[MassHistPres] Demolition delay success?

[annelusk at gmail.com]

Ralph,

   I fully agree with the demolition delay and that the added time gives neighbors the time to organize.  We were organized, even with only the year demolition delay,  but we had to have 80% of the owners of the cottages agree to the LHD.  I don’t know of any other community in Massachusetts that imposes the 80% rule.  

Anne 

 

From: Michael Roughan <historychair at hopkintonma.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:58 AM
To: annelusk at gmail.com
Cc: Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu>; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition delay success?

 

Anne,

 

As Dennis DeWitt inferred, the most powerful component of the demo delay is time. In Hopkinton, a developer wanted to tear down the Aaron & Lucy Claflin House, a structure that was an Inn during the Revolutionary War where the Mass Militia met and purportedly George Washington visited. While Hopkinton only had a 6 month Demo Delay at the time, during that brief period, the town residents were able to get a petition together to get a single structure LHD on the town meeting warrant. 

Not only did the town enact an LHD for the Claflin House but they agreed to an extension of the Demo Delay Bylaw to 18 months. The reason this was important is that any future potential demolition may not have as fortuitous timing in regard to Town Meeting which is required for enacting an LHD. The 18 month period allows concerned citizens enough time to publish the importance of preservation and to create a timely but not necessarily expedited process to secure permanent protection for the threatened structure.

 

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:07 AM Anne Lusk via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> > wrote:

Ralph,

  Thanks for this information. Brookline required us to have 80% of the owners in the LHD approve the LHD and some rent their cottage and live elsewhere while other cottage owners would not be considered high income.  https://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25192/Draft-SR_Harts-Content?bidId=

Anne 

 

Anne Lusk, Ph.D. 

18 Hart Street, Brookline, MA 02445 

Boston University Metropolitan College Lecturer – Urban Agriculture

617-879-4887 h

617-872-9201 c

 <https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4436> https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4436

 

 

 

 

From: Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu <mailto:slater at alum.rpi.edu> > 
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:48 PM
To: annelusk at gmail.com <mailto:annelusk at gmail.com> ; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> 
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition delay success?

 

Hi Anne --

There is no legal requirement for a property owner to say "yes" to a LHD. Although the city council does consider the perspective of the property owners, it has created single-property LHDs over the objections of the owners who are under demo delay, given the importance of the buildings.

Another thing to know is that Springfield sees virtually zero redevelopment, so most of the time someone wants to demolish a building, it is because the owner just doesn't want to maintain the building anymore, or wants a parking lot.

Ralph Slate
Springfield MA

On 9/25/2023 3:38 PM, annelusk at gmail.com <mailto:annelusk at gmail.com>  wrote:

Ralph,

   For your LHDs, what was the percentage of property owners in the district who had to say “yes” for the LHD to go forward?  

Thanks,

Anne

 

Anne Lusk, Ph.D. 

18 Hart Street, Brookline, MA 02445 

Boston University Metropolitan College Lecturer – Urban Agriculture

617-879-4887 h

617-872-9201 c

 <https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4436> https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4436

 

From: MassHistPres  <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Ralph Slate via MassHistPres
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:58 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> 
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Demolition delay success?

 

Here are some in Springfield:

* 151 Chestnut St., the Wilys Overland building. Owner proposed demolition, historical commission delayed it, and created a local historic district preventing it from being demolished without approval. Owner sold the building to a developer who created the Overland Lofts apartments, project is completed and occupied.

* 270-274 Liberty Street, the Thomas Wason House. Owner proposed demolition, I, along with another member of the Springfield Historical Commission, met with the owner, told him of the building's history, he changed his tune and instead voluntarily got it listed on the National Register and had a Local Historic District created.

* 88 Birnie Ave. Former Atlas Motor Car company, an early American auto manufacturer. Owner proposed demolition because he thought an empty lot would be more marketable than an old building. During the delay period the owner found a buyer who wanted the building, it was redeveloped and is currently in use as a UHaul self-storage facility.

* 55 Emery St., the National Needle building. New owner proposed demolition, supposedly to build a hotel. During the delay a local historic district was created, blocking demolition. Property sat vacant for a few years, but is now being redeveloped into - wait for it - a self-storage facility.

The issues we have had are:

* Sometimes there are forces at play which undermine our process. We had one large building go down (Hendy Chocolate company) because "the demo application never got sent to the historical commission". We also had someone change the date in our GIS system so that a 1840 building suddenly became a 1950 building and didn't qualify anymore, and then it just disappeared, no prior notice - can't prove who changed the record though. 

* I suspect that some savvy building owners have preemptively demolished their buildings when they were approaching our 100-year cutoff for delay. 

* There is nothing in our process that ties future use to the lifting of the delay. In one instance, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield came to us to lift the demolition order on a church. We lifted it, part of the reason that people voted yes was because he said that they were going to build a smaller, more sustainable church in its place. Right after it was demolished, they "changed their mind", no new church built, and old church gone. The lot is vacant.

* Our delay is 9 months, which is barely enough time to get a LHD created. The city has become more resistant to helping with the LHD process due to the time and effort it takes to get through it. I think 12 months would be a lot better.


Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA



On 9/25/2023 1:35 PM, Courtney Meyer via MassHistPres wrote:

Hi all, 

 

Our Historical Commission is considering instituting a demolition delay bylaw. Does anyone have success stories in buildings they've saved as a result of a demolition delay? Or any pros/cons folks would like to share about the process?

 

Thanks!

 

Courtney Meyer

Hadley Historical Commission


 

-- 

Today's Children, Tomorrow's World
www.theglobalchild.org <http://www.theglobalchild.org> 





_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu> 
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

 

 

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu> 
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

 

 

 

  _____  

All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law <http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm> .

 

Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov <http://www.hopkintonma.gov> .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230926/ad4c825c/attachment-0001.html>