[MassHistPres] Fw: Re: hardship demolition application

Sat Dec 12 13:15:56 EST 2009

There is an excellent analysis of hardship in a document on the operation of an HD on the Belmont web site.  It's my understanding from that, and from a subsequent review of it by Brookline Town Counsel, that hardship must be based on a condition specific to a given property and not applicable to the district as a whole.  It is not sufficient that the owner says "it will cost too much" or "I can't afford it".  It's hard to imagine, based on what you have said, that this situation meets the 40c test for hardship.

Furthermore, how can someone say "it will cost too much" without specific plans.  Under the rules and regs in effect in Brookline -- and I think in other places -- this would be rejected as an incomplete application because (other than demolition) it is so non-specific.  

Dennis De Witt

On Dec 12, 2009, at 12:00 PM, wwheelwright at juno.com wrote:

> In response to Dennis' question about the basis for the hardship
> demolition. I realized this reply went only to Dennis and am forwarding
> to all.
> 
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: wwheelwright at juno.com
> To: djd184 at verizon.net
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:10 -0500
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] hardship demolition application
> 
> 
> The Selectmens' basis is the cost to renovate "documented" by one
> unsupported estimate from a local (unknown-new in town-not much info on
> him or his company on the web) contractor in excess of 500K for the house
> plus another 125K for the barn. The Selectmen did none of the usual
> inspections prior to purchase because the Selectmen were planning to tear
> it down from the outset. Nor did they state what the use was to be but
> said a committee would be established after the vote to purchase to
> examine possible uses. 2008 Town Meeting, in a late-breaking burst of
> enthusiasm to turn it into a Senior Center, voted for the purchase,
> ignoring the counsel of the finance committee and the few of us who
> reminded them of the fact that Historic District Commission review was
> required. The Reuse Committee, appointed by the Selectmen, recommended
> that to use the house for any municipal purpose would be both
> prohibitively expensive and unsatisfactory and recommended that the
> property be removed from the Historic District (voted down at 2009 Town
> Meeting) or the buildings demolished and the land "banked". Town Meeting
> 2009 voted for a warrant article to remove or demolish the buildings,
> again against the finance committee recommendations and our best efforts.
> 
> The other basis is to enable the Town's need to protect the fragile water
> supply and septic infrastructure which serve the current municipal
> buildings.Public Board of Health records do not support that view as
> researched by a local sanitary engineer and who has served as Board of
> Health Agent in a surrounding town. If the house is demolished, over 2
> acres are added to the municipal campus. If the house is not demolished
> but is sold as a fixer-upper with 1 acre as a private residence,
> requiring Title 5 upgrade and repair of the existing septic, the town
> would still retain over 1 acre of added land for protection. The
> Selectmen have adamently pursued demolition and filed the hardship
> application even before taking title (Feb. 1, 2010).
> 
> Sorry not to be able to be more concise but it is a complex issue. We
> appreciate your good suggestions (keep them coming) and are following up.
> 
> Susie Wheelwright
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:01:29 -0500 Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net>
> writes:
>> What is the basis of the hardship claim?
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:13 AM, wwheelwright at juno.com wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> To Chris Skelly and members of the listserve,
>>> 
>>> The Board of Selectmen and the present owner of the property 
>> jointly
>>> filed a hardship application with the Sherborn Historic District
>>> Commission on December 1 to demolish the Richard Smart House and 
>> Barn,
>>> which abut the Town Offices in the Local Historic District, and 
>> which
>>> will be purchased by the Town on or before Feb 1, 2010. The Dec 1 
>> filing
>>> starts the clock ticking for the HDC, requiring a meeting which 
>> must be
>>> held by Dec 15 to decide if the application requires review, a 
>> public
>>> hearing by Dec 29, and a determination by the HDC by Feb 27. If 
>> the
>>> choice of this very difficult time of year to require meetings 
>> and
>>> encourage public participation seems intentional on the part of 
>> the
>>> Selectmen, keep reading.  There is more to this story. 
>>> 
>>> The Selectmen have tried every way they could to ensure that the 
>> HDC will
>>> allow the buildings to be demolished. Following an unsuccessful 
>> attempt
>>> at Town Meeting last Spring to have the property removed from the
>>> district, the Selectmen failed to re-appoint members, one of them 
>> the
>>> chairman, after the Commission indicated that it would be unlikely 
>> to
>>> permit demolition. Since June 15 all appointments to the 
>> Commission have
>>> been held up, except for one new member handpicked by Selectmen 
>> to
>>> represent them as abuttors-to-be, a move ruled to be legal by 
>> Town
>>> Counsel. Strangely another abuttor, who is on the HDC but was not 
>> up for
>>> reappointment,  has been told he cannot participate or vote. Yet 
>> another
>>> member resigned citing the pressure from the Selectmen and has not 
>> been
>>> replaced. So, having gutted and demoralized the HDC and then filed 
>> the
>>> application to coincide with the holidays, no quorum will be the 
>> outcome
>>> for the review by Dec 15, the first deadline. Do any of you know 
>> if that
>>> means a default for the HDC on Dec. 15 and an automatic hardship
>>> certificate? 
>>> 
>>> In the event of a Dec 15 default , does anyone know of  possible 
>> pro bono
>>> legal assistance for the HDC to help with immediate further steps 
>> such as
>>> an injunction to prevent immediate tear down? The Selectmen 
>> control
>>> access to Town Counsel. 
>>> 
>>> The Sherborn Historical Commission thanks you in advance for your 
>> good
>>> information and suggestions. 
>>> 
>>> Susie Wheelwright
>>> Sherborn Historical Commission
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> Stock Trading
>>> Learn to trade with confidence! Online Stock Trading. Click Now!
>>> 
>> 
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=x8VkU_8k9qzT7-4RESAVOAAAJ1C
> hYYjXFBKIfm7xAeJ1-QWhAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADaQAAAAA=
>>> ******************************
>>> 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
> ********************************