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

Thu Nov 16 14:46:49 EST 2006

Broadly, how do the City of Brookline's preservation laws compare to other 
big (and realtively wealthy) places like Boston, Cambridge, Newton, et al.?  
It sounds like your HC made great strides at Town Meeting.  Congrats.
Anne Kornitsky

>From: Dennis De Witt <djdewitt at rcn.com>
>To: "johanna erickson" <erickson48 at verizon.net>
>CC: MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
>Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo delay: 18 mo / interiors / siding
>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:29:42 -0500
>
>Sorry, one just assumes we are all on the same page.
>
>CPA = Community Preservation Act -- if you don't know Google
>ZBA = zoning Board of Appeals
>PB = Planning Board which does design review etc but is solely
>advisory to the ZBA which always has the final say
>TM = Town Meeting (in Brookline a representative TM)
>LHD = Local Historic District
>DD = Demo Delay
>NR - National Register
>AC = Advisory Committee the standing Committee of TM which is in some
>towns called the Finance Comm or FinComm
>BoS = Board of Selectmen
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Dennis
>
>
>On Nov 16, 2006, at 2:11 PM, johanna erickson wrote:
>
> > 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
> >> ********************************
>******************************
>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
>********************************