Remembering the “Why” as a Local Preservationist

In Massachusetts, municipalities and local preservationists have available a wide spectrum of preservation and land use tools to protect historic resources, neighborhoods, and special places in their communities. Many communities have adopted demolition delay bylaws or ordinances under home rule; state enabling legislation allows for local historic districts; and local historical commissions are empowered to hold preservation restrictions.

But often when speaking with local preservationists, I find that a community has adopted one or two tools and exclusively focuses on the use and administration of that tool, often at the expense of the larger preservation picture in the community. A threatened building causes these local preservationists to lose sight of their “why” and instead hone in on their one preservation tool, even if it will not achieve their wider preservation goals. Focusing on the “why” of local preservation can hopefully pull some local preservationists out of panicked enforcement mode and into a more open, broader-thinking perspective to consider other alternative preservation tools.

Local historic districts are important and can be used to protect architecturally-significant resources, as the Town of Andover did with this property. But local historic districts are not the only tool in the local preservationist’s toolbox.

What is that “why” of local preservation, though? It means why exactly are you trying to preserve that building, that streetscape, that neighborhood, that landscape. What about that historic resource makes it important to the community, to the site itself, to scholarship on local history or architecture? That why will help you understand what you are trying to protect, what is significant about the resource and what should be maintained, and will hopefully guide you to the appropriate preservation tools for that specific site.

When a building is going to be demolished, don’t just focus on the demolition. If your community values sustainability, consider advocating for deconstruction and the preservation of some materials.

At a basic level, local preservationists need to understand (and ideally, be involved in the development of) their community’s larger planning and land use goals, usually developed during a master or comprehensive plan process. These goals drive land use decisions such as zoning, potential new developments, and the appearance of the community’s landscape. Review your community’s goals. Do they highlight community character? Are there certain areas of town that are called out as more special? Are certain features of the community seen as a key piece of the community’s identity? Understanding the answers to these questions can guide local preservationists in their work; these questions address what the community as a whole wants to protect and preserve. Maybe it is the community’s historic village centers, agricultural landscapes, or social club buildings that are important. Those will all require different preservation strategies; adopting a demolition delay bylaw and working vigorously to enforce it will not adequately protect all of those historic resources and sites.

When a building, landscape, or neighborhood is threatened, keep that broader community “why” in mind. Why is that site important? What features convey its historic or architectural significance? And why do community members – beyond just local preservationists – value the site? These questions will help identify the appropriate protection tool, whether a typical historic preservation tool such as demolition delay or a local historic district, or something else, such as a zoning change or funding.

Downtowns or village centers may benefit from a variety of protection tools that are not always historic preservation-oriented.

Let’s say your community has a historic village center featuring a popular general store that has served the community for generations. The retiring owner lists the building and business for sale. Oh! We have local historic districts in the community! We have a threatened building, so we will designate it a local historic district and that will protect it! Well… not quite. Perhaps the building is two stories, but your zoning allows up to five in that area. Perhaps the building is quite undersized for its lot, with a large parking lot behind. That zoning may mean that even with a local historic district, you will receive proposals to demolish the building and redevelop the site. And even if the building is preserved, it may not mean the general store business remains; maybe a lawyer’s office, salon, or restaurant replaces the general store.

Redevelopment of the site or a change in use may be perfectly fine. But, if you want to preserve both of those – if the community values the building and its use, if they are the “why” for that site – a local historic district will not protect against either redevelopment or a new use. The community’s “why” and its overall preservation goals will not be served by using what local preservationists might view as their one preservation tool, local historic district designation.

Other tools are likely more appropriate. These might include zoning compatible with the scale of the existing built environment, or design guidelines that encourage similar patterns of development. A legacy business program might support the historic general store use. Local grants or a revolving loan fund might support preservation of the existing building. Guided by the community’s “why” for that building, those will all be more effective preservation tools for that specific site than a local historic district.

Compatible zoning and owner education may do more to support your local preservation efforts than strict enforcement of local preservation tools.

In some cases, particularly in the use of demolition delay, a focus on one tool can be to local preservationists’ detriment. Other community members may view this focus on enforcement as punitive or uncooperative, giving local preservationists a negative reputation in the wider community. I often see communities with a very expansive definition of “demolition” – window replacements, the removal of chimneys and siding, and roof replacements all need to come in for review under the demolition delay bylaw or ordinance. In those same communities, I often hear of homeowners upset, they did not know or did not expect replacing their siding would require this review. These situations add up, creating a negative perception of the local historical commission.

Heavy-handed demolition delay review such as this can also hamper future preservation efforts. What incentive does the community have to create new local historic districts, if the demolition delay bylaw or ordinance effectively functions as a local historic district for the whole community? Thus, local preservationists are not able to deploy a full set of preservation tools in the community to adequately protect their historic resources.

But in these expansive demolition delay cases, let’s consider the why. Thinking more broadly, the local historical commission wants to protect the community’s historic resources. Changes property owners make are impacting those resources, removing historic materials that add to the community’s overall historic integrity. But does a six-month delay for a window replacement project really support the community’s wider historic preservation goals? It may not, and the historical commission might look to other tools to support their historic preservation goals.

The widespread removal of historic building features might suggest a few other options to pursue for the local historical commission outside of enforcing the demolition delay bylaw or ordinance. Maybe they need more public education about the community’s architecture and history, to generate broader awareness of and appreciation for the community’s historic resources. Maybe the local historical commission needs to do more targeted public education around windows or energy efficiency upgrades in historic buildings. Maybe the community develops a grant or revolving loan program that supports homeowners in making good preservation choices. And if there are, in fact, so many buildings in the community that have such significant historic materials on them, perhaps the community needs to consider stronger preservation tools, such as a local historic district, where it is more appropriate to review material changes.

Incentives such as federal and state historic rehabilitation tax credits provide direct benefits to property owners while supporting local preservation goals.

It may feel uncomfortable for a local historical commission to refocus; “we’re losing things!” you might think. But pulling back, considering the community’s overall “why,” and exploring alternative preservation and land use protection tools may in fact benefit your community in the end. Engaging with other groups in the community can strengthen your role in the community’s land use and planning processes. Pursuing protection measures more supportive of property owners will likely generate more successes, as property owners can more clearly see the benefits to them personally. And overall, you might generate more support and a constituency for preservation in the community, rather than community members viewing historic preservationists as overly administrative, time-consuming, or punitive. Most importantly, connecting your work back to the community’s “why,” those larger shared goals and values, gives you more support through past planning and public engagement efforts that generated that “why” and more of a connection to the community’s shared values.

Rethinking Massachusetts' Historic Districts Act

Lately I’ve had several conversations with folks discussing the issues with Massachusetts’ Historic Districts Act, G.L. c. 40C. While we were lucky to have one of the earliest enabling legislations for local historic districts, the Act, established in 1960, has struggled to keep up with changing local preservation needs.

First, some of the highlights of 40C: since it was adopted before the National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of Historic Places in 1966, 40C does not set out any specific criteria or thresholds that historic resources must meet in order to be designated a local historic district. In other states, the four National Register criteria, and sometimes additional state or local criteria, are used to judge what properties can or cannot be designated a local historic district. This allows for more flexibility in Massachusetts, especially as the preservation movement in the 21st century has shifted away from a strict focus on materiality and towards an interest in cultural preservation. Even if a building is not a perfect example of an architectural style or has been altered, here in Massachusetts, if a local historic district study committee can make the case for its preservation to town meeting voters or city council, the building can be protected as a local historic district.

Andover recently adopted a local historic district to protect a number of architecturally-significant houses along Central Street.

A second good piece of 40C, again because it was adopted before the National Register was established, is that it does not distinguish between contributing and non-contributing resources, as the National Register does. When a National Register nomination is prepared, a period of significance is established; essentially, the period of time for which the district or property is significant, when the events that are important to its history happened or when its architecturally-significant buildings were constructed. Then, the National Register nomination will sort resources within a district into two categories, contributing or non-contributing, based on whether they fall inside or outside that period of significance – does the resource contribute, or not, to the district’s history. (A case could be made that all resources contribute to an area’s history, but that is a blog post for another time!) Massachusetts does not do this sorting for local historic districts, meaning that all properties in a local historic district are afforded the same level of significance, and the same level of review. Ultimately this provides more protection for resources that are significant, as it allows for review over the resource’s full setting, not just its individual parcel.  

Now, some of the stumbling blocks that have become more apparent in recent years. 40C mandates a very high, very detailed level of review. When a community establishes a local historic district, 40C does allow for the exemption of certainly categories of changes. But these are primarily smaller, temporary features that are easily reversible or do not have much of an impact on a historic resource’s material integrity. There is a process by which local historic district commissions can exempt other proposed changes from review, but this can only occur after the local historic district is established. If a community wants to protect their historic resources, but does not want the high level of review mandated by 40C, they might choose not to adopt a local historic district at all.

A recent attempt to establish the first local historic district in Ashland failed, achieving a majority of votes at Town Meeting but not the two-thirds required to establish local historic districts.

Along the lines of establishing a district, 40C is not clear on what happens if a town meeting or city council vote results in a “no.” Is that the end of that proposal, that study report, that local historic district study committee? Likely not the study committee, as they are appointed by the select board or city council; those bodies must formally vote to disband and discontinue the study committee. But what if they aren’t disbanded? Can the study committee reuse the original study report and bring it back again? Or do they need to restart the entire process, redo the study report, and then come back to town meeting or city council for a vote? What if a study committee was appointed decades ago, prepared a draft study report, but then never moved forward with the district, and was never formally disbanded – but then twenty years later, there is interest in moving forward with the district? (Yes, an actual thing that has happened more than once recently!) In the past several years I’ve come across a couple situations where variations of this question have been an issue, and communities have handled it in a variety of ways. 40C does not speak at all to what happens when the vote is a “no” but there is still potentially interest in establishing the local historic district.

One a district is established, there are several places where 40C could use additional detail to more fully support the administration of the Act locally. 40C allows local historic district commissions the ability to issue three different kinds of certificates – appropriateness, non-applicability, and hardship. However, 40C provides little detail on when and how these various certificates should be issued. Appropriateness is relatively easy – if a proposed change is in keeping with the character of the local historic district, the historic district commission should issue the property owner a certificate of appropriateness.

40C does not address cemeteries, a common feature of local historic districts in a downtown or village setting. Does the local historic district commission need to review changes to headstones?

But what about non-applicability or hardship? 40C does not define these, and historic district commissions often struggle with them. Does a certificate of non-applicability need to be applied for and issued for every change that the historic district commission does not need to review? Ordinary repair and maintenance? Interior work? I know of at least one community where the building commissioner requires a certificate of non-applicability for interior work, even though interior work is specifically exempt from review in 40C. What about hardship – how is that defined? As that can get into financial matters, and potentially a more subjective review, many communities struggle to come up with a formula or required information that might remove some of the mystery around what, exactly, constitutes a hardship.

40C also does not allow for administrative or staff-level approval of proposed changes, even smaller things. Some communities have found ways around this, but otherwise, it is on the local historic district to hold a public hearing to review every proposed application. In communities with multiple districts, or large districts, this work can become especially onerous, and there is no easy way to relieve it.

Amendments to 40C have recently revolved around green technologies, such as solar panels. Image via Google Streetview.

40C has been amended several times in the past, most recently to add in references to solar panels and other green technologies. But perhaps it is time to rethink the Act as a whole, and consider how it could best support local historic districts in Massachusetts as we move further away from its adoption. There is always a concern about opening up state enabling legislation for preservation – what if other not supportive of preservation get the ear of legislators and significantly weaken, or remove entirely, the Act? There have been recent attempts to severely limit the review of local historic district commission via the Act. Amending 40C would certainly take a concerted effort by a strong coalition of local and statewide preservation groups to make the case for thoughtful changes to the Act. But perhaps, now that we are 65 years distant from 40C’s adoption, it is time to review the Act and make the necessary changes to keep Massachusetts at the forefront of preservation policy, just as we were in 1960.

2025 Annual Town Meeting Roundup

2025’s annual town meeting season brought some wins and some close losses for preservationists in communities across the Commonwealth. I’ve tried to round up as many votes as I can here. While I was involved with some of these projects during my time at the Massachusetts Historical Commission, others are new to me.

The proposed demolition of this house on Central Street spurred the creation of Andover’s second local historic district.

Andover: Congratulations to the Town of Andover, which adopted their second local historic district! This district protects a number of properties along residential Central Street, most of which are already part of a National Register of Historic Places District. In addition, voters turned down a challenge to the Town’s existing Ballardvale Local Historic District, leaving that district in place.

Ashland: Unfortunately Ashland was less successful in adopting their first local historic district. While the proposal received a simple majority of votes - 111 to 66 - local historic districts in Massachusetts require a two-thirds majority to pass, making the yes votes just seven votes shy of adopting the district. This district would have protected Ashland’s downtown area, where there is currently a proposal to redevelop a 19th century stone mill complex.

Duxbury’s Old Town Hall (left) was not designated a local historic district.

Duxbury: Voters in Duxbury failed to protect their Old Town Hall with a local historic district designation. As in Ashland, the 90 yes, 53 no votes did not quite clear the two-thirds threshold required. As the building is still owned by the Town, there were concerns that designating the property might limit the Town’s ability to use or alter the building in the future.

Holliston: The Holliston Historical Commission has been hard at work over the past year updating their demolition delay bylaw, and the changes were adopted by Town Meeting voters (Article 29). The new bylaw sets a review threshold of buildings constructed before 1950, and allows the Historical Commission to impose an 18 month demolition delay.

Marion’s Wharf Village remains unprotected after a local historic district failed to garner the necessary two-thirds vote.

Marion: Southcoast preservationists in Marion have been trying for several years to adopt a local historic district in the community’s Wharf Village area, a remarkably well preserved late 18th/early 19th century fishing village. However, like Ashland and Duxbury, voters did not clear the required two-thirds hurdle, with a final vote of 154 to 150.

Rowe: Town Meeting voters in Rowe tabled - or did not act on - a proposal by the Historical Commission to establish a demolition delay bylaw.

Sharon: Voters in Sharon protected a single property as the Town’s fourth local historic district (Article 28). The owner of the mansard house at 228 East Street requested the district, to protect their unique building.

Local Preservation Tools: Preservation Restrictions

Among the many tools in a local preservationist’s tool box, a preservation restriction is perhaps the strongest. Sometimes called a covenant or easement in other states, it is essentially that - an easement that grants a third party certain rights to a property, but not full ownership. Preservation restrictions are a legal document recorded at the registry of deeds, and they run with the property, not the owner. In the case of a preservation restriction, it grants a municipality or a non-profit the right to approve proposed changes to a property. And while this is similar to a local historic district, preservation restrictions can go beyond what a local historic district can do - preservation restrictions can protect areas not visible from a public way as well as interior spaces. Preservation restrictions are not for every property, but they can be used to protect a community’s most important, most significant, and most intact resources.

Preservation restrictions have become more common in recent years as part of the local development process. The Community Preservation Act (CPA) legislation requires them if a municipality acquires a property using historic preservation CPA funds. And some communities that provide CPA funding to private properties will require a preservation restriction in exchange, to protect the community’s investment in the property. The Community Preservation Coalition provides a helpful FAQ about preservation restrictions.

Communities such as Lexington and Andover have worked preservation restrictions into special permit processes through their planning boards, with bylaws that provide relief from certain zoning requirements in exchange for a preservation restriction. These kinds of bylaws are important, as historic buildings are often not in the ideal place on a lot for current zoning - they were built before modern zoning. Allowing for an easier method of zoning relief may mean that a property can be subdivided in a way that preserves a historic structure, rather than requiring its demolition.

There are a few things to keep in mind, however, when pursuing a PR on a property. Preservation restrictions are a legal document and can take some time to prepare; they are not a quick, “let me get this signature!” form at the end of a permitting process. Under MGL Chapter 184, Section 31-33, a preservation restriction that will be held in perpetuity must be reviewed and approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Because the MHC adds properties with a preservation restriction to the State Register of Historic Places, they cannot accept a restriction on any old building; it must retain a good degree of integrity and historic significance. The MHC should be contacted as soon as a preservation restriction might be considered for a property, so you can be sure that they will accept it, and to start the process of drafting and reviewing a restriction, which can take months.

The West Harwich Baptist Church when it was documented in 1993, from MACRIS

A recent case in Harwich illustrates the importance of starting the preservation restriction process early. Due to various title issues, the Town of Harwich became involved in the sale of the West Harwich Baptist Church to a developer. The church is an 1840s Greek Revival structure, with a congregation that no longer had a use for the building. The Town acquired the church through friendly eminent domain and with plans to sell it via a request for proposals process to a developer to help clear the title. When the acquisition and sale process was presented at a Special Town Meeting in October of 2022, the article was amended on the floor to add in the requirement for a preservation restriction. And while that amendment passed, as the Town has moved through the process they have not placed the preservation restriction on the building.

The winning developer for the property was selected last fall, and the Town signed a purchase and sale agreement with them. But then the developer immediately cited condition concerns with the building and requested to demolish the building. Because there is no preservation restriction in place, there is only local review mechanisms such as demolition delay protecting the property. After an outpouring of support for the building, the Town is now exploring ways to back out of the sale and pursue other options that would preserve the building.

Communities and non-profits can also hold term-limited preservation restrictions up to thirty years, and renewable. These are not subject to the requirements of MGL Chapter 184, but should still be reviewed by the MHC, to be sure they are providing sufficient historic preservation protections.

The Ransom C. and Mary Taylor House in Worcester

Recently in Worcester, a term-limited preservation restriction was used to preserve the Ransom C. and Mary Taylor House. Sitting on a large lot in a residential neighborhood, this will allow the house to be moved on the lot and housing constructed on the remainder of the lot. While the Worcester Historical Commission was concerned about preserving the Taylor House, the street is not a cohesive historic streetscape, and so they were less concerned, and thus less interested, in reviewing new construction on the lot.

It is also important to consider who is holding the preservation restriction, and if they have the capacity to review projects and manage the restriction. While local historical commissions can hold a preservation restriction on behalf of the municipality, they are often volunteer board members with an interest in history but perhaps no professional background in architecture, architectural history, or construction. If a community is going to seek out preservation restrictions, they should be sure that they have a good number of professionals on the local historical commission, and that the commission is provided regular opportunities to learn more about historic preservation treatments and best practices.

As a community considers ways to protect its historic resources, preservation restrictions can be an important tool, but they should also consider their capacity to prepare, record, and enforce the restriction. And always start the preservation restriction process early, so that it is correctly prepared and recorded before a sale goes through.

The Importance of Looking Beyond Regulatory Tools to Support Local Preservation Efforts

So often, historic preservation regulations are framed as a block to development. If a property has this or that designation, or a town has a certain kind of bylaw, a property owner cannot do anything with their property; the historic resource is protect. And local historical commissions will work hard to put these regulations in place, and enforce them, seeing the regulations as key to their local preservation efforts.

But two recent cases in Massachusetts have shown that this is not always the case. Sometimes, even with all the right tools in place, a property owner still has plenty of options; local preservationists can have all the tools at their disposal and still lose a significant resource. These cases highlight that it may not be the tools themselves, but how they are implemented and the larger preservation ethic in the community that really matters when it comes to saving a significant historic resource.

Natick and Groton both have all of the preservation tools available to them in Massachusetts. Both communities have active local historical commissions, designated local historic districts, demolition delay bylaws (Natick, six months; Groton, 18 months), and funding via the Community Preservation Act.

The Sawin House in Natick (NAT.7), February, 2025

But in Natick, the community is awaiting the demolition of the Sawin House (MHC ID NAT.7), reputed to be the oldest house in Natick with portions dating to the late 17th century. It is owned by MassAudubon as part of their Broadmoor Wildlife Sanctuary. The organization acquired the house in the 1960s but in recent years has had no real use for it. Concerned about the building’s condition, in 2015, the Town formed their own committee to explore options and work with MassAudubon on the reuse of the building. It appears those efforts were for naught, as ten years later the organization has made it clear they will be moving forward with demolition. Deferred maintenance has left the building in a precarious state, and MassAudubon applied to demolish the building in August of 2024, after which the Natick Historical Commission imposed their six-month demolition delay period. As the delay’s expiration date approached in early 2025, last-minute efforts to negotiate with MassAudubon appear to have gone nowhere, although as of this writing demolition has not yet begun.

View fullsize

The Dr. Oliver Prescott Jr. House (GRO.52), photo from the Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory form by Sanford Johnson, June, 2006

And in Groton, another organization - Groton Hill Music Center - has chosen to demolish a building they, too, have no use for. The organization opened a brand new campus in Groton in 2022, on acreage that had been a dairy farm and orchard. The property included the Dr. Oliver Prescott Jr. House (MHC ID GRO.52), believed to date to the 1790s. Like MassAudubon, with no use for the house, Groton Hill sought demolition in 2023. The Groton Historical Commission imposed their 18-month demolition delay in May, 2023, and tried to explore alternatives such as moving the house, providing Community Preservation Act funding for rehabilitation efforts, or having the house sold to a new owner. Groton Hill was ultimately unresponsive to the Town’s efforts; after the delay period expired in November, 2024, the organization began deconstructing the building in February, 2025. Both of these cases are a reminder that even with preservation tools in place, if a property owner is not interested in preservation, they can often still demolish their building if they so choose.

View fullsize

Deconstruction is proceeding at the Dr. Oliver Prescott Jr. House

Both communities might consider using their losses as a driver for greater preservation planning efforts and coordination within the community. Local preservation success may be a matter of refining the use of regulatory tools, and rethinking how the local historical and historic district commissions coordinate with each other and other local boards and committees. This has already begun in Groton, where the Groton Historical Commission is looking to revise their demolition delay bylaw to require more effort from property owners during the delay period to explore demolition alternatives. They are also working more closely with the Groton Historic District Commission; a representative of the Groton Historic District Commission recently attended a Groton Historical Commission meeting, and the Historical Commission plans to send a representative to the Historic District Commission’s meetings.

It may be, too, that these significant losses raise the profile of historic preservation in these communities, generating interest from more community members in preserving their valuable historic resources. This constituency is important for the next time a significant resource comes up for demolition - local preservationists can call on those interested to help marshal resources and be a voice for historic preservation efforts in the community.

These situations are also a reminder that a demolition delay is just that - a delay. It is up to the community and the property owner to work together during that period to find alternatives to demolition. If there is a strong preservation ethic in the community, hopefully organizations such as Groton Hill and MassAudubon will recognize that, though they may have no use for a significant historic resource, they can work with their host community to find a new use and home for the building.

Insurance and Historic Properties

Waterfront houses in Duxbury’s Old Shipbuilder’s Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.

The devastating wild fires in California have highlighted a growing national issue – a push by insurance companies to get out of the insurance business by dropping customers in high-risk areas. The increasing number of natural disasters brought on by climate change have put a great deal of stress on the insurance industry. Even before the fires, some companies had already made the decision to pull out of certain states that are regularly hit by increasingly intense disasters, such as Florida. A December, 2024 New York Times article summarizes the issues well.

What does this have to do with historic preservation? Well, insurance companies now seem to be using any justification that they can to raise rates or drop homeowners altogether. In my role at the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), I frequently receive inquiries from property owners where their insurance company has raised their rates or will not insure them because their house is included in the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or is part of a local historic district.

Houses in the Abolition Row Local Historic District in New Bedford.

This fear of historic preservation designations on the part of the insurance companies stems from a lack of understanding about these designations. The insurance companies see these designations and assume they will mean higher repair or replacement costs. They assume there will be a detailed review of the project by a local or state commission. And I have even heard that some insurance companies believe if a house was built in 1780, anything that is used to repair or replace it must be from 1780 – which, aside from being impractical, is just poor preservation practice! Reconstructing a building like that creates a false sense of history, portraying a building as being from 1780 when in fact it was never that assemblage of materials in 1780.

Local historic district designation does require a review process at the local level for any exterior changes to a property in a local historic district. But, exterior only! Local historic districts do not review interiors, so property owners can use whatever materials they would like in there. And many local historic districts are open to alternative or modern materials; the National Park Service recently updated their “Preservation Brief” on substitute materials, helping to clarify best practices around implementing them. Finally, local historic districts in Massachusetts can adopt an exemption for the reconstruction of buildings damaged by fire or other natural disasters, making the replacement process easier (M.G.L. ch.40C §8).

I prepared the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Jonathan Keyes Sr. House, which was listed in 2019. But, just because it is listed, does not mean it has higher replacement costs.

Unlike local historic district designation, listing in the National Register of Historic Places has very few regulations that will impact a property owner’s use or alteration of their property. While there are review processes at both the state and federal levels, these are only triggered by the use of state or federal permitting, licensing, or funding. Except in extreme disaster situations, most private property owners are not using federal funds to repair their roof, or requiring state permits to rebuild their house. As long as a property owner is following relevant local building and zoning codes, National Register listing will have no impact on their use or alteration of their property. You can read more about the state review of National Register-listed resources here, and the federal review here. Note that it is the state or federal involvement in a project, and not National Register listing itself, that triggers these reviews.

Finally, there is MACRIS – which is not actually a designation at all, but instead a database of all documented historic resources in Massachusetts. Because it is only a database, and not a designation, it does not come with any corresponding regulations. While some communities use MACRIS as their trigger for demolition delay review, that is it – there is no more in-depth review triggered by MACRIS at the local, state, or federal levels.

Because these insurance inquiries have been increasing in frequency, the MHC has developed two memos that address the two most frequent designations – National Register listing and inclusion in MACRIS. Contact the MHC if you would like a copy of these to provide to your insurance agent. This is the approach taken by other state historic preservation offices, as discussed in this National Trust for Historic Preservation webinar on the issue. And the National Park Service has added a question to their National Register FAQ specifically addressing the insurance issue (question four). Hopefully as word spreads among insurance companies, historic preservation designations will be less of an immediate trigger for increased rates or dropped policies.

The Originial "MBTA Communities": 19th Century Multi-Family Housing

In 2021, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed legislation requiring that all communities served by the MBTA transportation system implement zoning districts that allow for the construction of multi-family housing by right. Called colloquially “MBTA Communities” after the legislation’s name, this policy has transformed the planning landscape in the eastern part of Massachusetts over the past three years. Communities have worked to implement the requirements of the state law, which require an average density of 15 units per acre and set target acreages for communities. The zoning changes are focused on the area around MBTA transportation hubs, to encourage more transit-oriented development.

View fullsize

MBTA stations and documented historic resources in the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS). Blue areas represent documented areas; red are National Register of Historic Places districts; and green are local historic districts. From MassMapper.

But the law has become controversial in many communities. While some have quickly adapted their zoning, others have made it clear that they are refusing to comply. At the time of writing, the Town of Milton and the Attorney General’s office have begun a court case to decide if the state can actually impose such zoning requirements on communities. And many communities have expressed concerns about increasing population and the issues that brings, such as more students in their school systems and traffic on the roads. Not to mention the potentially significant changes to the landscape, as many MBTA stations are located in historic downtowns.

What is often missing from the conversation, though, is that many Massachusetts communities have had low-density multi-family housing since the 19th century. Until the development of streetcars, and later cars, walking was the most common form of transportation in communities. There was no concept of spatial mismatch – where living, working, and service spaces are all in different locations. Everything had to be in one place and within easy reach. So communities naturally densified, providing more housing options near large places of employment such as mills, factories, and downtown cores, with services such as stores, schools, and churches located nearby.

This historic multi-family housing comes in a variety of forms, with a corresponding variety of architectural styles applied to them. Housing ranges from various configurations of two-family dwellings up to several-unit row houses. These house forms provided for multiple individual family units on one lot, providing a mid-level of density for a community that kept residents within walking distance of employment and services.

View fullsize

Small side-by-side duplexes near the Stanley Woolen Mills in Uxbridge

Of the two-families, perhaps the most common is the duplex: two units mirrored side-by-side, with paired entry doors centered on the building. The smallest form was often only one or one-and-a-half stories tall, with knee wall construction providing more livable space in the upper story. Many of these multi-family house forms were expanded at the rear by ells, additions that most commonly provided space for a kitchen.

Various other forms of two-family dwellings offered a bit more privacy and separation than the traditional side-by-side doors. Some two-families were constructed with the units back-to-back, with entry doors on separate side walls creating space between the units. Or, entry doors were moved to the outside of the façade.

Identical back-to-back duplexes in Hopkinton provide more privacy for a family’s comings and goings

With the gable end facing the street, each side elevation had an entry door

In more urban areas, the two units of a two-family house were often stacked, one over the other with the same plan on each floor. These buildings may have one or two entry doors. Often only one door was used, to help the building better blend in to a neighborhood of single-family houses; the only tell that the building is a multi-family dwelling may be the repeated fenestration configuration on both floors or the presence of multiple mailboxes.

Often it is only the presence of multiple mailboxes that signals a house has more than one unit

View fullsize

Two-families in a variety of forms and architectural styles look like large single-family houses in a Worcester neighborhood

A line of classic triple-deckers in Worcester, where thousands of the housing form were built beginning in the late 19th century

And perhaps the most famous of Massachusetts’ multi-family housing forms is the triple-decker, or three-decker. With three flats stacked on top of each other, the long, rectangular footprint of the triple-decker provided an ideal form for long, narrow urban lots while giving families space and privacy. Urban areas throughout Massachusetts were filled with rows of triple-deckers into the early 20th century, when public safety laws ended their construction.

Many of these multi-family forms were often combined into larger forms. Two-families eventually became four-families, or even longer row houses. Triple-deckers were placed side-by-side, providing essentially a small six-unit apartment building. But these were often still done at a relatively small, human scale, and with common materials and styles, blending them in to a surrounding residential neighborhood of similar or smaller buildings.

A double triple-decker in Medford provides six housing units in what is essentially a small apartment building

Two duplexes are combined to form a four-unit row house in Uxbridge, with more traditional duplexes in the background

As communities work to update their zoning and add more density, they should look to these historic multi-family neighborhoods in their own community. These early multi-family housing forms were found throughout Massachusetts, in communities large and small, urban and rural. What forms of gentle density already exist? Can these be encouraged and permitted, to densify the community in a way that is historically compatible? Not only will these multi-family forms provide additional housing opportunities, but they will also maintain the historic character of a community and the human-scale that many communities have long had, before cars and highways were introduced.

The Barnes-Hill House, Spencer

At the beginning of September I presented my first National Register of Historic Places nomination before the State Review Board of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The nomination was for the c. 1790 Barnes-Hill House in the Hillsville village of Spencer, Massachusetts. The owner had approached me about writing the nomination after he had done a substantial amount of research on the property. His father purchased the house in 1973, carefully restored it, and began researching the property's history. He died at the age of 101 in 2013, and his son pursued listing the house as a way to honor his father.

Based on its construction, the Barnes-Hill House was constructed around 1790. One of the key features used to date the house is the five-sided ridgebeam in the attic. These became popular around 1790 in Worcester County; previously, four-sided beams were used. However the house makes use of the older center-chimeny form. Most other houses by the 1790s were being constructed as center-hall buildings, with a hall running down the center of the house with rooms on either side and two chimney stacks to serve the rooms. David Barnes, who is believed to be the owner of the house when it was built, was older when he constructed his house, which is perhaps why he chose an older, more traditional form for his building. In addition, Spencer was, and still is, a rural suburb of Worcester, so it took longer for new styles of construction to become popular. The house is a timber frame building, with cased posts found throughout the building.

In my research I found a deed from 1767 that I believe covers the property and shows that David Barnes purchased the land well before he built his house. The deed mentions "a small house" so it is likely he and his family were living in another house on the property for some time. David and his wife Rebekah Clark Barnes lived in the house with their son David and his family. Both the elder and younger David Barnes died in 1814, leaving the property to the younger David's family. Little is known about the Barnes family; census records show that they were farmers.

View fullsize

This 1870 map of Spencer's Hillsville village shows Sullivan Hill as the owner of the Barnes-Hill House, far left. His chair shop is marked across the street from the house.

The village of Spencer where the Barnes-Hill House is located is called Hillsville. This is not because of its hilly terrain, but rather because in the late 18th century, a number of Hill family members settled in the area. The name was in use by the early 19th century. In 1828, Sarah Barnes, the wife of the younger David Barnes, sold the house to Willington Hill. Willington Hill was one of the many Hill family members, and census records show that he was a farmer. In 1842 he sold the house to his younger brother Sullivan Hill. Sullivan and his descendants lived in the house well into the 20th century. Sullivan was a farmer and had a chair manufacturing business in a shop across the street.

Sullivan and his wife Sylvia Hill had six children between 1844 and 1858. Census records from the end of the 19th century show that several of the children lived in the house as adults, and that the family was often joined by a farmhand. Three of the Hill daughters were still living in the house as late as 1928. In 1929, they finally sold the Barnes-Hill House out of the Hill family, to a real estate trust. The house passed through several owners in the 20th century, maintaining the large 76-acre lot that it stood on. It was not until the 1970s that a smaller six-acre lot with the house on it was separated from the larger property.

The Barnes-Hill House has been expanded several times beyond the building's main block. The two-story addition to the west dates to the early part of the 19th century, and is mentioned in the 1828 deed between Sarah Barnes and Willington Hill. The small garage to the west is a late 19th-early 20th century addition, and was probably built to be a shed or carriage house rather than a garage. When cars were first introduced, there were fears about fumes and fires, so detached garages were built to store them. on the rear of the house are two lean-tos, small one-and-a-half story storage areas added to the house. The date of these is unclear, but they likely date to the end of the 19th century as they were constructed using more modern building methods and materials.

Finally, at the east end of the house is a single-room, single-story wing. This space is interesting because it appears to be a much earlier (pre-1790) building that was attached to the main block of the house. It is also a timber frame building, but unlike the main block which has square posts all the way up to the attic, the east wing has gunstock posts. These are posts that are flared at the top, like the stock of a gun, to give more room for the complicated joinery needed to make multiple framing members meet, such as at the corner of a building. Gunstock posts were an earlier method of construction that had fallen out of favor by the end of the 18th century. As noted above, there was "a small house" on the property when David Barnes purchased it in 1767. It could be that this east wing was that "small house," and that it was added to the main block at a later date, after the newer building was constructed. This was not uncommon: older buildings were often converted to a kitchen or work space when a new house was constructed.

View fullsize

View fullsize

(click on images to enlarge)

Inside, the house has a mix of Federal and Greek Revival style trim, both of which were common during the first half of the 19th century. The house was likely constructed with mainly Federal style trim, and then updated with Greek Revival features by Sullivan Hill when he purchased it shortly before his marriage in 1842. The house retains several early fireplace mantels, window casings, and doors. There is also a smokeroom in the chimney stack, accessed by a door in the main stairwell. The main entry door and surround are a Greek Revival replacement; the main entry door has a line down the center, giving it the appearance of two doors.

After my presentation of the Barnes-Hill House before the State Review Board, they voted to approve the nomination and to send it on to the Keeper of the Register at the National Park Service in Washington, D. C. After the vote, the nomination is reviewed a final time by staff at the Massachusetts Historical Commission before it is sent to Washington. Once the Park Service receives it, they have 45 days to make a decision. This has been a long process - I first met with the owner in the spring of 2013. The owner and I hope to be hearing good news from them soon!

The main facade of the Barnes-Hill House

The rear elevation of the Barnes-Hill House

The Greek Revival main entry surround

Plaster removed from the stairwell revealed a smokeroom in the chimney stack

The fireplace in the east parlor

A door and cased post in the west chamber (second story). Note the square, not gunstock, post.

The Federal style fireplace in the east chamber

The framing in the attic, showing the rafters pegged into the five-sided ridgebeam

A gunstock post in the east wing. Note how it is larger at the top and then tapers at the bottom.

The McFarland-Sanger House, Hopkinton - Part 1 of 2

The McFarland-Sanger House is one of those rare small houses that has survived into the 21st century. The building is in excellent condition, in the sense that while it has been expanded several times, the interior has seen few alterations. The building is currently owned by the Town of Hopkinton. They received it from a developer, who was planning to demolish the building to make room for a 55+ condominium community. Today, the condos nearly swallow the small house on its quarter-acre of land. The house is on Lumber Street, a rural road in Hopkinton that was historically well-traveled. The area has seen more development in recent years, as large tracts have been sold off and parceled into subdivisions. The town has done little to the building besides removing an ell and maintaining the building's envelope. A new roof was put on several years ago, some windows were replaced, and the building was painted.

The small room at the end may seem like an addition, but it is actually the oldest part of the house.

When the house was first built around the middle of the 18th century, it was a one-room building. This space today is the area furthest from the road, the little space at the west end of the building that seems tacked on. One-room buildings were not unusual for the 1750s, and in fact one- and two-room houses were incredibly common even into the early 1800s. However because they were so small, they were often demolished to make way for a bigger building, or subsumed by additions. Although the original one-room McFarland-Sanger House was added to, the interior was barely touched, making the original space easily visible today.

The single-room space, roughly 13' by 18', was entered from a door on the south wall. It may seem strange that the house is placed perpendicular to the road, but the house was placed so that its main facade faces south and takes advantage of the warming winter sun - 18th century green design! This was a common practice until the beginning of the 19th century, when houses began to be oriented towards the road, regardless of direction.

When you enter the McFarland-Sanger House, you are immediately greeted by the side of a massive fireplace and a set of open stairs up to the half-story. The fireplace is made of stone and parged with concrete, and is very large. It also shows signs of several additions for ovens and stoves, as heating and cooking methods have changed several times since the 1750s. It is unclear if the house originally had a stone fireplace, but it would not be unheard of, especially in a town like Hopkinton that is built on ledge.

The house was built with hand-hewn timbers using traditional timberframing methods. Six posts (the black squares shown above) made up the vertical structure of the house - one at each of the corners and two in front of the chimney, to create a chimney bay. The posts are one indication of the building's early date. They are "gunstock" posts, meaning they are larger at the top and taper about halfway down. This allows for more space to support the difficult joinery at corners, where there would be two beams as well as a rafter coming in from the top. Gunstock posts were being phased out by the end of the 18th century, as new joinery methods and smaller timbers came into common use. The posts were held together by a front and rear plate (the long timbers that span the front and rear of the house), a side girt at either end of the house, and a summer beam, which ties the house together (the beam extending from the front of the chimney bay to the west wall). Above in the attic are six pairs of rafters supporting the roof. Visible on the rafters are builder's marks, Roman numerals used to match up pieces that needed to be joined together. Typically, a house joiner would lay out all the pieces of a house, assemble the joints individually, mark the pieces that went together, disassemble everything, and then reassemble it as a house. It was a long process, but it insured that the house fit together perfectly.

Four hatch marks are visible on each of these rafters, alerting the house joiner that they go together. The six pairs of rafters were pegged together at the top; the peg is visible at the junction of the two pieces.

Who were the McFarlands and Sangers? My original research got tied up in probate records in the middle of the 19th century, so I have not been able to trace deeds back into the 18th century. However it is believed, based on maps and later deeds, that one of the earliest residents of the house, if not the builder of the house, was Ebenezer McFarland (1751-1837). His father Robert McFarland was one of the first settlers of Hopkinton. Ebenezer was active in town politics and was one of the founders of the town's Methodist society. He married Elizabeth Gibson (1752-1847) in 1774, and the couple had eight children. McFarland was probably a farmer, as there was little industry in Hopkinton in the 18th century.

This is the first of two posts about the McFarland-Sanger House. Next I will detail the later additions and more recent history of the building. Stay tuned!

Now on Facebook!

I now have a Facebook page! Like my page here for updates on my preservation projects, relevant preservation and history articles, and of course pictures of buildings!

The Spurr House, Westborough

On Sunday, the Westborough Historical Commission paid a visit to the Spurr House at 7 Parkman Street. The Spurr House was donated to the town of Westborough in 1933 along with the Forbes Building, a neighboring building constructed as a high school but currently housing town offices and the police department. The town has been renting the Spurr House to various organizations, most recently the Historical Society and the American Legion. The Historical Society vacated several years ago, and the American Legion is currently in the process of moving out, leaving the building vacant. Westborough officials have made it clear that they plan to demolish the Spurr House to enlarge the Forbes Building's parking lot. Although the Spurr House is old, and has seen some unkind alterations, overall it is in good condition. It is a very large building that could provide plenty of room for town offices, private offices, or even two to three apartments. While the town has not announced any imminent plans to demolish the building, the Historical Commission hopes to work with town officials from the beginning to see if another use can be found for the property.

Sited on Parkman Street in the heart of Westborough's downtown, the Spurr House is an integral part of its neighborhood. The nearby houses are similar in age (mid-1800s) and style, and create a cohesive streetscape. Most of the house are end-gable buildings two-and-a-half stories in height. The end-gable form - buildings with a gable roof that is turned to the street - was a common mid-19th century form. It was the ideal form for the Greek Revival style that was popular at the time, as it mimicked a temple. While some Greek Revival houses had large columns to really drive home the idea of the temple, many did not, and were simpler buildings with more restrained details on a form that resembled a temple. The Spurr House and its neighbors were built as one of these simpler, or vernacular, Greek Revival style houses.

The opposite side of the street from the Spurr House is lined with mid-19th century end gable houses that were built to resemble a Greek Temple.

The Spurr House, and many other neighborhood houses, was marked on maps by 1855. That year, "J. Warren" was listed as the owner. A few years before, in 1851, John Warren purchased the land from Robert Breck Parkman. No mention was made in the deed of buildings on the land, so it is unclear if the house was standing when John Warren purchased the property. If not, based on its style and method of construction, he likely built it shortly thereafter. Deeds show that the house passed through several different owners in the 1860s and 1870s, but on an 1870 map, "Mrs. Spurr" is marked as the owner. The 1870 census shows Sarah Spurr, 62, living in the house with her two daughters, Sarah, 25 and Catherine (aka Kathleen), 20, as well as a boarder - Charles E. Fay, 19, a store clerk. After the elder Sarah Spurr died in 1893, her two daughters continued to live in the family house until their deaths in the early 20th century. Census records show that the two women lived alone for the most part, with only the occasional servant. It is interesting that with such a large house, in a town full of factories and workers looking for housing, the Spurr sisters did not take in boarders. Fannie E. Forbes, a local philanthropist, acquired the property in 1932. The following year, after she and her husband paid for the construction of the nearby Forbes Building, they donated the house and building to the town of Westborough.

This 1943 map shows the Spurr House and the Forbes Building (then serving as the town's high school) on their shared lot at the corner of West Main and Parkman streets.

The Spurr House's construction indicates that it has been added to at least once. It was likely built as the original end-gable building with a barn out back; the barn is marked on the map above with an X. The middle portion of the building that connects the barn to the main house appears to be an addition, built sometime after the construction of the house but before 1870, when it is shown on a map. However before this middle section was added, there was likely some kind of ell or additional space extending off of the main house, as there is no indication of an original kitchen in the main house today.

Inside, the Spurr House is very large, with several rooms on each floor. The main core of the house has two large rooms on the right side, with the stair hall and smaller rooms to the left. Alterations to the house have opened up the walls between the two large rooms on each floor, creating one large space. Half bathrooms have also been added on the first and second floor. The ell has two rooms on the first floor and four on the second, as well as closets and two sets of stairs, one to the second floor and one to the basement. The first floor of the barn has been finished inside, while the second floor shows no signs of ever being finished.

The added ell between the main house and the original barn.

A detail of the front porch, which was likely added later in the 19th century, after the house was built. The front of the house is also distinguished by its ship-lap siding, in comparison to the more traditional clapboards on the rest of the building.

The main entry hall of the Spurr House was repapered in the 1970s. The paper is typical of patriotic designs that were common around the 1976 bicentennial.

The wall between the two front rooms was removed at some point, to open the space up. The fireplace in the rear room has been removed, while the one in the front room has a modern brick surround.

One of the rooms on the first floor of the ell was updated to a modern kitchen.

The first floor of the barn was finished, but left as one large room.

The second floor of the barn shows no signs of ever having been finished. It has straight-sawn timbers, suggesting it was built before the widespread introduction of the circular saw in the 1850s.

The three smaller rooms on the second floor of the ell. The rear room was also converted to a kitchen; the town had tenants living in the house for a period of time.

Like the first floor, the wall between the two large rooms on the second floor has been removed, creating a larger space. The second floor stairhall is visible beyond the doorways.

A small room at the front of the attic has been finished; this was likely living space for a servant.

The Spurr House has several factors that should convince the town to save the house. First, it is a very large building, with several different-sized spaces. This provides many options for what it could be used for - offices, multiple apartments, community space. Secondly, the house does not have a lot of historic material left on the interior - previous updates and alterations have removed most of the interior finish. This removes much of the concern about what will be done to the interior, allowing for a less expensive rehabilitation process. Finally the building is in a great location, close to downtown but on a quiet side street. The neighbors have expressed interest in having the house rehabilitated, as it is an important part of the neighborhood's streetscape. The Westborough Historical Commission hopes that by getting involved in the process early on, we can work with the town to find a use for the house that does not involve it being demolished for a parking lot.

"Hysterical" Historical Commissions: What Do They Do?

In September I was appointed by the Westborough Board of Selectmen to the town's Historical Commission as the newest voting member. But what do Historical Commissions do? They often get a bad rap, labeled as the "hysterical" commission, and are thought to be overly concerned with paint color. But in fact Historical Commissions play an important role in maintaining the places that many of us, especially in Massachusetts, love so much. Think about where you'd like to stroll around, spend your vacation - in the mall, or walking around a historic town center like Salem or Rockport? And imagine if all the houses and apartments in every town were modern, all constructed with the same clean lines and beige vinyl siding. You would get sick of that architecture real quick!

Historical commissions help to preserve buildings and landscapes that make a place unique. They make sure a town is conscious of its historic buildings and landscapes, and that they are factored into the continuing growth of the community. Historical commissions help to preserve the variety of architecture that has developed in a place over time, from small houses to mill buildings to downtown stores. This variety not only gives you something to look at on your vacation, but it also provides people with different places to live and work.

A variety of spaces in different conditions provides a variety of options - for housing you can rent one floor of a triple-decker, a loft in a rehabilitated mill building, or a two-bedroom in a newly-constructed apartment building. If you're a business, you might be looking at a downtown storefront, space in a mill that has been converted to a startup incubator, or space in a 1980s office park at the edge of town. All of those choices have a corresponding level of rent and services, and a town that has all those choices can adequately provide for a wide variety of residents and businesses. Through their regulatory powers, local historical commissions in Massachusetts help towns to retain their historic buildings, giving residents and businesses a choice in where they want to live and work.

Chapter 40, Section 8D of the Massachusetts General Laws allows municipalities in the state to create a historical commission "for the preservation, protection and development of the historical or archeological assets of such city or town." The General Laws provide no strict rules about what commissions must do. Most historical commissions conduct inventories of the towns historic resources, completing forms that provide historical information on properties in town, which are useful when making planning decisions. Historical commissions also undertake "bricks and mortar" conservation work, on historic buildings, monuments, or cemeteries in town. But most importantly, especially in Massachusetts, historical commissions are given the ability to implement a demolition delay when a demolition permit is issued for a historic building.

Demolition delay bylaws vary greatly around the state; some municipalities do not even have one. In general, they allow for a delay of anywhere from 90 days to 18 months. The "trigger" for demolition delay also varies - 50 or 100 years old, constructed before a specific year such as 1900 or 1950, listed on the State or National Register, or included in the state's cultural resources inventory. It is up to towns to pass a demolition delay bylaw, and to decide what works best for their town. Historical commissions can also waive the delay, if they feel that the building in question is no longer historically significant (generally, if it has been greatly altered). The delay provides a pause for the developer and the town, some time to see if there is a way the building can be saved, either by incorporating it into the developers plans, selling the parcel to a new, sympathetic owner, or even moving the building to a new location. Importantly, the decision of the historical commission to impose a delay can be overruled by the town's building inspector if safety is an issue with the building. Unfortunately, in towns undergoing rapid development, demolition delay bylaws often become ineffective, because developers will simply factor the wait time into their plan. In Westborough, the Historical Commission can impose a 180-day delay on buildings constructed before 1950.

The Westborough Historical Commission also has control of signs within a 2500' radius around the town's rotary, which covers much of the downtown commercial area. This area is part of a larger National Register of Historic Places district, and having control of signs within it allows the Historical Commission to better maintain the historic nature of the district. In addition to the town's general sign bylaws, the Historical Commission generally asks for signs that are in keeping with the district's historic nature, in color, size, and type. Anyone creating or altering a sign in this district must submit it to the Historical Commission for approval before they can hang the sign. Signs in this district are some of the Historical Commission's biggest business, as the downtown area has improved greatly over the past few years and a number of new businesses have moved in.

Beyond that, a town's historical commission has few other duties. Education is one of the most important aspects of a historical commission - keeping the public informed about historic buildings and landscapes in town, and potential changes to them. Historical commissions are also advisers to other town boards and departments, making sure that they keep the town's historic features in mind when planning new regulations or approving new developments. Historical commissions play a small but important role in helping to maintain the character cities and towns have developed throughout their history. So the next time you're ready to complain about the "hysterical" commission, think about how much you enjoy Massachusetts' historic cities and towns!

Consider volunteering to help govern your city or town! Most municipalities lack volunteers to staff their boards and commissions. It is often a very small time commitment, generally one but sometimes two meetings a month. Municipalities have a number of different boards for different subjects, so check around and see who has vacancies! You generally don't have to be an expert in the field, just a willing and interested citizen!

Stearns Tavern, Worcester

In June, the owner of one of the oldest buildings in the city of Worcester went before the Worcester Historical Commission, seeking to waive the city's one-year demolition delay ordinance. While he did not have any immediate plans for the building, he knew the Historical Commission would not waive the demolition delay for such an old building, and he wanted to get the clock running on the one-year limit (see below for more information on demolition delay bylaws). The building he was looking to demolish was the former Stearns Tavern at 651 Park Avenue. The large 1812 tavern was moved from its original location on Main Street in 1974, and has served as a bank ever since. Bank of America, the last tenant, vacated the building in 2013, and since that time the owner has struggled to find a new tenant and to pay for the upkeep of the building. At the Historical Commission meeting, he expressed his willingness to work with the Historical Commission, the city, and Preservation Worcester to find a tenant or a new owner for the building. Most importantly, he is willing to let the building go for $1 and attorney's fees if someone is interested in moving it to a new site.

Several sources describe the early history of the Stearns Tavern, originally located at 1030 Main Street in what was historically known as New Worcester. The tavern first opened on May 12, 1812 with Charles Stearns (1747 – 1828) as the tavernkeeper. On that day, “a liberty pole was raised on the spot where Loring Coes’ house now stands, a barrel of punch was served up to the crowd outside, and the day was devoted to quoit pitching, ball playing, and other amusements. This was the first inauguration of New Worcester.” Caleb A. Wall’s Reminiscences of Worcester… notes that Stearns built the tavern shortly before he opened it. Stearns’ great-granddaughter, Margaret Harlowe, heard from her mother that Stearns had built the tavern, and lived there with his second wife. Stearns’ deed of purchase for the property has not been located, which would clarify when Stearns acquired the property and if there were any buildings standing on the property when he purchased it.

Stearns only operated the tavern for a few years before selling it to Daniel Phelps Haynes and Uriah Stone (1794/5 – 1880) in 1821. Like Stearns, Haynes and Stone only held the tavern for a few years. They sold the property to brothers Edward and Joseph Curtis in 1826. Less than ten years later the Curtis brothers sold the property to Charles M. DeLand (d. 1851) in 1835. DeLand appears to have operated the tavern up until his death in 1851, from heart disease. That same year, he is listed in a city directory as having a “house of entertainment” in New Worcester. DeLand had several heirs and owned a large amount of property in the area, including a large parcel to the south of the tavern lot.

The rear of the Stearns Tavern, behind the main body of the house.

After he sold the tavern, Uriah Stone chose to stay in the area. He purchased two lots from the widow of Charles Stearns, Elizabeth, in the 1830s. The first was a four-acre lot with a house on the north side of the street, and the second was a much larger 35-acre lot of farmland on the south side of the street. The deed for the smaller lot mentions the Curtis tavern in its boundaries, indicating that the tavern lot was not part of the land he purchased from Elizabeth Stearns. However at some point before 1857, the tavern and its lot were transferred back to Uriah Stone. The deed of this transfer has not been found, but Stone is marked on maps at the location beginning in 1857, and is referenced in deeds for nearby parcels. No evidence has been found that shows Stone operating the tavern during his second round of ownership. There is conflicting information about whether Stone even lived in the building during the second half of the 19th century. An 1886 essay makes note of the “tavern standing some rods south of [Stone’s] farm house,” however numerous directories and census records list Stone as living at 1030 Main Street, the address of the tavern.

Stone “was a farmer, and early acquired considerable land in Worcester which eventually greatly increased in value with the rapid growth of the town into an important city.” On the larger parcel of land he owned south of Main Street, Stone’s sons Lucian B. and William U. Stone operated a stage company and later an omnibus company. The Stone stages and omnibuses traveled between Worcester and Leicester, where the family had several connections. After his father’s death, Lucian Burnap Stone (1829 – 1910) took charge of the family estate, managing it for 30 years before his own death. Lucian B. Stone “was a capable man of business and efficient in public affairs,” continuing to live on the family lands after his father passed. The younger Stone was also heavily involved in local government. “For 15 years he was highway commissioner of Worcester, served as alderman of the city, and was representative to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1907 and 1908.” After the turn of the century, Lucian B. Stone began subdividing his father Uriah’s land, filing numerous plans with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds for what would become the neighborhoods in the area.

Because Lucian B. Stone did not have any children, he passed the Stone family real estate to Georgiana Luvanne Stone (b. 1869), his brother George Edward Stone’s daughter. Georgiana L. Stone married James Edward Ives, an English scientist, in 1903. Ives received his Ph.D. from Clark University in 1901, and after 1912 was an honorary fellow in physics there. The couple resided on the family estate in Worcester, and after Lucian B. Stone’s death, began to subdivide even more of the property.

The rear of the Stearns Tavern, behind the two-story ell on the side of the house. An ell was removed when the building was moved, and replaced with the bank's drive-through.

It was during this wave of development, in 1927, when the tavern was sold out of the Stone family, to Arthur E. Anderson and Edith I. Hendrick. Anderson and Hendrick had an antique shop in a barn behind the Hendrick family house at 772 Pleasant Street. They purchased the tavern with the intent to restore it and use it as a setting for their wares. According to a newspaper article of the time,

The house is to be entirely done over inside, with the reproductions of old-fashioned wall-papers. Some of the rooms are to be painted, as was often done at that time. The floors will be painted, and will have hooked rugs and other floor covering in vogue when the house was new. Every room will be furnished in furniture of the period and pictures, ornaments, dishes, copper, few, candle-sticks—every thing will be in keeping [sic].

It is likely that at this time a mural found in one of the rooms was painted; it depicts scenes from the Revolutionary War, particularly the battle of the Lexington and Concord. The Old Furniture Shop operated out of the house until the end of the 1950s.

In 1960, Robert F. and Mary B. Harrington purchased the property and converted it to a carpet store, Harrington House of Carpets. The carpet store operated until Robert’s death, after which Mary B. Harrington sold the property to Shirley A. Olson in 1973. A few months later, Homcorp, Inc. purchased the property. Newspaper articles from the time indicate that Worcester’s Home Federal Savings & Loan planned to use the parcel of land as an investment, as they also purchased the house next door at 1036 Main Street a week after they purchased the tavern property. The bank planned to move the tavern a half-mile to its new location at 651 Park Avenue to serve as a branch location. In early July of 1974, Merry Contracting Service of Duxbury moved the tavern to its new location, but the process proved to be more difficult than expected. While the side ell was easy to lift and move, the house proved harder to jack up, and even snapped the axle of one of the trucks being used to tow it.

When the house was finally settled on its new site, the bank set about restoring most of the main house, opening the space for tours. A single-story addition was added to the front of the ell, to create modern space for the bank’s tellers. Some space in the main house was also taken for bank offices. While various banks owned the building, Salloom Realty Trust, the current owner, owned the land, leasing the rights to the land back to the banks. Several bank branches were housed in the building, the most recent being Bank of America, which vacated the premises in May of 2013 leaving the building empty. The owner now has to pay to take care of the building, in addition to paying the property taxes, greatly increasing his costs. He is hoping to find a new tenant for the building, but is also willing to let someone move the building to a new location. The tavern is in excellent condition, and its large size makes it highly adaptable.

The bank added space to the two-story ell on the side of the house. The roof of the ell was extended down to cover a single-story addition across the front of the ell. This is where most of the banking operations were, including space for tellers.

Demolition Delay Bylaws: municipalities in Massachusetts can enact a demolition delay bylaw that covers historic buildings. These bylaws gives the local Historical Commission time to work with owners who are seeking to demolish their historic building, to see if there is a way to save the building, either by incorporating it into the owner's plans, moving it, or finding a new owner for it. These delays vary in length from six to eighteen months, with six months the typical length. It is up to the municipality what triggers the delay - buildings older than 50 or 100 years, or buildings on the State or National Register, are common triggers. The success of the delay depends on an active and informed Historical Commission as well as an owner willing to work with the commission. Often, if the owner knows they have a historic building where the delay will be imposed, they will apply early to waive the demolition delay, then simply wait it out, reducing the effectiveness of the demolition delay as a preservation tool.

The Odd Fellows Home, Worcester - Lost

The Romanesque Revival style Odd Fellows Home was opened in 1892 to serve as a home for aged members of the fraternal order. A 1902 Classical Revival wing expanded the building’s capacity. Sited on a hilltop overlooking Worcester, the Odd Fellows Home provided sweeping views of the city for its residents. A much-loved local landmark, the building’s five-story clock tower was visible from around the city. One of a number of hospitals and institutions built on the outskirts of Worcester at the end of the 19th century, the Odd Fellows Home occupied this grand building for nearly 100 years until the organization opened a modern facility next door in 1990. After a portion of the building served as a church for a few years, the building was left vacant and deteriorated from a lack of maintenance. The current owner purchased the Odd Fellows Home with the intent to demolish the building and replace it with a single-story nursing home. The demolition was completed during July and August of 2014.

Below are photographs of the Odd Fellows Home during a visit with the current owner in 2012.

Hopkinton Public Library and Library Additions in Massachusetts

Over the past several years, the town of Hopkinton has begun the process of applying for a Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners' (MBLC) grant to expand their 1895-1898 public library. However after the design of the new building was revealed, it was clear that yet again, another historic public library building in Massachusetts was being sacrificed in the name of meeting the MBLC's rigid space requirements.

Before 1990, if a municipality in Massachusetts wanted to expand their public library, they had to apply to the state legislature for funds. Although this process was highly unregulated, it allowed cities and towns to build to suit their needs. After 1990, the MBLC took over the process, converting it to a grant format. Municipalities apply to the MBLC for funds to build a new library or expand their current one. The amount of money a community receives is based on their 20-year population estimate. The MBLC has a number of different space requirements the new deign must meet, such as the number of seats for certain activities and the kinds of rooms libraries should have. While this has standardized the process statewide, it also has created a number of outsized additions to historic library buildings, which are numerous in Massachusetts.

A detail of George Hartnell Bartlett's 1904 map of public libraries in Massachusetts, with Hopkinton (misspelled "Hopkington") at the center. From the collection of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library.

In the 19th century, Massachusetts was at the forefront of the public library movement. Beginning in the early part of the century as private lending libraries or subscription libraries, public libraries began to appear in Massachusetts by mid-century. These small libraries were a source of pride for a community. They were a unique feature that towns could advertise to investors, in the hopes of attracting industry at a time when Massachusetts was growing rapidly. Libraries were also a sign of an educated workforce, another selling point for towns. And in a time of political turmoil, libraries were seen as a way to democratize the general public, as a place to educate them on current events and issues in the hopes of preventing the spread of radical ideas.

In the beginning, many early public libraries were housed in a building dedicated to another use, such as a store, school, or church. But as they became more and more popular, communities began to construct dedicated library buildings. These small buildings can be found throughout Massachusetts. They were often constructed of brick or stone, and located in a conspicuous place, usually on the town's common. Often, a wealthy resident of the town provided the catalyst for building a library. They often donated the land for the building, funds for the building, or a collection of books.

An undated photograph of Hopkinton's 1895 public library building. From the collection of the Hopkinton Public Library.

The construction of Hopkinton's public library was spurred forward by a monetary donation from a former resident, John Quincy Adams of Illinois. The land for the building was donated by Sarah Whitin, the granddaughter of Col. Joseph Valentine. Plans for the building were donated by Sanford Phipps, a Hopkinton resident and partner in the Boston architectural firm of Loring and Phipps. Construction progressed quickly through 1894, and the stone Romanesque Revival building was dedicated on January 1, 1895.

Around the same time, on the plot of land to the east of the library (also donated by Sarah Whitin), Hopkinton's Episcopal community was raising a new church. The 1898 stone Gothic Revival church was designed by the Rev. Hermon Gaylord Wood. Wood was very active in the Epsicopalian ministry and community in Massachusetts at the end of the 19th century. Although he was not a trained architect, he designed a number of church buildings throughout Massachusetts. At the present time, thirteen churches have proven to be the work of Rev. Wood. When the Episcopalian congregation outgrew their church around mid-century, they decided to donate it to the library next door, which was in need of more space. In 1967, the two buildings were connected by a single-story hyphen, greatly expanding the library's space. However, the library has not been expanded any further, even thought the town's population has grown rapidly, especially in the last few decades.

An undated photograph of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. From the collection of the Hopkinton Public Library.

It is easily seen that the current Hopkinton Public Library is too small to serve the town’s needs. When the building opened in 1895, the town’s population was 2,984; at the most recent census in 2010, Hopkinton had 14,925 residents. The current library has few of the features that make a modern public library successful in small Massachusetts towns. There is no dedicated meeting space or community room, the children’s room is very small with no space for young adults, and there is very little in the way of modern technology access. There are also few ways to modify the interiors of the two historic buildings to make room for new spaces. However, pursing MBLC money to fund the expansion of the library has forced the town to design a building that is too large for the lot and the surrounding neighborhood. The town should consider other design alternatives that take into account the historic building and streetscape in addition to meeting the needs of a modern library. This could mean forging ahead with the library project without making use of state funding, as the town of Concord did several years ago.

Concord chose to expand their historic library without the use of MBLC funds, instead raising the needed funds through a private capital campaign. Before beginning construction in 2003, Concord’s private Library Corporation raised the necessary $7.6 million to complete an addition to the town’s 1873 public library. The building’s history included several other additions, which had expanded and altered the historic building, but the main historic section was still largely intact. Using private funding rather than state funding, the library was able to create an addition that “focused more on the redesign and efficient use of existing space than on expansion.” The town was able to build a library that suits their needs now and in the future, without extras and additions mandated by the state that may not be necessary for the town. The library was able to gain needed new space,

integrated systems, air conditioning, new elevators, a variety of safety features, and wireless Internet access were installed, and the building brought up to code. The charging and work areas for Circulation were revamped, the Special Collections reading room significantly expanded and tastefully appointed, and new periodical and young adult areas created. Great care was exercised through all of this to protect and showcase the remaining architectural features of the original library building (the octagonal lobby) and of the renovation of the 1930s (the Reference, Trustees’, and Thoreau Rooms). Source

J. Stewart Roberts & Associates designed the Concord addition. They were the predecessor firm to Johnson Roberts Associates, Inc., who did the designs for the proposed Hopkinton Public Library addition. Their design has given Concord a modern public library that serves the needs of its current patrons while maintaining its historic fabric.

The proposed design for the Hopkinton Public Library addition. From the Hopkinton Public Library Foundation.

A major difficulty with expanding the current Hopkinton Public Library building is the site itself. Siting is an important factor in how successful a historic library addition ultimately is. Hopkinton Public Library is on a small corner lot, surrounded by few tall buildings. The streetscape of Main Street around the library is nearly uniform at two stories, with Town Hall one of the few buildings rising above that. The buildings are generally of a smaller size, on small lots. The north side of the street has commercial style buildings that are boxier and placed close to the street, taking up most of their lots. However the south side of the street where the library is located is mostly residential buildings set further back from the street on the center of their lots, with grass (or pavement) visible on all four sides of the buildings. The new library building would extend up Church Street, a residential street composed of historic single-family houses. Like the houses surrounding the library on Main Street, the buildings on Church Street are set back from the street and centered on their lots. The plan for the library calls for demolishing a historic house on Church Street and replacing it with a parking lot. The site constraints are one of the biggest hurdles with expanding the Hopkinton Public Library, but they are not helped by the requirements imposed by the MBLC that necessitate a large building.

 In May of 2014, Hopkinton’s Annual Town Meeting passed a motion allocating over $7 million in town funds for the expansion of the library. A resident made a motion to use only this money to renovate the library, rather than accepting the MBLC grant to bring the total to over $11 million; the motion was denied. The $7 million the town is spending is comparable to what Concord recently spent to update and expand their library, fixing many of the same issues that Hopkinton currently has. Hopkinton could choose to spend only town money on the project, allowing the town to have greater control over the final design aspects of the library. This would likely lead to a smaller building that still provides for the town’s needs, and fits better onto the lot and into the town’s established streetscape. While the MBLC money is considered by library proponents to be “free” money, it comes at the cost of damaging two beloved Hopkinton landmarks, and forever altering the town’s small-scale, residential streetscape.

This post was edited together from information gathered during my Master's project, entitled "Expanding 'A Library Building for Library Work:' Additions to Historic Libraries in Massachusetts Since 1990," which I recently adapted into a report for the Hopkinton Historical Commission which specifically dealt with the Hopkinton Public Library's proposed addition.

The Toll House in the Hopkinton Independent

The June 5, 2014 issue of the Hopkinton Independent features an article by Cathy Buday on the Toll House and its uncertain future. The article is on the front page of the newspaper, available from their website as a PDF.

The Toll House, Hopkinton - Update

My previous post on the Toll House and its history can be found here.

Recently, while working on another project, I came across a series of images in the collection of the American Antiquarian Society. I generally do not check AAS during projects, because in the past I've found that their local history collections are not as strong as what I can find at town libraries or historical societies. However these photographs were taken by Harriette Merrifield Forbes (1856-1951) as she documented 17th and 18th century buildings in central Massachusetts. The AAS has a collection of 853 negatives of pictures Forbes took between 1887 and 1945. The AAS lists these digitized photographs by place on their website, and although I was working in another town, I took a look at the few pictures Forbes had taken in Hopkinton. Two of these, taken April 5, 1931, were listed as the Claflin House on Framingham Road. Imagine my surprise when I opened these and found the picture below - what is labeled as the Raftery and Smith house in various sources and at the Hopkinton Library!

Photo from the collection of the American Antiquarian Society.

This is a much clearer, higher-quality image of the Smith/Raftery homestead, and is also taken from a different angle than all the other images of the house that I've seen. Fortunately, this angle faces west, and if you look close enough, shows just a little bit of the Toll House to the west of the main house.

Between the front yard trees and the larger house, the Toll House is visible. We can learn a few different things from this photo. First, the road was much further away from the house than it is today. Today, a stone retaining wall is only a few feet in front of the house, but when this photo was taken in 1931, there was a sizeable yard that sloped down to the street. Second, the larger 18th century house appears to be in the area of what is today a driveway onto Weston Nurseries' landscape yard, and it also possibly stood on some wetlands that are in that area. Third, the larger house was still standing when this photo was taken in 1931. So although we don't know exactly what happened to the building (whether it was torn down or moved), it existed a few decades into the 20th century. Today there is a large mid-20th century barn/garage in the area where the larger house stood, suggesting the house was removed around that time and the barn/garage built in its place.

The photograph is a wonderful find, because it confirms what until this point had been speculation, well-documented though it was. The photograph (and the one below, also from AAS's Forbes collection) provide a much more detailed view of the large 18th century Smith/Raftery House. It would have been an impressive building for the time, and would have stood out on the road from Hopkinton to Framingham.

Dunroving, Worcester - The Aksila Brothers

Working in the Dunroving neighborhood at about the same time as Edward Lavallee were the Aksila brothers. They developed Old Brook Drive, which would eventually connect with Lavallee's Aylesbury Road. Old Brook Drive led south from Moreland Street, an area the Aksilas also developed. They chose to build exclusively Tudors in this neighborhood, all during the 1940s. Several lots at the southern end of Old Brook Drive were not sold until the 1950s and 1960s; these houses were not built by the Aksilas, and differ greatly in style from their Tudors. The Tudors vary greatly in their massing and styles, but all have half-timbering and bricks laid with scattered stone or slate.

4 Old Brook Drive

5 Old Brook Drive

Brothers Ames and Anton Aksila were involved in the family business of carpentry. Their father, Mati, had arrived in the U. S. from Finland in 1894, settling in Worcester thereafter. Mati's children, including Ames and Anton, are all listed as carpenters or builders in various Worcester city directories from the first half of the 20th century. There are also numerous entries for real estate trusts owned by the Aksilas at the Worcester County Registry of Deeds, suggesting they were very busy with their real estate and building business.

7 Old Brook Drive

9 Old Brook Drive

The Aksilas worked not only on Old Brook Drive and Moreland Street, but also just to the south, on Jamesbury Drive and Knollwood Drive. An ad from a Worcester city directory in the 1950s shows Ames Aksila and the house the brothers built at 2 Jamesbury Drive. The neighborhood is notable because it has a conservative synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel. The synagogue's campus buildings were constructed in 1959 not by the Aksilas, but by R. L. Whipple Co., a Worcester firm that did work in the Dunroving area.

2 Jamesbury Drive today

A city directory ad from the 1950s showing 2 Jamesbury Drive

This coming Wednesday,  April 30, I will be giving a talk on the Dunroving development, its history, and its buildings. Free and open to the public at Preservation Worcester (10 Cedar St., Worcester) at 5:30 pm.

April Talk at Preservation Worcester

On Wednesday, April 30 at Preservation Worcester, I will be giving a talk about a project I've been working on for the organization - "It Doesn't Have to Look Old to be Historic: Worcester's Mid-20th-Century Dunroving Neighborhood." One of Worcester's more suburban neighborhoods, Dunroving was developed between the 1930s and 1970s. The area is a mix of Colonial Revival, Tudor, and Modern houses. Its early residents were white-collar workers from Worcester's major companies, as well as doctors and lawyers; later, the population shifted to become almost entirely Jewish. I'll be discussing the history of the neighborhood, the developers, the residents, and the different styles of buildings.

The talk begins at 5:30 pm and is free and open to the public. More information can be found on Preservation Worcester's website.

Read my previous posts about Dunroving here:

Dunroving, Worcester - The Background

Dunroving, Worcester - Edward Lavallee

The Toll House, Hopkinton

The Toll House at 123 East Main Street, Hopkinton (image from the town's 1989 survey).

Recently I was hired by the Hopkinton Historical Commission to research and document a small house at 123 East Main Street, rumored to be a toll house. The owner is planning to move or demolish the building, and the Historical Commission wanted to make sure there was a record of the building and to substantiate (or disprove) the local lore about the toll house. Buildings usually come with stories that rarely prove to be true - George Washington slept here, this was a stop on the Underground Railroad - but in this case, the house was in fact a toll house.

I always begin my research with maps, as they help to orient you to a property, give you a general idea of who owned a property, and can provide other valuable information. In the case of the Toll House, a map from 1831 proved to be incredibly helpful. Shown below, you can see that there are two dots marked on the map: the first, to the west, is labelled "Toll House," while "N. Smith" is listed as the owner of the dot to the east. Generally, each dot corresponds to a building - this meant that there were two buildings on this property, the Toll House, and N. Smith's house. Currently, the Toll House is the only extant (still standing) building. Looking at maps up to the present, I found that two dots were consistently placed on the property, and that aside from the 1831 map, the same person owned both dots. This indicated that the two buildings continued to stand, and were part of one property after 1831. I also had a rough idea of who owned the property throughout the 19th century (unfortunately, because it saw very little development during the 20th century, Hopkinton has few maps that cover the town from that time and none that cover this area of town).

After I had established that there was indeed a toll house on the site, and that it was a separate building, I began research into what road the toll house could have been for. Today, the house stands on Massachusetts Route 135, which runs from Dedham to Northborough. Digging into turnpikes, I found that the Central Turnpike Corporation was established by an act of the Massachusetts legislature in 1824. The proprietors of the corporation were allowed to build a toll road from Wellesley to Dudley, where the road would enter Connecticut. There was some delay in opening the road, and it was not officially opened until 1830. From Wellesley center, the road followed modern Route 135 through Natick, Framingham, Ashland, and Hopkinton (passing right by the house at 123 East Main Street); in Hopkinton, the toll road split from Route 135 at West Main Street and continued through Upton, Northbridge, Sutton, Oxford, Webster, and Dudley, where it extended down into Connecticut. The toll road was ultimately not successful, and the section in Middlesex County (including Hopkinton) was accepted as a public road in 1836; further sections were opened in the late 1830s, and the section in Connecticut operated until the 1850s.

The route of the Central Turnpike takes it from Wellesley center, down to Dudley, and then into Connecticut. From The Turnpikes of New England by Frederic J. Wood, 1919.

With the maps of the property and the information on the Central Turnpike Corporation, it was fairly clear that there was indeed a toll house on the property at some point. And the house that stands at 123 East Main Street is typical of buildings from 1830 - small, with a center chimney plan, and details consistent with the transition between the Federal and Greek Revival styles that was happening at the time. However various local sources suggest that the toll house was demolished or moved at some point in the past - and nearly every source says something different. So I had to figure out if the small house still standing was the toll house, or if there had been another house on the property that was the toll house. What helped clear this up was a photograph in the collection of the Hopkinton Public Library of a larger, early 18th century saltbox-style house. It is labeled as the "Raftery Place," which was the name of the property's owners for nearly 100 years, from 1887 until 1985 (Hopkinton residents will think I spelt Rafferty wrong, the name of a street nearby. But Raftery is how the family name was spelt in deeds, and it was likely corrupted over the years to Rafferty). This photo noted that the Raftery house was moved to New Jersey and rebuilt - making it clear that the small house at 123 East Main Street was in fact the toll house, and likely stood to the west of the much larger, older house, until that house was moved or demolished.

The photograph from the Hopkinton Public Library, labeled "Raftery Place - Toll House Family Home E. Main near Clinton 1706. Moved to N. J. & reblt."

The current owner of the property is Weston Nurseries, a large nursery that has been in Hopkinton for years. The Toll House stands on land they are hoping to develop for a parking lot, and they need the land the house stands on, as there is very little dry land in the area. The Hopkinton Historical Commission voted at their February 25 meeting to impose a six-month demolition delay on the property. This important preservation tool gives the Historical Commission time to work with the owners of a historic building to see if there is a way the building can be saved, either by incorporating it into the owner's plans or even moving it. One possibility for the Toll House includes keeping the building where it is, but selling it to a new owner on a small lot. A few years ago Hopkinton passed a by-law allowing for the creation of a non-conforming lot (a lot smaller than is allowed under current zoning regulations) if it would save a historic house. It was recently used by a developer to save a historic house and barn; by creating a smaller lot for the historic buildings, he was able to build the same number of new houses that he would have if he had demolished the historic structures. The hope is that Weston Nurseries will be able to create a small lot to keep the Toll House where it is, since so much of the building's history is tied to its location. If it was moved to another site, it would still be historic because of its age and condition, but it would no longer be the Toll House standing on the road it once served.

Structurally the house is in good condition, although the interior needs some work. Vandals have broken into the house and torn down some paneling and plaster in one room, but all of the other rooms are in relatively good condition. The house has had some updates over the years, such as new floors, carpets, and even walls, but many of its historic details remain, such as the historic fireplaces and late-19th century two-over-one window sash. Check out a gallery of the Toll House, below.

The east elevation, showing the ell that was added in the late 19th century to the side of the house. Much of the house is obscured by overgrown bushes.

The main entry, which is centered on the house. The entry is typical of the transition between the Federal and Greek Revival styles, and of the buidling's construciton date of 1830.

Paneling under the sidelights on the main entry, a common feature of Federal and Greek Revival style houses

A detail of the entry which shows the blind carved fanlight over the door, often found on Federal style houses, and the simple cornerblocks, hallmarks of the Greek Revival style.

The historic kitchen has seen the most damage in the house. Original paneling has been pulled from the walls and some of the ceiling plaster has been taken down.

Some of the paneling in the historic kitchen that is still in place.

The fireplace in the historic kitchen has a bake oven to the left. The mantel, while original, has unfortunately been stripped of paint.

The house retains its original four-panel Greek Revival style doors in all its doorways.

The fireplace and built-in closet in the parlor. This room was built to be a more formal space, as its fireplace was not built with a bake oven.

A detail of the fireplace in the parlor, which is more ornate than the one in the historic kitchen.

The hallway on the second story has an original three-over-three operable sash window. This means that the top half of the window has three lights, or squares of glass, and the bottom also has three lights, and the window can be opened.

The east bedroom is the largest; looking from the bedroom into the upstairs hall.

Looking into the two west bedrooms on the second floor. The upstairs has seen more updates than the first floor, such as carpeting and wall treatments.

The west wall of the west bedroom. Many of the windows in the house are two-over-one sash from the late 19th century. After the Civil War, glass production began to advance, and larger panes of glass could be manufactured. The house originally likely had six-over-six sash windows.

The kitchen ell, dating to the late 19th century, has modern updates such as new flooring and appliances, but retains its original two-over-one window sash.
 

The rear of the ell is a mudroom space, with a pantry just behind the sink, to the right.

Another clue to the building's construction date is its framing. The framing members are smaller than those from the 18th century. Here in the attic/crawl space, the rafters are joined to a ridgeboard at the peak of the roof. Before about 1820, this ridgeboard would have been a much heavier ridgebeam.