The Northborough Historic District Commission on Jan. 15 voted to find 9 Church Street — known historically as the Margaret Page / William Ellsworth House — a "historically significant" building, initiating the bylaw process that triggers a demolition-delay period. Commissioners also asked the owner to submit written documentation of work already done to explore alternatives to demolition so the commission can consider shortening the delay.

The ruling matters because the finding starts a statutory delay that can be up to 180 days under the town bylaws and gives the commission time to seek preservation alternatives. The owner of 9 Church Street, Amanda Millett (who recused herself from the commission for the hearing and spoke as the property owner), said the parcel is a critical piece of three adjoining downtown lots she intends to redevelop and argued the house is in poor condition and unlikely to be economically salvageable.

Chair Bob Light opened the public hearing and framed the commission’s charge under the town code and Massachusetts practice: the commission must determine whether a building more than 100 years old is historically or architecturally significant or otherwise included in the Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory (MACRIS). Light said the house appears in MACRIS as NBO 35 and NBO 63 and that a positive finding would normally start a 180-day demolition delay under Chapter 2.36 of the Town of Northborough bylaws.

Commissioners and public commenters described the house’s condition and history. Bob Light displayed interior photos taken at a recent site visit and described features including floor-length windows, a basement with structural rot, and a multiroom interior that appears to have been converted to a two-family layout. Several commenters who toured the property or inspected photographs raised structural and safety concerns.

Resident and preservation volunteer Lois Vandy Couple Smith noted the MACRIS inventory write-up (completed in 2007) says the house has "lost some of its architectural significance" because of later exterior alterations such as aluminum siding. Contractor and resident Rob Berger told the commission the building has been vacant about 20 years, that utilities are turned off — "The power is off in that building. The water is off in that building. The heat is off in that building" — and that the house has been a recurring target for vandalism and flooding damage, which he said increases the cost and risk of rehabilitation.

Local contractor Alan Arsenal said the house is balloon-framed and showed substantial rot in the basement framing, adding that in his experience the structure is unlikely to survive being moved: "I see no significance that would call my attention to... the cost of repairing that and getting it to a usable state, I just don't see it." Several commissioners and public participants raised house-moving as an option but said engineering obstacles, utility crossings, and cost estimates were not available or were judged likely prohibitive.

Owner Millett described her redevelopment plans for three downtown parcels, including the adjacent old fire station (which she said is in unsafe condition and was purchased with the expectation it would likely be torn down). Millett said she had investigated moving the house about five years earlier but did not receive a firm estimate and was told numerous utility poles and wires would make moving cost-prohibitive. She also said she had contacted members of the Ellsworth family when she purchased the property and received no objection from descendants to her plans.

After public comment and further discussion the commission voted to designate 9 Church Street historically significant. The roll call produced a 3-to-2 outcome (three votes in favor, two opposed). Chair Bob Light said he will notify the Select Board and the building inspector of the finding and that the 180-day delay provision in the bylaws applies, but that the bylaw also allows the commission to shorten the delay if, during the delay, it determines there is no feasible alternative to demolition. The commission debated whether to make that determination immediately but declined to do so at the meeting.

Instead the commission voted to request a short written timeline and explanation from Millett documenting the alternatives she has already pursued and the impediments to preservation or relocation. The commission said the written submission need not be elaborate but should summarize prior outreach, engineering or moving estimates if any, and environmental or hazardous-waste constraints on reuse or occupancy. Commissioners signaled they could use the documentation and the minutes of the hearing to rule, at a later meeting, that no feasible alternative exists and thereby shorten the delay.

The record of public testimony included a note by Millett that the three parcels contain contaminated/hazardous material in soil that would require cleanup before reuse, and testimony from municipal volunteers and contractors describing structural, electrical and plumbing deficiencies. Commissioners and commenters also discussed project timing: Millett said the town had asked that demolition of the old fire station proceed on a timetable that would require coordinating removal of both the fire station and 9 Church Street; she said the fire-station removal has a February deadline tied to prior agreements with the town.

The commission closed the hearing and moved to other business. It asked Millett to submit the requested documentation for the commission’s review; commission members indicated the documentation could make it possible to shorten the statutory delay if it demonstrates no practicable alternative to demolition.

Next steps: the commission will file written notice of the historical finding with the Select Board and building inspector; Millett will provide the requested documentation; and the commission may consider a further vote — based on the submission and the hearing record — to determine whether to shorten the 180-day delay period.