Demolition delays on historic properties will now restart whenever the property changes owners, the Newton TAB reports.
Newton City Council alters rules for demolishing historic homes
by Village 14 | Apr 6, 2016 | Newton | 32 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Love it when the council o’ 24 misses a loophole with their amendments. Cheryl Lappin was onto it in the first step, fortunately they completely missed it and will not realize the unintended consequence triggering violation of state reg. As one who has experience in authoring state reg, loopholes might inadvertently be integrated; or sometimes intentionally. Let’s see if they do..
Love it when the council o’ 24 misses a loophole with their amendments. Cheryl Lappin was onto it in the first step, fortunately they completely missed it and will not realize the unintended consequence triggering violation of state reg. As one who has experience in authoring state reg, loopholes might inadvertently be integrated; or sometimes intentionally. Let’s see if they do..
I don’t understand why properties over 50 years old are considered historic. Historic preservation includes houses built in the 60’s?
I don’t understand why properties over 50 years old are considered historic. Historic preservation includes houses built in the 60’s?
Harry…would you please explain the loophole, Cheryl Lappin’s awareness of it and the violation of state regs. and the unintended consequences?
Harry…would you please explain the loophole, Cheryl Lappin’s awareness of it and the violation of state regs. and the unintended consequences?
Harry, please don’t keep us in suspense; tell us where the gang o’ 24 went wrong.
Gail, I don’t like being older than some houses that are considered “historic” but, in fact, there are examples of various styles of “modern” architecture built in the 1950s and 1960s that may be preferably preserved. (Calling it “modern architecture” takes the sting out of it being historic at age 50 years, at least for me.) And 50 years is a benchmark for demolition delay ordinances in Massachusetts and elsewhere, which is why Newton uses it. But not all houses that are 50 years old are preferably preserved and, indeed, many are administratively determined not to be historic by the historic preservation planner and do not go through a demolition review by the historic commission.
Demolition delay ordinances and bylaws are intended to protect historic buildings by giving property owners time to consider alternatives to demolishing preferably preserved buildings, such as renovating or rehabilitating the existing building, seeking historic preservation funds (e.g., CPA grants) or tax credits, or moving the house to another property. The demolition delay for a building that is found to be “preferably preserved” is 12 months–18 months if the building is included of the National Register of Historic Places. Not everyone takes advantage of the time allotted and many simply wait out the delay. Others, however, seek approval of their plans to renovate or replace their houses and obtain a waiver of the delay.
A main purpose of this amendment was to strengthen the incentive for buyers, whether they are builders or developers or not, to come before the historic commission with their plans to renovate or replace the existing house and ask for a waiver. Under the historic commission’s rules, after four months of a demolition delay, the applicant can seek approval of their building plans and ask for a waiver of the 12 or 18 month demolition delay. Currently, buyers often include a condition in the purchase and sale agreement requiring the seller to apply for a demolition permit in order to “start the clock” running on the demolition delay period. This frustrates the purpose of the demolition delay, however, which is to protect and preserve historic buildings that do not have landmark status but are nevertheless “preferably preserved” due to their historic nature.
Councilor Lipof, who voted against the amendment, actually gave an example of how well this can work. When he went through demolition review, he brought in his plans to replace his existing single story house with a two story house and received approval and a waiver of the demolition delay. The house he wanted to build, instead of just adding a story on top, was more like some of the other two-story houses on his street. The historic commission approved his plans because the members preferred the design to the alternative of “raising the roof,” which neither preserved the historic character of the existing house nor was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
The other purpose of the amendment was to discourage the filing of “prospective” demolition applications, which I know many real estate agents recommend when sellers puts their houses on the market in Newton. This is intended to make the house more marketable to developers and builders who simply want to tear the house down and replace it with something bigger (and not necessarily better). At least a third of these applicants never end up demolishing the house, presumably because it is sold to a buyer who is not interested in tearing the house down. That is a waste of valuable time and resources, not only for the city staff–who spend 4 hours or more on each application researching the house and preparing a report and recommendation for the commission–but also for the members of the historic commission who spend many hours reviewing those reports and sitting in meetings. I would also note that city personnel already staff four local historic district commissions (Upper Falls, Chestnut Hill, Auburndale and Newtonville), and residents of Newton Highlands, Waban and West Newton Hill are all seeking to establish more local historic districts that will require staff time and resources.
I do not expect anyone to be fully satisfied with this amendment. It will not “fix” the problem of tear downs in Newton, nor is it intended to. Indeed, I agree with some of the opponents of this amendment who say that renewal of the existing housing stock is not only inevitable but may also be desirable, particularly when the existing buildings do not meet modern requirements or are badly in need of expensive repairs. Rather, this amendment is intended to strike a better balance between the rights of property owners and the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting and preserving historic buildings in our community. It may also level the playing field between buyers who want to live in existing houses and those who want to demolish and replace them for profit.
Harry, please don’t keep us in suspense; tell us where the gang o’ 24 went wrong.
Gail, I don’t like being older than some houses that are considered “historic” but, in fact, there are examples of various styles of “modern” architecture built in the 1950s and 1960s that may be preferably preserved. (Calling it “modern architecture” takes the sting out of it being historic at age 50 years, at least for me.) And 50 years is a benchmark for demolition delay ordinances in Massachusetts and elsewhere, which is why Newton uses it. But not all houses that are 50 years old are preferably preserved and, indeed, many are administratively determined not to be historic by the historic preservation planner and do not go through a demolition review by the historic commission.
Demolition delay ordinances and bylaws are intended to protect historic buildings by giving property owners time to consider alternatives to demolishing preferably preserved buildings, such as renovating or rehabilitating the existing building, seeking historic preservation funds (e.g., CPA grants) or tax credits, or moving the house to another property. The demolition delay for a building that is found to be “preferably preserved” is 12 months–18 months if the building is included of the National Register of Historic Places. Not everyone takes advantage of the time allotted and many simply wait out the delay. Others, however, seek approval of their plans to renovate or replace their houses and obtain a waiver of the delay.
A main purpose of this amendment was to strengthen the incentive for buyers, whether they are builders or developers or not, to come before the historic commission with their plans to renovate or replace the existing house and ask for a waiver. Under the historic commission’s rules, after four months of a demolition delay, the applicant can seek approval of their building plans and ask for a waiver of the 12 or 18 month demolition delay. Currently, buyers often include a condition in the purchase and sale agreement requiring the seller to apply for a demolition permit in order to “start the clock” running on the demolition delay period. This frustrates the purpose of the demolition delay, however, which is to protect and preserve historic buildings that do not have landmark status but are nevertheless “preferably preserved” due to their historic nature.
Councilor Lipof, who voted against the amendment, actually gave an example of how well this can work. When he went through demolition review, he brought in his plans to replace his existing single story house with a two story house and received approval and a waiver of the demolition delay. The house he wanted to build, instead of just adding a story on top, was more like some of the other two-story houses on his street. The historic commission approved his plans because the members preferred the design to the alternative of “raising the roof,” which neither preserved the historic character of the existing house nor was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
The other purpose of the amendment was to discourage the filing of “prospective” demolition applications, which I know many real estate agents recommend when sellers puts their houses on the market in Newton. This is intended to make the house more marketable to developers and builders who simply want to tear the house down and replace it with something bigger (and not necessarily better). At least a third of these applicants never end up demolishing the house, presumably because it is sold to a buyer who is not interested in tearing the house down. That is a waste of valuable time and resources, not only for the city staff–who spend 4 hours or more on each application researching the house and preparing a report and recommendation for the commission–but also for the members of the historic commission who spend many hours reviewing those reports and sitting in meetings. I would also note that city personnel already staff four local historic district commissions (Upper Falls, Chestnut Hill, Auburndale and Newtonville), and residents of Newton Highlands, Waban and West Newton Hill are all seeking to establish more local historic districts that will require staff time and resources.
I do not expect anyone to be fully satisfied with this amendment. It will not “fix” the problem of tear downs in Newton, nor is it intended to. Indeed, I agree with some of the opponents of this amendment who say that renewal of the existing housing stock is not only inevitable but may also be desirable, particularly when the existing buildings do not meet modern requirements or are badly in need of expensive repairs. Rather, this amendment is intended to strike a better balance between the rights of property owners and the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting and preserving historic buildings in our community. It may also level the playing field between buyers who want to live in existing houses and those who want to demolish and replace them for profit.
“Level the playing field”…good one!
The end result of demolition delays is to increase the value of McMansions (of which there will now be a limited supply) and decrease the value of older properties, which are now imposed with restrictions which limiting their use.
Hey, Council: your constituents with properties worth $2 million-plus can’t thank you enough for your generosity toward them. Don’t worry that it comes directly at the expense of your constituents with homes worth $800,000 or less (and their families).
Just as an aside, if anybody thinks the 20th Century housing stock in Newton, or anywhere else in suburban Boston, is at all attractive or worthy of preservation, then you really need to get out and see the world. But we thank you for imposing your sophisticated and inspired aesthetic sensibilities on the rest of us philistines.
“Level the playing field”…good one!
The end result of demolition delays is to increase the value of McMansions (of which there will now be a limited supply) and decrease the value of older properties, which are now imposed with restrictions which limiting their use.
Hey, Council: your constituents with properties worth $2 million-plus can’t thank you enough for your generosity toward them. Don’t worry that it comes directly at the expense of your constituents with homes worth $800,000 or less (and their families).
Just as an aside, if anybody thinks the 20th Century housing stock in Newton, or anywhere else in suburban Boston, is at all attractive or worthy of preservation, then you really need to get out and see the world. But we thank you for imposing your sophisticated and inspired aesthetic sensibilities on the rest of us philistines.
There are lots of people who value mid century homes throughout the world.
http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-1180-3y4ymf/mid-century-modern-in-a-magical-setting-cos-cob-ct-06807
There are lots of people who value mid century homes throughout the world.
http://www.sothebysrealty.com/eng/sales/detail/180-l-1180-3y4ymf/mid-century-modern-in-a-magical-setting-cos-cob-ct-06807
The apparent loophole is that, although it will be no longer be possible to transfer the demolition delay, a demolition permit itself is transferable, and is valid for two years from issuance. Demolition permits, in contrast to building permits, cost next-to-nothing.
What this means is that a homeowner with a little foresight can still make a property more appealing to a developer. It doesn’t much help a family selling the estate of a deceased elderly relative, however.
The apparent loophole is that, although it will be no longer be possible to transfer the demolition delay, a demolition permit itself is transferable, and is valid for two years from issuance. Demolition permits, in contrast to building permits, cost next-to-nothing.
What this means is that a homeowner with a little foresight can still make a property more appealing to a developer. It doesn’t much help a family selling the estate of a deceased elderly relative, however.
@Robert, we discussed the issues concerning elders and estate planning in committee. We were assured by the city’s historic preservation planner that the Historic Commission could deal with those issues when they arise so as to avoid imposing any undue hardship.
While it is true that “a homeowner with a little foresight can still make a property more appealing to a developer,” that was also to allow some flexibility for estate planning by elders and others as well as homeowners who have long term plans to downsize or move away.
I anticipate that there may be a spate of homeowners coming in for demolition permits prior to the effective date of the amendment to the demolition delay ordinance.
If the amendment does not work as intended, or has unintended adverse consequences, the city council can certainly revisit the issue.
@Robert, we discussed the issues concerning elders and estate planning in committee. We were assured by the city’s historic preservation planner that the Historic Commission could deal with those issues when they arise so as to avoid imposing any undue hardship.
While it is true that “a homeowner with a little foresight can still make a property more appealing to a developer,” that was also to allow some flexibility for estate planning by elders and others as well as homeowners who have long term plans to downsize or move away.
I anticipate that there may be a spate of homeowners coming in for demolition permits prior to the effective date of the amendment to the demolition delay ordinance.
If the amendment does not work as intended, or has unintended adverse consequences, the city council can certainly revisit the issue.
While that is true, it minimizes the effectiveness of developers’ blanket mailings to owners with offers to buy their property without inspections fully intending to tear them down. It stops impulse selling for a while.
While that is true, it minimizes the effectiveness of developers’ blanket mailings to owners with offers to buy their property without inspections fully intending to tear them down. It stops impulse selling for a while.
I appreciate the thinking that has gone into this. I see both sides. I love our historic homes and neighborhoods. I tend to err on the side of history. But my elderly neighbors (and watching them age in place and wondering how best to help them with transitions) has also made me realize how important their home can be as a nest egg.
I not exactly sure who this will effect yet. The properties that are clear teardowns are still clear teardowns. (small house on large lot where new house is worth 3 times old house). Go around the Zervais school to see how many new homes are on those streets. Developers having to carry an acquisition price for an extra year is a large opportunity cost, but small monetary cost. So this might hit the smaller developers, but the well-capatilized ones will simply increase the cost of the homes in their current pipeline, stretch out their pipeline for a year for new acquisitions, and offer a bit less to sellers. Delay will certainly occur, but nothing really changes, except less money to the seller, and additional costs to the buyer.
Interest rates go up, this game gets a lot harder. Carrying costs increase.
Not sure what else this does. For the next year or so we’ll see fewer teardowns, and then we’ll see a bunch more.
I appreciate the thinking that has gone into this. I see both sides. I love our historic homes and neighborhoods. I tend to err on the side of history. But my elderly neighbors (and watching them age in place and wondering how best to help them with transitions) has also made me realize how important their home can be as a nest egg.
I not exactly sure who this will effect yet. The properties that are clear teardowns are still clear teardowns. (small house on large lot where new house is worth 3 times old house). Go around the Zervais school to see how many new homes are on those streets. Developers having to carry an acquisition price for an extra year is a large opportunity cost, but small monetary cost. So this might hit the smaller developers, but the well-capatilized ones will simply increase the cost of the homes in their current pipeline, stretch out their pipeline for a year for new acquisitions, and offer a bit less to sellers. Delay will certainly occur, but nothing really changes, except less money to the seller, and additional costs to the buyer.
Interest rates go up, this game gets a lot harder. Carrying costs increase.
Not sure what else this does. For the next year or so we’ll see fewer teardowns, and then we’ll see a bunch more.
A demolition delay would have only been fair (and effective) if it had been implemented 10 to 15 years ago. At this point, it becomes an issue of “I’ve got mine so you can’t have yours.” This is a regressive and ineffective policy if ever there was one.
A demolition delay would have only been fair (and effective) if it had been implemented 10 to 15 years ago. At this point, it becomes an issue of “I’ve got mine so you can’t have yours.” This is a regressive and ineffective policy if ever there was one.
Michael, the demolition delay ordinance has been around for 30 years. The only change the City Council made was to make the delay period non-transferrable. This was because more recently real estate agents have been advising sellers to apply for demolition permits to start the clock on the demolition delay when they had no intention of actually demolishing their homes. This praactice frustrated the purpose of the demolition delay and at least a third of the time it ended up being a waste of city staff’s and the historic commission’s resources and time, because the homeowner never pulled a demolition permit.
Michael, the demolition delay ordinance has been around for 30 years. The only change the City Council made was to make the delay period non-transferrable. This was because more recently real estate agents have been advising sellers to apply for demolition permits to start the clock on the demolition delay when they had no intention of actually demolishing their homes. This praactice frustrated the purpose of the demolition delay and at least a third of the time it ended up being a waste of city staff’s and the historic commission’s resources and time, because the homeowner never pulled a demolition permit.
Thanks Ted, I learn something new every day.
So would it be safe to say that the demolition delay ordinance has had just about zero impact on the number of teardowns over the last 30 years, other than to act as a minor annoyance?
Thanks Ted, I learn something new every day.
So would it be safe to say that the demolition delay ordinance has had just about zero impact on the number of teardowns over the last 30 years, other than to act as a minor annoyance?
@Michael, I think it’s fair to say that the demolition delay has had an effect, and will do so even more in future. If the Historic Commission puts its foot down and refuses a waiver of the delay, a developer will be held up for 12 months, tying up capital.
@Michael, I think it’s fair to say that the demolition delay has had an effect, and will do so even more in future. If the Historic Commission puts its foot down and refuses a waiver of the delay, a developer will be held up for 12 months, tying up capital.
@Robert, in that case the goal would be to transform the demolition delay from minor annoyance to a genuine impediment to tearing down an older house. And that would be extremely unfair and regressive. I’m not necessarily opposed to efforts to ‘maintain neighborhood character,’ but that should have been done 15 years ago before the Cindy Stumpos of the world came along. At this point, market intervention is much too late and only penalizes middle-class families who’ve been here for decades.
@Robert, in that case the goal would be to transform the demolition delay from minor annoyance to a genuine impediment to tearing down an older house. And that would be extremely unfair and regressive. I’m not necessarily opposed to efforts to ‘maintain neighborhood character,’ but that should have been done 15 years ago before the Cindy Stumpos of the world came along. At this point, market intervention is much too late and only penalizes middle-class families who’ve been here for decades.
@Michael, I have some sympathy for your position. I myself had to go through the whole Historic Commission process when we rebuilt our house. We eventually did get a waiver of the delay, but we did not count on being held up for what was a very unremarkable and sub-standard colonial house.
@Michael, I have some sympathy for your position. I myself had to go through the whole Historic Commission process when we rebuilt our house. We eventually did get a waiver of the delay, but we did not count on being held up for what was a very unremarkable and sub-standard colonial house.