[MassHistPres] demolition permit question

[melanie deware]

The buildings are under demo delay until August if the deal being worked on with the new interested party does not go through (would require a huge allocation from the town and a town meeting vote).

There is a brand new LHD study committee in place to get the area LHD designated before then (hopefully).

Our bylaw does require that other permits are in place before demo, but there is nothing in there about "vacant lot."  Our feeling is that "vacant lot" is basically a way around those provisions.  We are seeking some evidence that it is not an allowable reuse.

 

Melanie Deware

 


From: djd184 at verizon.net
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:18:43 -0500
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] demolition permit question


There may be some confusion here.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but Isn't this a demolition case and not an LHD case?  Clearly if it was an LHD case there'd need be no question of allowing demolition.  But if a demo case then demolition can only be delayed.


When Brookline was drafting its rules and regs. re demo delay there was a proposal that demolition could not be done once the delay had expired until the proposed new use was fully permitted and ready for construction.  As part of that it was proposed that if the proposed use was an empty lot then the lot would have to stay empty for several years.  There was a sense that telling someone what they could do after the end of the delay was a something of a stretch legally (and maybe politically) and the idea was dropped.  Does anyone have a bylaw or R&Rs that can limit use of the property after the delay has been allowed by the applicant to "time out"?



There has been discussion of the threat to these buildings for some time.  Is a delay now in effect?  How long does it have to run?


The one certain way to save these buildings would be to create an LHD -- assuming  there was the political support and the time -- which would be the better part of six months.


Dennis De Witt






On Jan 3, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Sara Wermiel wrote:



But surely, even if “vacant lot” is accepted on the demo app, the EHC has the right to review the details of the vacant lot, and would still have the right to review any subsequent proposed construction at the site.
The vacant lot should be compatible with the district. That probably means, not a parking lot. In fact, maybe you should require a complete landscaping plan, since the use would be changing, and review that. Or do your design guidelines only deal with above-ground features?
 
Sara Wermiel
Preservation consultant
Jamaica Plain, MA
 


From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of melanie deware
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:12 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] demolition permit question
 
There is a new proposal at hand that would preserve the site.  However, the question originally arose when the demo apps were filed, with "vacant lot" expressed as the proposed reuse of the site.  Our question comes from a disagreement over whether or not this was really answering the question of proposed reuse.  The Historical Commission, citizens, proponent, and Town Counsel all disagree.  We are really looking for precedent on whether or not this is an acceptable answer, or just an attempt to do skirt the bylaw and then do whatever one wants to do with the location in the future by avoiding Historical Commission input on the replacement plans.
 ******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contactChristopher.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
********************************

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100103/ccf25f40/attachment.htm>