GREENFIELD — A developer eyeing the former Rugg Manufacturing Co. property on Newton Street is seeking permission from the Historical Commission to raze the parcel’s two structures to make way for a storage unit facility.

“They are unfortunately in very bad shape, structurally,” Mark Reed of Southampton-based Heritage Land Surveying & Engineering, the engineer for the proposed project, said of the two buildings. “They have been neglected for many, many years.”

Reed told commissioners during a meeting last week that he planned to submit a formal application for demolition, though not before offering a tour of the site to the Historical Commission.

“You’re the first board, officially, we’ve talked to, requesting a demolition permit be granted for the project,” he said, noting developer Jim Boyle is under agreement to purchase the property.

According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the main structure at 105 Newton St. was built in 1855 and has been home to an arms factory, cutlery or edged tool factory, and military manufacturing facility.

“It was originally called the Munson Baby Carriage Factory,” explained John Passiglia, chair of the Historical Commission.

Most recently, though, it was the location of Rugg Manufacturing Co., which was sold to new owners in 2013 after 124 years in Greenfield. The second building on the site was used to store lumber, Reed noted, with a lumber company having operated across the street.

Amos Rugg had started the company in 1842, by making wooden hay rakes out of a factory in Montague. After a fire burned the factory down in 1889, the business relocated to 105 Newton St. The first snow shovels were produced there during the winter of 1879.

At a Historical Commission meeting last week, commissioners asked Reed, who was accompanied by the developer’s son, Dan Brisson, if there were any known historical items in the building.

“I don’t believe there’s anything left on the site,” Reed replied.

Passiglia asked whether any consideration had been given to renovating the existing two structures before resorting to demolition.

“It’s a tired building,” Reed responded. “It’s multiple stories, which doesn’t really lend itself to our needs.”

Although commissioners agreed that a walk-through of the property would be necessary for photographing the space and checking for any other items of historical significance, they seemed in agreement the potential demolition of the buildings — while historic — likely wouldn’t require a public hearing when the demolition application is filed.

“I don’t think a hearing is needed at this point,” said commissioner Tim Blagg.

Passiglia explained this is because the buildings are “out of the way” and in “pretty bad condition,” and will be redeveloped using private funding.

He advised the applicants to include in writing their plans to put up some sort of plaque identifying the site and its historical significance.

“One of our goals is to have more walking tours in town (and to) start documenting buildings,” Passiglia said. “That would go toward that.”

Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.

]]>