[MassHistPres] Demolition delay success?

[Dennis De Witt]

To be clear, historically certain Brookline Town meeting members have asserted an 80% property owner “buy in” rule of thumb — which has been useful.  Efforts that which meet that expectation generally pass in Town Meeting.

It is not part of Brookline’s LHD bylaw nor the Commission's rulemaking.

Dennis De Witt  

> On Sep 26, 2023, at 12:07 PM, Anne Lusk via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto:historychair at hopkintonma.gov>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 8:58 AM
> To: annelusk at gmail.com <mailto:annelusk at gmail.com>
> Cc: Ralph Slate <slater at alum.rpi.edu <mailto:slater at alum.rpi.edu>>; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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
>>>  
>>> From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> <mailto: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/>.
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230926/0ad8bb1f/attachment-0001.html>