[MassHistPres] Any court challenges to an 18-month demo delay bylaw?

[Dennis De Witt]

Brookline has had 18 mo. on NR properties for about six years which also covers partial demolitions and has never had a challenge on any 12 or 18 month delay.  Because of the language of the bylaw and as Brookline is a CLG the Commission can determine for the purposes of the bylaw that a building is NR eligible.  Between NRDs and individual properties Brookline has hundreds of buildings on the NR.

In addition, an interesting related conversation occurred recently re the creation of districts.  

As you may know, once a more restrictive zoning change is proposed in a warrant article it immediately comes into de facto effect (with certain exemptions), until it is either passed or fails to pass.  As I understand it something similar happens in the creation of NCDs in Cambridge.  Thus I assume, in that case a delayed demolition could be effectively extended if the property was in a then proposed NCD.  

All of Brookline's seven LHDs have arisen from threatened or actual demolitions and in three of those cases there was an demo delay which became permanent with the the creation of an LHD.  The length of the process of creating the LHD has been limited by the length of the delay.  Given the need for AG approval of a town's warrant articles which takes 90 days (which does not apply to cities) plus the fact that typically town's only have one or two town meetings a year, a 12 month delay gives you less than 9 months to create the district.  A question has now been raised as to whether upon reaching some milestone in the process of creating a district there could be some vote or certification to extend the delay for some limited period to allow more time for the neighborhood process of meetings and getting people to sign on a petition (as it is done here) for the creation of the district.

At this point that idea is just a suggestion and a counter-argument has been suggested that taking the urgency out of the process might counterproductive.  In any case such an extended delay would certainly have to be of limited duration.  Maybe only adding 6 months to 12.

Dennis De Witt  


On Apr 24, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Marcia Starkey <mdstarkey at crocker.com> wrote:

> Is there a middle ground where the current delay could be extended to 18months under certain circumstances: i. e. National register eligibility or listing; written expressions of interest by potential new owners, support by abutters or neighborhood?
>  
> Marcia Starkey, Greenfield HC
>  
> From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of David Temple
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:50 PM
> To: Mass HistPres
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Any court challenges to an 18-month demo delay bylaw?
>  
> In Medfield, we now have a 50-year/12-month demolition delay bylaw. At next week's annual town meeting we will be asking voters to extend it to 18 months, as more and more municipalities seem to be doing. Our town counsel has expressed concern that the extra six months might lead delayed owners or builders to feel a court challenge would be worthwhile, where they'd just sit tight and wait out 12 months of delay.  
>  
> Has anyone on this list experienced such a legal challenge?  If yes, please explain the outcomes.
>  
> 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
> ******************************
> 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/20130425/cfc4ae53/attachment-0001.htm>