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.
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.
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.
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.