[MassHistPres] Demo Delay Enforcement

[Dennis De Witt]

Charles

It seems to me that what you have described is a brilliant strategy — but perhaps only possible with Cambridge’s Neighborhood Conservation District/Landmark ordinance   You have a de facto 18 month delay — with the additional teeth of potentially morphing it into the equivalent of what in almost every other place would be a single property LHD.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall, in Cambridge a Landmark is just a single property NCD with a slightly different set of rules about its creation, so that the owner cannot veto it.  In my opinion Cambridge’s NCD/Landmark bylaw is in many respects the most intelligently drafted one in the state.  It’s a shame that it has not been more closely studied by those drafting later NCD bylaws — including Brookline’s.  The feature that you cite, wherein establishing a study committee imposes Landmark rules, is analogous to what happens re proposed zoning changes under MGL 40A, in which the proposed changes temporarily apply as soon as they are filed and remain so until there is a vote.  I am not aware of such a provision in anyone else's LHD or NCD bylaw — nor rules & regs.  It would be interesting to know, there is.

Having said that, it may be easier to use with a city council that meets regularly and has a small number of more focused and predictable players than with a town meeting that only meets twice year — even a representative TM, where one somewhat knows who the players are and they have a more predictable “culture” as a body.  Needing a TM vote means that up to an additional six months has to be factored into the delay if there is to be a credible possibility of TM action.

Brookline has a 12 month delay, including for partial demolitions, and 18 months for NR properties.  Given the LHD process timeline built into 40C, anything less than 12 months is meaningless against a developer willing to time it out.  Five of Brookline’s eight LHDs were triggered by demo cases after we got the longer delay.  It had been six months.  Most involved NR properties.  Given the LHD timeline, anything less than 12 months is meaningless and, depending on when the delay starts, even 12 months may not be enough because you also have to factor in 90 days for AG review and approval — something else that, I believe, is not true for cities.

Although I have mixed feelings about NCDs, two other advantages are that they do not require a ⅔ vote and the extent of adoption procedure timetable delays built into 40C need not be in an NCD bylaw.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline, NCDC


> On Feb 7, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Sullivan, Charles M. <csullivan at cambridgema.gov> wrote:
> 
> The Cambridge Historical Commission has a six month delay.
>  
> In lieu of lengthening the delay, which would require amending the ordinance, several years ago the commission adopted a policy of automatically holding a hearing in the fifth month of every delay period to consider initiating a landmark designation study. Under  Ch. 2.78, Article III of the City Code, initiating a landmark study gives the commission jurisdiction over the property for twelve months – potentially adding up to an 18-month delay. 
>  
> The automatic fifth-month hearing gives the Commission the chance to assess the situation and decide how it feels about the significance of the threatened building. The Commission may decide that the building does not reach the level of significance required for landmark designation and let the delay run its course. In other cases the landmark study has been very effective in resolving the situation in favor of preservation.
>  
> Even without Cambridge’s provision for a landmark study, an automatic hearing in the last month or two before a delay expires might be a useful tool for maintaining pressure on the proponent and focusing public attention on the threat. Consult with your town counsel, but I think this could be accomplished simply by adopting a policy.
>  
> See Cambridge’s landmark and NCD ordinance at https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.78HIBULA_ARTIIIESNECODIPRLA <https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_CH2.78HIBULA_ARTIIIESNECODIPRLA>
>  
> Charles Sullivan
>  
> _________________________________
> Charles Sullivan, Executive Director
> Cambridge Historical Commission
> 831 Massachusetts Ave., 2nd Fl.
> Cambridge, Mass.  02139
> ph 617-349-4684; fax 617-349-6165; TTY 617-349-6112
> http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic <http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic>
> <image004.jpg> <https://www.facebook.com/cambridgehistcomm>      <image006.jpg> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgehistoricalcommission/>      <image008.png> <https://www.instagram.com/chcat831/>      <image010.jpg> <https://cambridgehistoricalcommission.wordpress.com/>
>  
> From: MassHistPres [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu>] On Behalf Of Ann Chapdelaine
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:38 AM
> To: masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Demo Delay Enforcement
>  
> The North Attleborough Historical Commission would like to hear from you regarding what to do during our 6 month delay period where the demo applicant does nothing but intends to wait it out?  We do not have a required public hearing in our bylaw and  are considering to amend the by law to include it and  to also try to extend the delay period.  What enforcement strategies work best?
>  
> Ann
>  
>  
> Ann J. Chapdelaine, Chairperson
> North Attleborough Historical Commission
> Town Hall
> 43 South Washington Street
> North Attleborough, MA. 02760
> Direct Line : 508-789-4466
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20180208/43959f6c/attachment-0001.html>