ERVING — The Historical Commission brought a proposed bylaw before the Selectboard this week that would, if passed, allow the commission to place a delay of up to a year on the demolition of historically relevant properties following a public hearing.

If approved by Town Meeting voters, the bylaw would unite Erving with the roughly 160 Massachusetts cities and towns that already have demolition delay bylaws in place, including neighboring Montague. Historical Commission Chair Sara Campbell said the proposed bylaw had been previously reviewed by the town’s legal counsel to ensure it mirrors similar bylaws passed by other municipalities.

After a roughly 45-minute discussion centered around two competing priorities — historical preservation and property owners’ rights — the Selectboard suggested that the commission return with a more refined draft of the proposed bylaw containing more objective preservation guidelines that could assist future Historical Commission members.

Campbell also noted that development of the proposed bylaw will coincide with a survey of Erving’s properties to develop a registry of historical structures in town.

“We are looking for the ability to understand the resources we have. Hopefully, when we get our historical survey underway shortly, we’ll have a better basis for what is available in town that needs to be protected and then the ability to increase consideration when a proposal may come along in the future to demolish these historic structures,” Campbell said. “Having the survey doesn’t give you protection by itself. It gives us more information.”

Board members generally spoke in favor of creating a system for the preservation of historic properties. Still, some, such as Selectboard member Scott Bastarache, raised concerns that the bylaw can allow a subjective labeling of properties that qualify for protection.

After Campbell mentioned — noting that the Historical Commission will consider preserving properties that are more than roughly 200 years old — that state and federal guidelines can consider a 50-year-old property as historic and being qualified for local protections, Bastarache suggested that the commission draft a more detailed outline of what constitutes a “preferably preserved” historic property.

“The part that gets a little gray is the ‘preferably preserved’ and that’s more of just a subjective [determination]. There’s no measure other than a group of people who get together and say, ‘We feel like this warrants keeping.’ I’m not sure I agree with the language the way it’s written,” Bastarache said. “You’re looking at buildings that are 200-plus [years old]. ... My home’s over 50 years old, and if it’s paid off and I don’t want to keep it up anymore, do I have an entity that says, ‘You can’t do that, you have to wait a full year?’”

Selectboard Chair Jacob Smith mentioned that although the bylaw, under the town’s current Historical Commission, would likely be used in a way that balances the preservation of historic structures with homeowners’ rights to their own property, the bylaw should be written in a way that sets objective goals for future commissions.

Smith’s remarks were echoed by Selectboard member James Loynd, who referred to a section of the proposed bylaw that mentions protecting properties of “character or interest.” Smith said that language is far too vague and might unnecessarily delay a homeowner’s plans to demolish his or her property.

“Every change in commissioners can change what that subjectivity delivers. Yours might be 200 years and the next might be 51. That’s where I think definition, if you can do it while maintaining the level of balance and broad view, will be helpful,” Smith said.

The Historical Commission agreed to meet with the Selectboard with a more refined bylaw at future meetings prior to Town Meeting.

“I would like a document that can stand the test of time,” Loynd said. “There isn’t a soul here that will be here, arguably, in 50 years. So what legacy are we leaving for those who are going to come after us, and is it a document that has the appropriate teeth without overreach? That’s what I will be looking for in a finished product.”

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.