Bonnie Parsons will proceed to conduct inventories on the 80 properties
Robert.Judge
From: Parsons, Bonnie
[mailto:BPar...@PVPC.ORG]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007
9:47 AM
To: BobJ...@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Second of two emails,
including a WORD document and the EXCEL list of properties
Thank you, Bob. Your response to Ken Williamson was exact and thorough, so, thank you for being right on top of this process. I appreciate your attention to all the details. I will proceed – snow and all!
Best,
Bonnie
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Judge
[mailto:robert...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert.Judge
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007
9:36 AM
To: Parsons, Bonnie
Subject: FW: Second of two emails,
including a WORD document and the EXCEL list of properties
December 17
Bonnie:
Last week I asked the HistComm members to respond to your proposed list by 12/16. I received no suggested additions or deletions. I only received one substantive response, from Ken Williamson, which is below, for your information only.
Therefore, you should proceed with the list of 80.
- Bob
From: Robert
Judge [mailto:BobJ...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007
10:49 AM
To: 'Kenneth Williamson'
Cc: Dave Daly; Jo Wojnarowski;
Mark F. Larrow; Ted Belsky; 'Wayne Boulais'
Subject: RE: Second of two emails,
including a WORD document and the EXCEL list of properties
December 15
Ken:
The money goes to pay for the consultant's (this year, Bonnie Parsons) time and expenses.
I'll change "Eight," not "Eighty" Thanks for catching that.
No, there is no requirement that a property be at least 100 years old to be included in an historic district. I do not think there was ever such a requirement. However, most properties in historic districts are more than 100 years old, of course, and people tend to think about them that way, that is, chronologically.
As for your last paragraph:
I think your questions may reflect your absence from our last Historical Commission meeting. Bonnie briefed the HistComm on the issues you raise, which I will address below. The HistComm directed her to proceed to produce this list of 80 properties.
This list is not the list of properties to be included in a proposed local historic district. It is the list that Bonnie proposes to inventory, as called for in her contract. The inventory process is a separate process from the process of proposing the local historic district. The completed inventories will form the justification for proposing the district, but each is a distinct step.
A proposed Woodbridge St. local historic district may OR may not correspond to the Woodbridge St. national district. That is a decision to be made by the Local Historic District Study Committee, which will be appointed soon. The local district will include some form of protections, for instance, concerning exterior renovations, which the national district does not have.
MA Historic wants Bonnie and the S. Hadley HistComm to go beyond the Woodbridge Street national register district boundaries in this grant, that is, to break some new ground in S. Hadley Center. But Bonnie wants us to suggest additions or deletions to her proposed list. So, please suggest additions or deletions to the list by Dec. 16. Soon thereafter, I want to direct her to proceed to conduct the inventories of the 80 properties upon which we have agreed.
Feel free to question me further and even to phone me at 532-5792.
- Bob
Fellow HistComm members: I have heard from Wayne, Dave, and now Ken. If you have not responded, please do so. As I said in my December 11 email, if anyone wants another meeting to discuss the list of properties (or anything else) before I authorize Bonnie to proceed, let me know!
- Bob
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Williamson [mailto:willia...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Robert Judge
Subject: Re: Second of two emails, including a WORD document and the EXCEL list
of properties
Dear Bob,
I approve the attempt to secure another grant, although as I commented before, I find it hard to see where the money goes.
The letter to the town accountant states that "eight" properties are being investigated. I believe you must mean "eighty."
I will ask once more: I thought properties needed to be at least 100 years old to be in the historic district. Is this no longer true?
With regard to the properties listed on Woodbridge St I believe I object to including most of them in the presently designated historic district. lI the intention to have another historic district of "Colonial Revival" houses on Woodbridge St? If so it would make for a confusing district, with a mixture of Colonial and Colonial Revival houses.
Best regards,
Ken Williamson
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 12/16/2007 11:36 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 12/16/2007 11:36 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 12/16/2007 11:36 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1187 - Release Date: 12/16/2007 11:36 AM