[MassHistPres] Demolition delay

[Dennis De Witt]

Brookline has 12 months for non-NR buildings and 18 months for NR.  In addition to saving the Coolidge Corner theater when the delay was 12 months (thanks in no small part to a just-in-time intervention by Harold Brown plus a real estate slump which made the deal less attractive to the developer) the most significant result -- again before we had 18 months -- has been the creation of three LHDs in response to demo threats.  Without 12 months that would have been impossible.  Depending on timing of the demo application and the lead time requirements to do the study etc. sometimes it could only be possible with an 18 month delay.  

And 18 months is that much more leverage to bring a developer to the table, even if there is no LHD poposal.

Dennis De Witt



On Oct 8, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Tristram Metcalfe 3 wrote:

> I think 18 months should be the minimum. We have only a 12 month delay and its not much of a road block to destruction of history since planning a development is most likely well over a year anyway. 
> 
> We may soon be loosing an important part of our built history and the 12 months just pushed the project over the winter into the next building season. This is a common occurrence to save on costly cold weather construction, which can be caused by many other reasons in development.
> 
> It would be nice some day to have a state wide compilation of all the successes  of demo delay. It could really help inform to convince opponents. We have a very nice example so far in our young DD ordinance that would be in such a document.
>  
> Tris Metcalfe
> Northampton
> 
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 4:08 PM, David Temple wrote:
> 
>> Agreed. When Medfield had a six-month delay from 1993-99, we ended up losing every building we sought to have preserved.  The results have dramatically improved since we went to a one-year delay. 
>> 
>> Though some members of our local historical commission feel we should extend the delay to 18 months, I don't feel it's necessary, and I think it would be a tough sell at town meeting.  
>> 
>> In your reply, please include my original message. AOL users please note!
>> 
>> David Temple 
>> David F. Temple, Inc. 
>> 300 South Street 
>> Medfield, MA 02052 
>> 508-359-2915 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Fri, 10/8/10, Gretchen Schuler <ggschuler at verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Gretchen Schuler <ggschuler at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition delay
>> To: jjgiiilaw at juno.com
>> Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>> Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 3:51 PM
>> 
>> 
>> I think that communities that have extended from 6 months to one year have found it more meaningful and more effective.  It certainly makes sense to me to be one year - usually a developer can wait 6 months - the time it probably takes to get all permits in place - a year would be more problematic for an owner and may make them more amenable to considering options to save a building. 
>>  
>> Gretchen Schuler
>> 
>> 
>> Oct 8, 2010 07:39:05 PM, jjgiiilaw at juno.com wrote:
>> >Tewksbury is in the process of preparing a town meeting article which would 
>> >extend its current
>> >Demo Delay By-Law from its current very short 90 day restriction to something 
>> >longer. Does
>> >anyone have any thoughts as to period which provides maximum return on building 
>> >saved/adapted
>> >etc. Any other insight on how to leverage by law to save buildings as opposed 
>> >to just putting off the
>> >inevitable would also be appreciated. I appreciate the preservation communities 
>> >response to this 
>> >inquiry along with some helpful replies on priors.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Jay Gaffney
>> >Tewksbury Historical Commission 
>> >
>> >____________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >target="_blank">Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance
>> >If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obamas 
>> >Refi Program
>> >
>> >target="_blank">SeeRefinanceRates.com 
>> >
>> 
>> >******************************
>> >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
>> >
>> >target="_blank">http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>> >********************************
>> >
>> 
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>> 
>> ******************************
>> 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
>> ********************************
> 
> ******************************
> 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
> ********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20101008/585edfae/attachment.htm>