[MassHistPres] Demo Delays
jonathan barnes
jebarnes2 at verizon.net
Thu Jan 17 18:32:16 EST 2019
Coreen,
Yes, but some additional clarification may be helpful.
Our demolition delay bylaw and process is list-based. That is, Reading has established a designated list of structures that have been identified in advance as “Historic Structures”, and for which the public hearing process I referenced is required whenever a completed demolition application is filed with the Building Inspector for any structure on that List of Historic Structures. Under this process, there is no further preliminary determination of the structure’s significance. Rather, the public hearing is conducted, after which a determination is made whether the loss of the structure would be detrimental considering the purpose of the bylaw.
It’s my personal philosophy that the public hearing process, including a subsequent public hearing, would generally have merit and value for a Town even if the structure (or portion of a structure) had previously been through the demolition delay period or determined not to be “detrimental” or “significant”. Not only does it provide the historical commission the opportunity to consider the structure’s significance or the details of the proposed reuse; it also provides an opportunity for the residents of the town to understand the plans impacting a structure on the town’s list of historic structures.
Jonathan
Reading Historical Commission
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Moore, Coreen <CMoore at townofbourne.com> wrote:
>
> Even if the structure was deemed not significant or went through the 12 month delay?
>
> <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: jonathan barnes [mailto:jebarnes2 at verizon.net <mailto:jebarnes2 at verizon.net>]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:26 PM
> To: Moore, Coreen <CMoore at townofbourne.com <mailto:CMoore at townofbourne.com>>
> Cc: Dennis De Witt <djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>>; Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>>; MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>
> Our Bylaw requires that whenever a completed demolition application for a structure on our List of Historic Structures is filed with the Building Inspector, our demolition delay public hearing process shall be commenced. So if the owner (or subsequent owner) were to file again for a demolition permit application for the structure, it would require the demolition delay public hearing process.
>
> Jonathan Barnes
> Reading Historical Commission
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Moore, Coreen <CMoore at townofbourne.com <mailto:CMoore at townofbourne.com>> wrote:
>
> Great conversation, let me ask this, if the building is deemed not significant, the next time they come for a building permit do you send them back for historic review?
>
> <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: Dennis De Witt [mailto:djd184 at verizon.net <mailto:djd184 at verizon.net>]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 3:32 PM
> To: Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>>; MHC list <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>
> Cc: 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>>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demo Delays
>
> Below is the relevant section of Brookline’s Rules & Regs. If the stay is lifted based on a proposed design, the conditions include construction to a stamped set of drawings which the Building Commissioner can enforce. This includes partial demos.
>
> Dennis De Witt
>
> Brookline
>
> Section 6. Mitigation; Lifting of Stay of Demolition.
> If the applicant wishes to more quickly lift the stay of demolition of a building that has been deemed significant, the applicant may submit its plans for the use and improvement of the property after demolition to the Commission for its review and approval or in the alternative offer to mitigate the effects of demolition in some other way, including without limitation photographing the building, or preserving on site or elsewhere some of its architectural features or benefiting some other Historic Resource. If the Commission, which may recommend changes, finds the proposal acceptable, and the Commission and the applicant are able to agree in writing upon whatever stipulations may be necessary to ensure that the proposal will be carried out as planned, the Commission shall advise the Building Commissioner in writing to the effect that it is satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood that the building can be preserved, restored, rehabilitated or moved. At any time after receiving such written advice, the Building Commissioner may issue a Demolition Permit for a Significant Building, subject to such stipulations and pre-conditions, if any, as the Commission and the applicant may have agreed upon as mitigation for the demolition.
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Roughan, Michael <Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com <mailto:Michael.Roughan at hdrinc.com>> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> <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: 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=1547584315-LWWvaSqXMU1A&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>
>
>
>
>
> 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=1547673971-d-FtSEI4V6i7&r_address=cmoore%40townofbourne.com&report=1> to report this email as spam.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20190117/9670da7b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list