[MassHistPres] Demo Delays

[jonathan barnes]

No question, this issue of enforcing an applicant’s committment to the historical commission to build what they said they’d build following demolition of a historical structure, is a huge concern and problem.  

Our Bylaw and our regulations provide the authority to consider an early release from demoltion delay where the applicant agrees to accept a demolition permit on specified conditions.  Among other things, this may include an applicant’s submission of plans for the use and improvement of the property following demolition, subject to our review and approval.  Where written agreement is reached on these proposed plans and any other mitigation conditions, we may issue a written early release.  Our written document, signed by the applicant, references and incorporates the applicant’s specific details,  plans for reuse and agreement to conform to those plans.  It also provides that the Building Inspector shall issue no occupancy permit related to the property unless and until he confirms the applicant’s compliance with these terms.

We recognize this is far from ideal.  With a demolition delay period of only 6 months, some applicants may simply wait out that delay period; and we haven’t yet had any occasion to “test” its enforceability legally.   Nonetheless, it is an available tool which we have had some opportunities to use. 

Looking forward to any other ideas. 

Jonathan Barnes
Reading Historical Commission  

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com> wrote:
> 
> Coreen,
>  
> I agree with your concerns. For Hopkinton the best vehicle we have established to promote the preservation of historical properties is the bylaw below which provides potential zoning relief if the applicant agrees to preserve an existing historical structure which conditions are then written into the Special Permit.
>  
> § 210-117.2. Lots with Historic Structures [Added 5-2-2011 ATM, Art. 44]
>  
> A. A lot may be created which does not meet the size and setback requirements of this Chapter upon the
> issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board, if the following criteria are met:
>  
> (1) The lot to be created will contain an Historic Structure;
>  
> (2) The Historic Structure which will be located on the lot is either: 
>  
> (a) Presently situated on a lot for which an application has been submitted to the Town for
> approval of any single or multi-family residential development, an approval-not-required
> plan pursuant to MGL c.41 § 81P, or a construction project subject to Article XX, Site
> Plan Review, and the Historic Structure will remain in its present location; or 
>  
> (b) Planned to be moved from a lot or within a lot for which an application has been
> submitted to the Town for approval of any single or multi-family residential development,
> an approval-not-required plan pursuant to MGL c.41 § 81P, or a construction project
> subject to Article XX, Site Plan Review.
>  
> (3) The Planning Board finds that the proposed lot is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter.  
>  
> B. The special permit shall be subject to such conditions and safeguards as the Planning Board may
> prescribe, including the recording of an historic preservation restriction.  In reviewing any application
> for such special permit, the Planning Board shall give due consideration to promoting the public
> health, safety, convenience and welfare; shall encourage the most appropriate use of land and shall
> permit no building or use that is injurious, noxious offensive or detrimental to its neighborhood.
>  
> C. Administration. Within seven days of receipt of the special permit application, the Planning Board
> shall transmit a copy of the application to the Historical Commission for comment and
> recommendations.
>  
> ….Mike
>  
> Michael Roughan, AIA, EDAC, LEED AP, ACHA
> 
> D +1.617.357.7725 M +1.617.784.6463
> 
> 
>  
> From: Moore, Coreen [mailto:CMoore at townofbourne.com <mailto:CMoore at townofbourne.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 2:09 PM
> To: Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>>; Diane Gilbert <d.m.gilbert at comcast.net <mailto:d.m.gilbert at comcast.net>>; Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>>
> Cc: MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: RE: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>  
> That’s my concern there is no authority or enforcement vehicle for the Historic Commission to continue to monitor.
> The intent of the by-law is not to permanently prevent demolition, but rather, to provide an opportunity to develop preservation solutions for properties threatened with demolition. The bylaw is intended to encourage property owners and townspeople to seek out persons who might be willing to purchase, preserve, rehabilitate or restore such buildings rather than demolish them, and to limit the detrimental effect of demolition on the historical architectural resources of the Town.
>  
> It seems to me if nothing is done within the 12 months the opportunity is lost. (Hey but that’s me)
>  
>  
> <image002.jpg>
> Coreen V. Moore
> Bourne Town Planner
> Bourne Town Hall
> 24 Perry Ave.
> Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
>  
> 508.759.0600 ext.#1346
>  
> Please remember when writing or responding that the Secretary of State's Office has determined that email is a public record and all e-mail communications sent or received by persons using the Town of Bourne network may be subject to disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. Chapter 66, Section 10) and the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
>  
> From: Roughan, Michael [mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:39 PM
> To: Moore, Coreen <CMoore at townofbourne.com <mailto:CMoore at townofbourne.com>>; Diane Gilbert <d.m.gilbert at comcast.net <mailto:d.m.gilbert at comcast.net>>; Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>>
> Cc: MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: RE: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>  
> Coreen,
>  
> Your example sounds to me like a win for Bourne but you do point out the major flaw with the demo delay bylaw (at least in Hopkinton) is that there is no explicit language about the Historical Commission purview of proposed plans. What is implied is that if the applicant presents a proposed plan that either preserves the existing structure or proposes something that would be “preferred” over restoration, the Historical Commission could release the demo delay.
>  
> My concern with the above is there does not appear to be an enforceable legal vehicle to require the applicant to build what they propose after the historical commission releases the demolition delay. Hopkinton has this issue today as last week we allowed the demolition of an historic barn based on the applicant’s architects drawings of the proposed plans and elevations of a replacement barn, identical to the existing without the rotted sills and rotted roof beams and girders but with the existing cupola restored.
>  
> The question is whether the historical commission has any enforcement vehicle to ensure the barn is rebuilt as drawn or more probably we have to rely on the applicant’s word in the public forum that they will do what they said they would do.
>  
> ….Mike
>  
> Michael Roughan, AIA, EDAC, LEED AP, ACHA
> 
> D +1.617.357.7725 M +1.617.784.6463
> 
>  
> From: MassHistPres [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu>] On Behalf Of Moore, Coreen
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:24 AM
> To: Diane Gilbert <d.m.gilbert at comcast.net <mailto:d.m.gilbert at comcast.net>>; Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>>
> Cc: MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>  
> Unfortunately our Historic Commission is using the demo delay as a tool almost for “punishment” a couple of projects were delayed and nothing was done for the 12 months other than the owner sold the property and  fortunately the new owner wants to rehab not tear down, the historic commission wants the new owner to go back to the Commission so they can review the arch plans, even though they have no authority for design review.
>  
> <image003.jpg>
> Coreen V. Moore
> Bourne Town Planner
> Bourne Town Hall
> 24 Perry Ave.
> Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
>  
> 508.759.0600 ext.#1346
>  
> Please remember when writing or responding that the Secretary of State's Office has determined that email is a public record and all e-mail communications sent or received by persons using the Town of Bourne network may be subject to disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. Chapter 66, Section 10) and the Federal Freedom of Information Act.
>  
> From: MassHistPres [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu>] On Behalf Of Diane Gilbert
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 5:20 PM
> To: Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>>
> Cc: MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>  
> Thanks to Chris Skelly for passing on the list of communities and the length of their demo delays.  
>  
> In Dartmouth, we have 6 months and if we had to go back to town meeting now, I doubt we’d get approval to extend the delay period nor can I imagine that we would get approval for a demo delay at all. Our by-law was approved in 2003. Sadly times have changed and town meeting approvals are even more uncertain with respect to preservation warrant articles. 
>  
> I look at it this way.  Within 6 months’ time, if one cannot engage the private homeowner to save a historic asset or at least incorporate/include part of the historic building with modifications that fit their modern lifestyle (amenities), the homeowner will just wait it out. I view it as a “time-out” for the historical commission to work with the homeowner to present options and also for photography, documentation, measured drawings, etc.  
>  
> Ironically, a demolition permit request already puts the historical commission and preservationists at a disadvantage. If the property is owned by a municipality, the time required to work on the creation of a single structure historic district may be amenable to a town. But, private property owners who have other plans may not be so happy to be delayed by a year or 18 months. 
>  
> We are conducting a review of our bylaw to clarify some provisions and tighten things up. I am not even contemplating extending the delay period.  That would be a non-starter. 
>  
> I developed the demo delay by-law on behalf of the Historical Commission for the 2003 Town Meeting.  I am happy to share the document.  I had charts and stats anticipating a lot of push back. It was approved at that time.
>  
> Diane Gilbert
> Dartmouth Historical Commission
> President, Dartmouth Heritage Preservation Trust, Inc.  www.dhpt.org <http://www.dhpt.org/>
> (508) 965-7265
>  
> 
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>> wrote:
>  
> To be clear, Brookline’s 18 month delay applies only to NR or NR-Eligible properties.  The non-NR delay is 12 months.
>  
> Also, Brookline is a CLG and because of that the town accepts that for purposes of the By-law the Commission’s determination that a property is NR Eligible is sufficient.
>  
> Dennis De Witt
> Brookline
>  
> 
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>> wrote:
>  
> Thanks to the counsel of Dennis De Witt and Gretchen Schuler, the Hopkinton Historical Commission is looking to extend our Demo Delay from 6 months to 18 months. The rationale is 18 months is sufficient time to create a single structure Historic District, if that is the course Town Meeting wished to take. We have one significant property that the applicant has submitted a demolition application for, the Davis House. This structure was built in 1794 and has a long list of events that occurred on the property.
>  
> Does anyone have any information they have prepared for their Town Meeting to support a Demo Delay? What I was thinking is a list of questions i.e. Why extend the demo delay? How will it affect my property? Etc. or stories about properties lost.
>  
> Also is there a list anywhere of the Ma. towns with their current demo delay length?
>  
> Regards, 
>  
> ….Mike
>  
> Michael Roughan, AIA, EDAC, LEED AP, ACHA
> Chairman - Hopkinton Historical Commission
>  
> Town of Hopkinton
> 18 Main Street
> Hopkinton, MA 01748
> 
> D 617.357.7725 M 617.784.6463
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>  
>  
>  
> 
> This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here <https://gdsprotect.cloud-protect.net/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=1547562894-YZoeJWGLLHki&r_address=cmoore%40townofbourne.com&report=1> to report this email as spam.
> 
>  
>  
> 
> This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here <https://gdsprotect.cloud-protect.net/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=1547573920-RdFQmggpXUi2&r_address=cmoore%40townofbourne.com&report=1> to report this email as spam.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190115/d3db0c57/attachment-0001.html>