavilion" in its front yard that would obscure the
view of the historic building. Residents of the District are opposing this
structure as inconsistent  with the mandate of of the Historic District
Commission to protect the setting of sites within the District as well as
to preserve exterior architectural features viewable from a public way.

Are there any other towns that have faced a similar issue and how have
concerned preservationists approached it?

Thank you
Susan Bennett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260722/84c006a0/attachment.html>

From twm3 at metcalfe-architecture.com  Wed Jul 22 14:12:25 2026
From: twm3 at metcalfe-architecture.com (twm3@metcalfe-architecture)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:12:25 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres]  Preservation Danger from current USA WH
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR16MB30538BC9CD27E379A2313575A7F92@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB30532F2C7DDFD8AEE7A48BCFA7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <09B68CD5-FB91-4CBF-92FB-855285A0F7A2@metcalfe-architecture.com>

Email your Members of Congress now and urge them to weigh in with ACHP to save Section 106 <https://link.quorumtracking.com/f/a/7zlyDee4i43UesKSR8S3kQ~~/AACYXxA~/w6stxectNjLHsu9-2kWWJCVi23iObRKj9TthcP3Z28jz2_p6KdWjAP9yp7kOJR_ywUWn7FH5IHmQjwIaDi9ob20Yh0PxbjU30zDFmbHPeNJi4EkDTl4obpUnX_u4o0uSpyzb7XNPIFf3S2Gy-uWIQBDsTwWDp9W2j73e_BH4SMxTM-luZVjwaVu8RdgIz_btmFdf2dgs7JWwDD8uV1-Ft4FwL4BWIEqnbnkrQ8JlXpX-BIhvlf5r7aejW2p-R2Pjs-qKMsVC1Q3z2vAGR_HI0kXLW6rjmoeNgxgYnqaNQWUQKGw0juYTODyKPEtZO8i9zYP01e9XdD4PGJ9U6ev5xg~~>

Dear friends and colleagues,

Late on Friday, July 17, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) circulated a near-complete draft of a sweeping rewrite of the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) to Council members and requested a vote by this Friday. These regulations govern how federal agencies consider impacts to historic properties during project planning and delivery.

This is a fundamental restructuring of the Section 106 process that would:

Shift decision-making authority almost entirely to federal agencies
Limit or eliminate the role of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Tribes, and local governments in shaping outcomes
Curtail public participation and remove preservation organizations and community stakeholders from formal consultation roles
Narrow what qualifies as a “historic property,” excluding thousands of culturally and historically significant sites
Eliminate or weaken requirements to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to historic resources
Allow agencies to make unilateral determinations through internal reports rather than negotiated agreements using public input
For architects, this shift has major consequences. Section 106 has helped surface local knowledge, avoid costly project conflicts, and improve design outcomes by integrating preservation considerations early. A move away from consultation toward full agency control risks increasing project uncertainty, community opposition, and litigation exposure.

While AIA is actively coordinating with national partners and preparing advocacy and legal strategies, immediate congressional engagement is critical.

ACHP's actions diminishes the voice and agency of the architect in this process. 

We are urging Congress to exercise oversight and call on ACHP to pause or delay any vote or implementation of this proposal to allow for appropriate review and stakeholder input.

Sincerely, 
Illya Azaroff FAIA
AIA National President 2026
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260722/b9bcfd50/attachment.html>

From doolfam at aol.com  Thu Jul 23 12:43:23 2026
From: doolfam at aol.com (PEG DOOLEY)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:43:23 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern
In-Reply-To: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <387616A0-0B64-4542-B699-AA81546D017D@aol.com>


Susan, we have not faced such. 
It is town owned property….. creating such as a pavilion is surely incongruent within the historic district. Simply doesn’t belong. 
Does such need a building permit and therefore must be signed off by an Historic District Commission? They have their guidelines to stand by. 
Do continue to oppose. We would all like to know the outcome.

Peg Dooley, Co chair 
Norton Center Historic District Commission 

> On Jul 23, 2026, at 11:42 AM, Susan Bennett via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
> 
> ﻿
> An arts center in Lexington that leases a 1904 town-owned building in the Munroe Tavern Historic District on Massachusetts Avenue has proposed to build a "performance pavilion" in its front yard that would obscure the view of the historic building. Residents of the District are opposing this structure as inconsistent  with the mandate of of the Historic District Commission to protect the setting of sites within the District as well as to preserve exterior architectural features viewable from a public way.
> 
> Are there any other towns that have faced a similar issue and how have concerned preservationists approached it?
> 
> Thank you
> Susan Bennett
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres


From tsculimbrene at outlook.com  Thu Jul 23 18:56:31 2026
From: tsculimbrene at outlook.com (Anthony Sculimbrene)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 22:56:31 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] Preservation Danger from current USA WH
In-Reply-To: <09B68CD5-FB91-4CBF-92FB-855285A0F7A2@metcalfe-architecture.com>
References: <MN2PR16MB30538BC9CD27E379A2313575A7F92@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB30532F2C7DDFD8AEE7A48BCFA7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <09B68CD5-FB91-4CBF-92FB-855285A0F7A2@metcalfe-architecture.com>
Message-ID: <BN7PR02MB525228E275564BCCBB670B83DBC02@BN7PR02MB5252.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Having worked at Wright Patterson AFB and managed the Section 106 process for the base, I can tell you this email is correct in that it will seriously harm the process that has been used to preserve historic assets throughout the US. I am going to email my federal representatives and make sure they know that I want the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to immediately cease their action and seek input from stakeholders across the country.
It is another example of people seeking to eliminate a process that has saved many historic and cultural sites and replace it with something that allows a select few to make decisions without input from citizens of this country.
Anthony F Sculimbrene

________________________________
From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> on behalf of twm3 at metcalfe-architecture via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 2:12 PM
To: Masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Preservation Danger from current USA WH

Email your Members of Congress now and urge them to weigh in with ACHP to save Section 106<https://link.quorumtracking.com/f/a/7zlyDee4i43UesKSR8S3kQ~~/AACYXxA~/w6stxectNjLHsu9-2kWWJCVi23iObRKj9TthcP3Z28jz2_p6KdWjAP9yp7kOJR_ywUWn7FH5IHmQjwIaDi9ob20Yh0PxbjU30zDFmbHPeNJi4EkDTl4obpUnX_u4o0uSpyzb7XNPIFf3S2Gy-uWIQBDsTwWDp9W2j73e_BH4SMxTM-luZVjwaVu8RdgIz_btmFdf2dgs7JWwDD8uV1-Ft4FwL4BWIEqnbnkrQ8JlXpX-BIhvlf5r7aejW2p-R2Pjs-qKMsVC1Q3z2vAGR_HI0kXLW6rjmoeNgxgYnqaNQWUQKGw0juYTODyKPEtZO8i9zYP01e9XdD4PGJ9U6ev5xg~~>

Dear friends and colleagues,

Late on Friday, July 17, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) circulated a near-complete draft of a sweeping rewrite of the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) to Council members and requested a vote by this Friday. These regulations govern how federal agencies consider impacts to historic properties during project planning and delivery.

This is a fundamental restructuring of the Section 106 process that would:


  *   Shift decision-making authority almost entirely to federal agencies
  *   Limit or eliminate the role of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), Tribes, and local governments in shaping outcomes
  *   Curtail public participation and remove preservation organizations and community stakeholders from formal consultation roles
  *   Narrow what qualifies as a “historic property,” excluding thousands of culturally and historically significant sites
  *   Eliminate or weaken requirements to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to historic resources
  *   Allow agencies to make unilateral determinations through internal reports rather than negotiated agreements using public input

For architects, this shift has major consequences. Section 106 has helped surface local knowledge, avoid costly project conflicts, and improve design outcomes by integrating preservation considerations early. A move away from consultation toward full agency control risks increasing project uncertainty, community opposition, and litigation exposure.

While AIA is actively coordinating with national partners and preparing advocacy and legal strategies, immediate congressional engagement is critical.

ACHP's actions diminishes the voice and agency of the architect in this process.

We are urging Congress to exercise oversight and call on ACHP to pause or delay any vote or implementation of this proposal to allow for appropriate review and stakeholder input.

Sincerely,
Illya Azaroff FAIA
AIA National President 2026

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260723/34efe5ab/attachment.html>

From fdimartino at somervillema.gov  Mon Jul 27 09:37:20 2026
From: fdimartino at somervillema.gov (Fiona DiMartino)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:37:20 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay and Fees
Message-ID: <SJ0PR09MB6992E6B9DE5F279E00F7F5B1B3CC2@SJ0PR09MB6992.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Hello,
I'm reaching out as the City of Somerville is evaluating historic preservation-related fees. I am hoping to pick your brains on a few questions in this regard:

  1.  Can municipalities charge fees for demolition review permits?
  2.  Can HPCs impose or authorize those fees by law?
  3.  Are HPC members typically compensated for their service?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

[cid:image001.png at 01DD1DA9.A37ADE80]
Fiona M. DiMartino, AICP (she/her)
Deputy Director, Planning Division
Please contact me via email for the fastest response.

Office Phone: 617-625-6600 x2558
Division Email: planning at somervillema.gov<mailto:planning at somervillema.gov>
Website: Planning | City of Somerville<https://www.somervillema.gov/ppz>

Sign up for our newsletter!<https://mailchi.mp/somervillema.gov/bxithf5lws>
Book a Meeting with me!<https://outlook.office365.com/book/FionaDiMartinoBookingsPage at somervillema.onmicrosoft.com/>


City of Somerville Public Records Notice
Please be advised that the Massachusetts Attorney General has determined that email is a public record unless the content of the email falls within one of the stated exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Laws.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more visit the Mimecast website.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260727/aa4cd537/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 171237 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260727/aa4cd537/attachment-0001.png>

From rcsmitharch at verizon.net  Fri Jul 24 11:05:32 2026
From: rcsmitharch at verizon.net (rcsmitharch at verizon.net)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:05:32 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern
In-Reply-To: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017a01dd1b7d$e91851d0$bb48f570$@verizon.net>

I assume this is the arts center down the street.  The first thing that I would ask is- where is the Zoning Board of Appeal on this?  Generally front yard setbacks, especially in residential neighborhoods, are fairly sacrosanct and unlikely to get a variance to put a structure there.  One thing here that is different is that the canopy is apparently seasonal, and different towns bylaws may vary in their treatment of temporary structures.  I would wonder about having acoustic performances on Massachusetts Avenue and how much amplification is likely to be used because of traffic noise.  I live about 500-600 feet from the town hall lawn in Swampscott, and we often hear Wednesday concerts on that lawn from our house.  The visual question is “Should a historic district forbid elements that are clearly not historic?”

 

I don’t think this will significantly obstruct the view of the tavern from anywhere in the public way.

 

Richard Smith

Swampscott Historic District Commission

 

From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Susan Bennett via MassHistPres
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 2:17 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern

 

An arts center in Lexington that leases a 1904 town-owned building in the Munroe Tavern Historic District on Massachusetts Avenue has proposed to build a "performance pavilion" in its front yard that would obscure the view of the historic building. Residents of the District are opposing this structure as inconsistent  with the mandate of of the Historic District Commission to protect the setting of sites within the District as well as to preserve exterior architectural features viewable from a public way.

 

Are there any other towns that have faced a similar issue and how have concerned preservationists approached it?

 

Thank you

Susan Bennett

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260724/1ba0c842/attachment.html>

From dennis.j.dewitt at gmail.com  Mon Jul 27 16:40:12 2026
From: dennis.j.dewitt at gmail.com (Dennis De Witt)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 16:40:12 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern
In-Reply-To: <017a01dd1b7d$e91851d0$bb48f570$@verizon.net>
References: <CANv=4dWAV33PvgLgXs3bqLgMt4Yt_-mvaQ_4b28tLydd3hUFkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017a01dd1b7d$e91851d0$bb48f570$@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <4E66518E-9419-4424-8282-92CC62BCCC37@gmail.com>

I would think if it really is seasonal and is popular, and town owned, there may be more significant uses of the commission’s political capital than getting in a big fight over it — unless there is a genuine risk that someone might want to make it permanent in which case go for an agreement that it won’t be.

Re Richard’s point, without fully understanding the role of the ZBA re a temporary structure, I’d assume this might be a Dover Amendment situation, limiting the ZBA’s scope of action.

Dennis De Witt

> On Jul 24, 2026, at 11:05 AM, rcsmitharch--- via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
> 
> I assume this is the arts center down the street.  The first thing that I would ask is- where is the Zoning Board of Appeal on this?  Generally front yard setbacks, especially in residential neighborhoods, are fairly sacrosanct and unlikely to get a variance to put a structure there.  One thing here that is different is that the canopy is apparently seasonal, and different towns bylaws may vary in their treatment of temporary structures.  I would wonder about having acoustic performances on Massachusetts Avenue and how much amplification is likely to be used because of traffic noise.  I live about 500-600 feet from the town hall lawn in Swampscott, and we often hear Wednesday concerts on that lawn from our house.  The visual question is “Should a historic district forbid elements that are clearly not historic?”
>  
> I don’t think this will significantly obstruct the view of the tavern from anywhere in the public way.
>  
> Richard Smith
> Swampscott Historic District Commission
>  
> From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu>> On Behalf Of Susan Bennett via MassHistPres
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 2:17 PM
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Lexington Historic Districts Concern
>  
> An arts center in Lexington that leases a 1904 town-owned building in the Munroe Tavern Historic District on Massachusetts Avenue has proposed to build a "performance pavilion" in its front yard that would obscure the view of the historic building. Residents of the District are opposing this structure as inconsistent  with the mandate of of the Historic District Commission to protect the setting of sites within the District as well as to preserve exterior architectural features viewable from a public way.
>  
> Are there any other towns that have faced a similar issue and how have concerned preservationists approached it?
>  
> Thank you
> Susan Bennett
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260727/4a98300d/attachment-0001.html>

From nlouisedole at gmail.com  Thu Jul 30 21:06:12 2026
From: nlouisedole at gmail.com (Nancy Dole)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:06:12 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Electric lines
Message-ID: <CF24823A-CC75-4F17-89AF-37BD6B2B8B68@gmail.com>

New owner building new home on empty lot in HD wants to run above ground electric and phone lines on poles because putting the lines underground is expensive. 
I don’t see in our bylaw that we specifically exclude above ground electric lines from requiring a hearing, like we do air conditioners, storm windows, but it seems like they would be in the category of things allowed without a hearing. 
What do other HDs do? 
Thank you! 
Nancy Dole
West Tisbury HDC

