[MassHistPres] Demo delay: 18 mo / interiors / siding

[johanna erickson]

Probably everybody but me knows what all the alphabet soup means, but could 
list members translate CPAs and LHDs and TMs at least once in their emails? 
Thanks, Roger

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis De Witt" <djdewitt at rcn.com>
To: "MHC listserve" <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demo delay: 18 mo / interiors / siding


>I am pleased to say that last nite Brookline town meeting by a
> unanimous vote passed an upgrading of our Demo Delay law.  I thought
> it would pass but didn't expect ZERO opposition.  (Significantly, a
> week ago CPA lost at the polls -- due in no small part to opposition
> from the schools community who thought it would weaken support for an
> inevitable schools override.)
>
> Maybe it was dumb luck but I have been trying to think of why there
> was not one word said against our proposal.  For whatever it's worth,
> earlier in the evening TM had passed, but not unanimously, a
> clarification, (overriding a ZBA ruling), which made it clear that,
> under its design review power, the Planing Board and ZBA had the
> right to review demolition as a "design change" and to permanently
> prevent demolition of a facade along the town's five major streets,
> over which the PB & ZBA have design review.
>
> We have our quota of libertarian types in TM but one of them strongly
> endorsed our article, after a lot of negotiation and revision, which
> helped immeasurably.  Maybe the recent creation of three new LHDs has
> given the commission a lot of good will in an anti-development pro-
> neighborhood TM zeitgeist.  And the very process of getting three
> LHDs through the Advisory Committee and Selectmen has developed some
> rapport with them that lead to unanimously favorable reports from a
> BoS, three of whose members have said they would not want to live in
> an LHD, and from a conservatively weighted (but very fair-minded) sub-
> committee of the Advisory Committee.  Good networking also helped.
> (Maybe even an overspill of some goodwill towards one supportive
> Selectman may have played a part.)  And maybe TM just had its eye on
> the clock.
>
> In any case we now have the following enhancements.
>
> a) DD on all NR properties found Significant is extended from 12
> months to 18 months.  The only selling point we offered was that we
> reported that some opponents of the three LHDs had argued the LHDs
> were put through in a hasty manner because of the 12 month delay, and
> so we said that this would give more time to everyone for a more
> orderly process.
>
> b) DD can be applied to the "substantially total" gutting of historic
> spaces open to the public in NR buildings.  We figure there are about
> 20 such in town and that such a case might come up once a decade.
>
> c) DD can be applied in cases where all the trim is stripped off an
> NR building to re-side it.  Re-siding if the trim is kept is not
> covered.
>
> d) the definition of demolition is significantly fleshed out to
> include criteria for partial demolitions.
>
> e) We added a definition of demo-by-neglect and included Demo-by-
> neglect in the definition of demolition.  This probably will only be
> useful in a case where a building is condemned due to DbN, in which
> case we may be able to impose a two-year no build penalty.  However,
> the concept is on the table -- more on that below.
>
> f) we incorporated language and definitions from MHCs new model
> bylaw, including the right to create rules and regulations -- more on
> that below.
>
> Initially we had also several other new features but the whole
> package proved, understandably (see link), mind-numbing for the AC &
> BoS.  So we agreed to remove them for consideration at a later time.
> This too may have helped get the favorable reports from them.
>
> The sections removed were to do the following:
>
> i) prevent speculative demolitions by requiring that no demolition
> occur until the replacement project was ready to begin
>
> ii) Prevent "timing out" of delays by requiring that demolition must
> occur within a three year time frame after the end of the delay or
> the process would have to recycle.
>
> iii) Add a demolition by neglect enforcement cause to allow an owner
> to be taken to court and required to stabilize (but not restore or
> even bring up to code) a property.
>
> iv) add an anti-arson clause (cribbed from Newton)
>
> During the course of our conversations with the AC we were strongly
> advised by several attorneys involved that some or all of these
> things might be accomplished through rule-making -- altho our Town
> Counsel disagreed.  We would be very interested in knowing of towns
> that have an apparatus of rules or guidelines to accomplish any of
> the above.  Please let me know.
>
> Here is a link to the Warrant article.  The original version of the
> bylaw, as first proposed is at the beginning, including the abandoned
> sections.  The final version is at the end.
>
> http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/TMM/PDFs/111406TM/
> A19-111406COMBINEDREPORTS.pdf
>
> The deleted sections in the first version are 5.3.9 & .16 & .17.  The
> second version is structured slightly differently especially with
> respect to the definition of demolition, which is the core of its
> extended power.
>
> Dennis De Witt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact 
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE 
> WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************