On May 27th, the Newton Historical Commission discussed 29 Greenwood Street in Oak Hill, the nationally and locally landmarked eighteenth century home that was demolished by a developer. The discussion was open for public comment and about twenty members of the public spoke, revealing anger and sadness that this piece of Newton’s history has been illegally obliterated. Members of the Commission challenged the explanations given by the developer’s Counsel and the sense of the Commission was that the developer needed to be fined the maximum financial penalty allowed by State regulations ($300/day from April 27, 2021, until rectified) and further punished for his misdeeds. The Commission voted to keep in place the “Stop Work Order” that had been imposed on April 27, 2021. They also voted to allow the developer to protect the remaining pieces of the original structure with tarpaulins. Many of the removed pieces had already been carted away in dumpsters and no inventory or cataloging of removed objects had been done. The Commission determined that allowing the developer onsite would require a member of the City Staff or a member of the Historical Commission to witness that activity. They then responded to the developer’s Counsel’s request to allow the developer to bring a plan for replacing the structure to the Commission with their own decision that the Commission would meet with the Law Department in Executive Session to present their own mitigation plan to the developer.
Where does this leave Newton and what are the penalty arrows in the Commission’s quiver? Under the present regulations, state law allows a maximum $300/day fine. N.B.: Clearly that decades-old maximum fine needs to be adjusted to the vicinity of $1,000/day with a COLA clause. If it doesn’t hurt, it won’t be effective as a deterrent to undesired, illegal behavior. Since this developer spent $1,150,000 for the property and advertised its sale at $4,200,000, a $50,000 fine would be pocket change to him (Example: 165 days at $300/day is $49,500). But that cannot be changed for the present case.
The Commission will need to be advised by the Law Department as to what remedies it can impose under the present regulations. They can take it to the Courts to pursue a determination for equitable mitigation. Perhaps the developer can be banned from further work in Newton. Perhaps the property can be confiscated from the developer and entered into a conservatorship to replace the structure with proper architectural detail and then opened for public display.
But, as a murder victim’s family can never receive the justice of resurrection, so Newton has suffered the irreplaceable loss of the second oldest piece of its history. There seems to be no readily available playbook for this tragedy.
(To be continued when the penalties are applied. While the development community will be watching this closely, Newton residents should be aware of and demand the resolve of the City to protect its history from this egregious type of behavior.)
To be certain, the present regulation of landmarked properties needs teeth. The regulation should demand that:
1. Anytime a builder/developer receives a partial demolition permit for a landmarked property, of which only twenty-some currently exist, a designated representative from Inspectional Services should be on site during all construction/demolition activity to monitor the allowable partial demolition limit. The cost for such monitoring should be borne by the builder/developer. As soon as a problem becomes evident, the City’s representatives could work out a solution to mitigate further decay and to promote proper restoration.
2. Anytime a builder/developer requests a partial demolition permit, he/she should be required to pay for a bond attesting to his/her “innocence” in prior demolition controversies in Massachusetts, and his/her intent to follow the limits of the then current City regulation for partial demolition permits. If there is non-performance, this bond should cover restoration expenses and the developer should be ejected from further work on the site and in the City.
3. No builder/developer should be allowed to enter into an agreement that allows any real estate entity to advertise “new construction” on the site of a landmarked property without also advertising the historical nature of the property whose interior is being updated and expanded.
4. Any builder/developer holding a Partial Demolition Permit for a landmarked property who is deemed to have demolished the historical structure without regard to its historical importance, shall have his property seized by the City under “eminent domain” and shall be ejected from the site and banned from working in Newton for ten years. Such property shall become the property of the City of Newton.
I completely agree. I hope the city takes swift and firm action to preserve what is remaining. Under the current regulations contractors know that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. This contractor and any like them need to be made an example of and penalized to the full extent of the law. The article proposes $1,000 a day fine which would still be a mirror drop in the bucket. The contractor should suffer a huge loss, not a profit. That is the only way to deter them from doing this again. Banning them from the city does not go far enough, because contractors often reopen under another name.
Sallee, the numbers are sad. Closing the barn door after the horses escape. I love your recommendations for the future bc greed knows no bounds. Will those in Newton who can enact your recommendations have the gumption to follow through? Stay tuned.
I’m totally sympathetic to concerns about losing these marvelous structures.
I recall that when the original demolition ordinance was being considered the Law Dept had concerns about how much the city could restrict the behavior of developers and owners. I think it had to do with how much you could limit a private owner’s use of their property. Thus, the ordinance mainly provided for a delay in the hope that the delay would cause people to reconsider demolition.
I wonder what their view is now. Do they believe, for example, that the kinds of recommendations Sallee proposes would pass legal muster?
Even $1000/day is a questionable deterrent. In the current market conditions, 365 grand can easily be a worthwhile amount to spend for being able to build whatever you want and sell it a year earlier.
I believe the penalties for landmarked properties are different. Also, this wasn’t a demolition delay for a year for a”preferably preserved” property. It was a good faith permission to remove a portion of the structure to expand it. The developer simply decided to go way beyond that permission.
Who was the developer? Was there a Special Permit?
The process for a landmarked property to be renovated/expanded is to go in front of the Newton Historical Commission to get plans approved. No special permit. No public hearing. But I believe abutters are notified. Maybe also abutters to abutters. This developer received approval to remove back wall to put on addition. When he found termite eaten beams, he didn’t return to Inspectional Services for remediation planning. Instead he knocked whole house, including historic chimney, down.
It’s sickening to think that this irreplaceable historic treasure was constructed more than three decades before the American Revolution, yet was apparently destroyed by the developer in less than a single day. It’s highly unlikely (probably impossible) that anything of substance can be reconstructed. Once something like this is gone, it’s never coming back. Tragic
$1M purchase price with expected sale price of 4M is VERY VERY impressive. Is there a link to the $4M sale price? Usually we see tear downs purchased for 750k and resold for 1.8M.
This is one of the best profitable flips I’ve seen (if it sells).
Looking at their permit #20070259, shows estimated construction cost of only 475k. This is an obscene profit of approx 2M
permit lookup: https://apps.newtonma.gov/egovplus
A few years ago (3 maybe?) a property designed ‘preferably preserved with a demolition delay of one year’ was then approved for an addition in the back, involving the demolition of a back wall. This was not a Landmarked property but an old house with beautiful large arched windows. The developer who knocked down the whole house was fined $300/day until his plans for a rebuild were approved. The house has been for sale for at least one year and a half for $ 6 million.
Obviously, this system does not work. I like Sallee’s ideas.
If I were running for City Council, I would run on Sallee’s proposal and ask her to be my campaign manager.
There seems to be a new trend where one owner/developer will secure a demo permit on a historically significant property and the sell the property to include the demo permit. In this case is was especially egregious or bold as they were actually marketing the property to include the permit. I would add this to Sallee’s proposal. Specifically, when a property is sold that has demo plans that have been previously approved by the Historical Commission (HC), the approval and permit should not convey. The new owner should be required to present to the HC
@Bob: I would be delighted to be your campaign manager. I can’t think of any platform on which you would run that I wouldn’t whole-heartedly support! When shall we start!!!
@Claire. I accept your wise suggestion.
@Sallee. Thanks, but I must have been having a real senior moment when I made this statement because I wanted to say it was you who should be on the CC. My “sell by” date expired some years back.
@Bob: You fail to notice that “Sage” is an anagram for “Ages”! No expiration date on wisdom and experience exists.
Amy Sangiolo, candidate for Mayor, will be hosting a discussion on Monda, October 11. Register here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0tfuGvrzkiE9AM6xtwOq7D-NgX8pCNpHSF
29 Greenwood is back before the NHC tonight. I am reposting a message regarding this that went out a list serve of people who oppose allowing this developer to get away with this:
The 277-year-old Gershom Hyde home was destroyed one year ago. It was one of 26 Landmark properties (of 35,000) in Newton. After 6 months of wrangling with Ty Gupt, the developer, the Newton Historical Commission voted “NAY” (6-0) to deny him any right to proceed on October 28.
Apparently no matter. The CITY is ready to cede our history, and the tangible heritage we try to protect, to the greed of an aberrant developer tmoro night at the NHC hearing.
The absolute essence of this debacle is that this developer, without any authority, permission or shame, broke the Law of the City’s Landmark Ordinance and destroyed a 277-year-old LANDMARK property. No other claim bears any relevance to the NHC’s October 28th decision. PERIOD!
The City must demand that the history we declare as exceptional be protected to the full extent of the law, now and always.
This is not a local Ward 8 issue. It is a city-wide issue. If the NHC overturns its earlier ruling, developers can run roughshod over all historic properties, and Newton will have good cause to wonder whether the City will protect anything.
PLEASE TAKE 5 MINUTES – NOW – to write the following individuals expressing your sentiments on allowing this despicable developer to try to profit off of his greediness and our grave loss.
TO: NHC: [email protected]
cc: Mayor Fuller: [email protected]
Newton City Council: [email protected]
Thank you,
Stephen Farrell