Historic landmarking is the highest level of historic preservation and places significant restrictions on what a building owner can do to the property that extends far beyond cosmetic changes. But one day after taking office, City Councilor Julia Malakie filed a “urgent” request to landmark buildings in West Newton without even meeting with the building owners in advance.
Now, the Globe’s John Hilliard is reporting that the City Council “is due Monday to decide whether to temporarily suspend the ability of city councilors and the Historical Commission to nominate properties as landmarks while it updates the rule. (The mayor, director of planning and development, and commissioner of inspectional services would still be able to nominate landmarks.)”
If I recall correctly, some of the mid-century (1950’s…) houses on Councilor Malakie’s original list don’t seem to merit whatsoever saving from demolition. But as regards the older buildings near West Newton Square (e.g., pictured with the Globe online piece), IMHO they do merit preservation, and if there’s redevelopment, hopefully they’re incorporated within that development. (Of course as regards the historic buildings with ugly added first floor facades, those facades should be removed/put back in the original style.)
We should all cherish and strive to protect the properties that reflect Newton’s history and sense of place.
But our current landmark process needs thoughtful modifications so it’s really about designating the most special properties in the city, not employed for ulterior motives.
Here’s the entire list of landmarked properties in Newton. As you can see it’s pretty short and deliberative, as it should be.
I disagree with you on this one Greg. That list of landmarks isn’t enough. It is missing buildings in each village that should be protected. In Newtonville I’d include the senior center building and the Masonic Hall buildings. I’m surprised that the CVS and Sweet tomatoes building in West Newton aren’t already protected.
This feels like an overreaction to strip the commission of the right to nominate.
I’m not ant-development by any means. But erase all of those buildings from west newton and replace them with 5 story new construction. That’s a vastly different village center.
The real estate office and the funeral home are certainly historic in nature, but absent greater historic significant I doubt any of them could be listed federally on the National Register.
I would advise our city council to tread lightly hear. Measure twice cut once.
@Fig: I think you’re misinterpreting my position. I’ve never said I was opposed to any landmarking or the need to preserve our heritage. What I object to is a process that allows one city councilor to file an “urgent” request without ever having a conversation with the owner. From Hilliard’s article:
So why file an “urgent” request, which gave the property owner 14 days to find a lawyer, study up on the landmark rules, and then plea their case before the Historial Commission?
We, and particularly you Fig, rightly talk about civility on this blog. How is that civil?
So again, yes we need a landmarking process. Yes some properties deserve this designation.
But this process needs modification. Not elimination. Modification.
That’s all I’m advocating for.
All Councilor Malakie did was to nominate certain properties in parts of West Newton for landmark status. The state and local approval procedures to bring any of these proposed properties to landmark status are long and laborious. The Secretary of State’s office told me today that a clear majority of submissions don’t make it all the way through. What Councilor Malakie has proposed hardly makes any of this a “done deal”.
Thanks @Greg. This seems to be a solution in search of a crisis.
Since 2010, the City has landmarked 6 properties. And, Mr. Hilliard’s article suggests the
City’s landmark review process is working. Only two of Councilor Malakie’s
nominations – both on the National Historic Register – were approved for landmark
consideration. Two were rejected and the NHC asked for additional information on the
remaining 3 indicating that the Commissioners still need to be convinced.
One interesting observation from the Jan 27th City Council Zoning and Planning (ZAP)
Committee public hearing on the moratorium was a suggestion from Councilor Danberg that the City Council should give itself the power to “un-landmark” properties.
This and other reforms may have merit but do we have to risk losing historical properties
for all time as these changes are crafted. Also, IMHO this doesn’t feel like the biggest
priority facing our City warranting the unique step of a Council moratorium being fast
tracked for a vote Monday.
@Richard: The proposed six month moratorium still gives the mayor, planning director and inspectional services director the authority to file an urgent request. Given how long it takes for projects to get off the ground here, I think that we’re pretty well protected over that period.
Also, the idea of the council’s role here is one of the things we should be considering over that time. But the notion that one councilor can make a property owner’s life hell on an “urgent” request (when they have no plans to change or sell their building) is bad pubic policy.
Many of our older buildings across Newton represent critical investments for small business owners and/or family trusts. This is their livelihood. It’s how they support their families and their retirements. They pay taxes. They deserve the same respect residents deserve.
@Greg: The request is just that, a request to the Historical Commission to review. Many of the properties that Councilor Malakie requested for review are already considered to be of historic significance – which is why they are National Register properties. You may not agree with all of the requests for local landmarking, but surely, it’s hard to disagree with those properties that are already considered of national register importance.
As far as property owner notification, they get notified when their properties are being nominated. Surely, some of these property owners knew or were on notice when they either purchased the properties or have owned their properties over the years, that they were considered to be of some substantial historical significance once they were designated National Register properties.
So why not
(a) have a conversation with the owners before filing an “urgent” request to determine if it really needs to be “urgent”?
And
(B) change the rules so an owner has more than 14 days to defend their investment?
Why not, as you rightly remind us Amy “be kind”?
Owners are informed by the City when a nomination has been made –
“urgent or not”. It is not “unkind” to make a nomination. I guess it depends on what or who you are protecting with the nomination. The interests of the property owner, or the property itself. Is it “unkind” when a property owner rejects nomination of their property as historic, even if it has been determined by a “higher authority” that it is worthy or historic designation?
Thanks @Greg.
You mention ‘no plans to change’. The fact is demolition delays are in effect on at least 2 of the nominated properties including one the NHC has deemed worthy of landmark consideration. Hopefully, you’re right that Mayor Fuller (or one of her direct reports) will step in if that is at risk of being lost.
In regard to (A) I offered a response to your criticism of Councilor Malakie’s ‘urgent’ request as the last comment on your prior West Newton Landmark post.
LINK: https://village14.com/2020/01/20/does-this-look-like-a-historic-landmark-to-you/#axzz6CZgQ7LYy
The Council could implement B) without a moratorium. Feels much cleaner and simpler.
Are you suggesting that ‘many of our older buildings across Newton’ are being nominated for being landmark status? Or, it is very likely to happen? If true, a moratorium would make more sense.
Greg, in the earlier thread I said I didn’t agree with the fact that the property owner wasn’t part of the process. That objection to the process I agree with. And I’m not naive, I realize that more than one thing can be true. Some of this is about historic preservation, some of it is about blocking development.
But some of the buildings in that list should be landmarked. Anything eligible for the national registry should be landmarked in my view. And not every property should be redeveloped.
I’m confused. Exactly what does “landmarking” mean? And how does that differ from “historic registration”? Or any other presumably restrictive designation?
Thanks.
Is it possible for the council to tweak the landmarking ordinance so that the owner has to be notified and agree to the designation?
I find it appalling that a total stranger can landmark a property without the owner agreeing to it.
From the city web site – “The Landmarks Ordinance in the City of Newton provides the highest level of protection for properties determined to be the most architecturally or historically significant in the city. ”
At the moment it is irrevocable. Once designated a landmark it can’t be undone.
Once a landmark, no substantial changes can be made to the visible exterior of the building without prior approval of the Historic Commission. Neither can it be torn down and replaced.
As one homeowner at this week’s hearing emotionally testified, ‘landmark’ status can have significant and costly implications for the home owner, particularly if/when you want to sell the property.
Protecting our most important buildings is an idea that nearly everyone can get behind. Nominating seven buildings in a few block area without the property owners’ knowledge or cooperation is far beyond the original intent of the ordinance and has never been done before.
What I would much rather see is an open and public process that more thoughtfully identifies the most architecturally or historically significant in the city. and forges a rough community consensus on which buildings those are – then proceed with landmark certification.
The current process nearly invites the landmark ordinance to be misused in ways that it was not intended for.
As the web site says this is the highest level of protection
I don’t think any property owner should wake up tomorrow and find that a neighbor has imposed serious, burdensome, and costly restrictions on their private property, and that they have two lawyer-full weeks to fend it off.
@Jerry: Really Jerry. One single person cannot “impose serious, burdensome, and costly restrictions on their private property…” There is a process. Once a nomination is made, the Newton Historical Commission – a body appointed by the Mayor will review the nomination and review the historic signficance or insignificance of the nominated property. There’s no automatic burden placed on a property that has been nominated. You make it (a nomination) sound like a scarlet letter.
After Councilor Malakie filed her “urgent” request I had conversations with two of the impacted property owners (once the city notified them because Councilor Malakie didn’t). They each said they felt the need to scramble to find legal representation who understood this process (or would spend many hours researching it) and would be available to work overtime in order to defend themselves at the next historical commission hearing, which was just 14 days away.
There’s no reason why we have to treat people this way. We need landmarking as a tool but we need to modify the process. You know, “be kind”!
I have no problem with an earlier notification to property owners. I think the same should be for abutters for people who want to do something to their property – whether it requires a special permit or by-right. Don’t you agree? Afterall, wouldn’t it “be kind” to your neighbor to let them know what you are planning to do with your property – especially if it could impact you?
Amy I think if you impose a burden on my property via a regulatory process it is different than how my neighbor is impacted by what I do on that same property. One is a direct impact, the other indirect.
I own my property my neighbor owns hers/his. We each have rights to do as we wish on said land, within certain rules set by our community. But if my neighbor asks the city to step in and restrict my property rights, it is different than if my neighbor doesn’t like my new addition built to city standards. And if I go beyond the city’s rules there is a process for public notice, no?
You are expanding the rights of the neighbor to impact my rights on my land. Your counter factual isn’t the same.
I’ll also note that everything I do on my property impacts my neighbor, from my car to my kids. If I put in a new fence on the property line I do ask my neighbor for his or her thoughts. But if I build an addition or redo my roof? No way. My land. My house. My business. If I choose to replace my porch with a slip and slide, or I choose to paint my house pink, or I follow Jerry’s guidance and show off my world class collection of inflatable pink flamingo lawn ornaments, I’d prefer my neighbor to let me make those choices with the least amount of interference possible. And I’ll do the same for her/him.
Is it too late to nominate Newton’s white elephant as a historic landmark?
As Fig is wont to say and I have adopted, “More than one thing can be true.” Facts – Some buildings on Julia’s list might need more review by the NHS, some absolutely do not and Julia’s known to be a preservationist. Many residents of Newton are preservationists, including me, and would prefer to save or incorporate any building with historical significance into a new development.
Over the years watching Julia challenge every proposed development in and around Newtonville, West Newton, Auburndale and Lower Falls using tactics that were not necessarily always ethical, in my view, I’m convinced there’s more here than just a desire to protect Newton’s historic buildings by wanting them to have landmark status.
The guidelines for establishing a building as a landmark are vague at best and the restrictions governing them are excessive for most owners. Most of the landmarked buildings now are much older than the ones Julia submitted. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/86093
In addition, if a building owner has recently gone through the complicated process with the NHC and the city and subsequently obtained a demolition delay, why should the owner be required to go through another process? If the NHC thought the building was significantly historic why issue a demolition delay rather than deny one?
The ordinances governing these processes are quite different in places and do need to be changed so they all indicate the NHC’s rules and responsibilities.
One says the NHC acts only in an advisory role to the Planning Department. Another says NHC can determine a building’s status by a 2/3 vote of the members, which I assume means a quorum must be present and another by a vote of 2/3 of the members attending the meeting.
I think the bar ought to be set incredibly high for historic preservation. If a site is deemed historically significant, it’s value should be quantifiable and a long-term plan should be in place to maintain the property and maximize its educational value.
Would John Kennedy’s birthplace in Brookline be significant if the property wasn’t preserved or maintained – If it wasn’t set up as a museum – If historians hadn’t built a program around it. I think no. – It would be just a broken down home.
In our society we loath letting go of things. But preserving buildings based on
Personally, I love West Newton just as it is and I would be OK with NO development – Yes, it would be a shame to see some of the buildings in question go. But I also love to see the new buildings going up.
Maybe there should be a separate designation – Where developers are encouraged or required to incorporate elements of old structures into the design of new structures?
What I do care about is that the buildings that do go up are beautifully designed. Architects working on these buildings should be tasked with designing buildings that will be considered architectural gems 100 years from now.
If we are going to allow iconic buildings to be torn down, developers should be required to (or subsidized) to spend the $ required to replace these structures with a groundbreaking architectural design that we can be proud of.
And this just miraculously appeared in my news feed …
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/opinion/historic-preservation-solar-panels.html
I was really surprised to learn recently that in addition to designated historic areas and specific landmarks, Newton has designated historic streets or portions of streets (e.g., Morton Street Historic District, Commonwealth Avenue Historic District). This is a little bit off topic, but I thought worth a share since the information in the link that follows was, I believe, prepared by the City or the Historical Commission, and it provides some wonderful, in depth information about Newton history and architectural styles over the years. (Well, I enjoyed it.)
https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/ccb0fdb3-5e9f-41f9-b7ee-bc5d313815a5
Curious, if your house gets designated historic (by someone else) and you have already painted the exterior a different color and added vinyl windows, etc…. do they force you to replace everything back to like original?
Maybe the best protection is to wildly renovate your exterior?
@Bugek,
That’s a great question. I don’t believe there is any requirement for a permit to paint your home, hence the approval process would not come into play. Essentially, I think that enforcement depends upon whether you need a building permit or not. Although, when I lived in the south end I do recall that only certain new windows were permitted because a limited group of manufacturers created authentic “mullions “ that were visible from street level. When you have a 4 story building with cold, leaky windows, perfect mullions are hardly your first thought!
“What I do care about is that the buildings that do go up are beautifully designed”
You can’t legislate taste.
I haven’t seen anything new that’s going up that will be considered “beautiful architecture ” in 100 years. I doubt they may even last that long before having to be torn down.
Lol.
Well Greg, I stand corrected. You CAN legislate bad taste. But not good taste.
@RickFrank ‘You can’t legislate taste’
But isn’t that exactly what we do with Zoning regulations? Historic Districts? Certificates of Appropriateness?
I think it’s unlikely that the properties described on Julia’s list as architectural gems were considered architecturally gems when they were built. I do appreciate that Julia has pointed these buildings out, but I don’t think historic preservation is equitable. In fact, I’ve seen Historic Preservation be used as a weapon used against development by NIMBYers. Historical Commissions often struggle to define the meaning of historical appropriateness – Especially when historic districts are concerned.
Maybe there is a way to encourage and incentivize developers/architects to build buildings that incorporate existing buildings into new designs or maybe we could provide design guidelines beyond zoning – A resource for architects that show architectural styles and elements that we encourage as they design new buildings for Newton.
Just thinking out loud.
Lisap, restrictions on maintenance and alterations to landmarked properties are expensive and arduous.
PLANNING FOR ALTERATIONS TO
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
One of the key first steps in planning an alteration to a historic property is developing an understanding of what makes a property important. Historic properties typically derive their significance from their architectural character and/or their historical significance as related to an association with an important individual or event.
Once it is understood why a property is defined as significant, a determination can be made whether it has historic integrity, or the ability of a property to convey its significance. Some of the aspects considered when making a determination of integrity relate to its:
• Location
• Design
• Setting
• Materials
• Workmanship • Feeling
• Association with the historic individual or event
DESIGN OF ALTERATIONS
In balancing the desire for a change to a historic property with regard to the historic integrity, the NHC/HDC encourages property owners to retain as much historic building fabric as possible. As such, the following guide can be used, listed in preferential order:
1. Maintenance
2. Repair and Replacement
3. Alterations and Renovations
4. Adaptive Reuse
5. Additions and New Constructions
Because the NHC/HDC utilizes the Guidelines in their decision-making process, it is recommended that applicants review the information in the Guidelines sections during the early stages of planning a project. Familiarity with this material can assist in moving a project forward quickly, saving both time and money.
AVAILABLE GUIDELINES
The following Guidelines were completed as part of this
project:
• Guidelines Introduction
• Guidelines for Architectural Styles
• Guidelines for Exterior Maintenance
• Guidelines for Roofing
• Guidelines for Exterior Woodwork
• Guidelines for Masonry & Stucco
• Guidelines for Windows & Doors
• Guidelines for Site Elements
• Guidelines for Additions & New Construction • Guidelines for Commercial Buildings
• Guidelines for Sustainability
Each section addresses historic materials and building topics and all sections comprise the Newton Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Further information is available at the Planning Department and on the City’s web site at http://www.newtonma.gov.
These Guidelines serve to cover the topics most typically addressed by the NHC/HDC. Any work under the jurisdiction of the NHC/HDC that is not specifically covered in these Guidelines is subject to Commission review and approval.
DISTRICT/LANDMARK REVIEW PROCESS
All work proposed at a locally designated Landmark property or within the bounds of a Local Historic District in the City of Newton requires Commission review and the issuance of a Certificate.
As a result, all exterior alterations, no matter how minor, are subject to Commission review. The types of projects reviewed by the Commission include:
• Maintenance and in-kind repair (exempted from Commission purview after Staff review)
• Change to the appearance of building, site, monument or structure, including change resulting from maintenance and repair
• Change or addition of fences, walls, walkways, driveways and garden structures (not including public sidewalks)
• Modification, addition or removal of signs and awnings
• Construction of any new building or addition
• Relocation or demolition of all or part of any building, site, monument or structure (demolition rarely approved)
• Demolition by neglect (Landmarks only)
Following the filing of an application and the required supporting information, the Commission and its Staff reviews proposed changes to determine whether they are appropriate to the individual property and within the surrounding historic context in terms of the architectural style, general design, arrangement, location and materials.
Applicants or their representatives are encouraged to attend Commission meetings to explain the overall scope of the proposed project, clarify issues and answer any questions.
There are three types of Certificates that can be issued by the Commissions and their Staff following review:
• Certificate of Non-Applicability: Issued if it is determined that the construction or alteration for which a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Non-Applicability has been filed does not involve any exterior architectural feature or involves an exterior architectural feature which is not subject to review by the Commission.
• Certificate of Appropriateness: Issued if it is determined that the construction or alteration for which an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness has been filed will be appropriate for or compatible with the preservation or protection of the Local Historic District or Landmark property.
• Certificate of Hardship: Issued if it is determined that owing to conditions especially affecting the building or structure involved, but not affecting the Local Historic District or Landmark property generally, failure to approve an application will involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant and such application may be approved without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation of the intent and purposes of Newton’s preservation regulations.
It shall also be issued by the Commission or its Staff in the event that it fails to make a determination on an application within 45 days of filing.
Commission Actions
The Commission can take one of four actions following the review of an application:
• Approval as Submitted – The appropriate Certificate will be issued.
• Approval with Conditions – A Certificate will be issued pending review for compliance of required conditions.
• Conceptual Approval – The overall concept and direction of the project is approved; however, a more complete application must be submitted for review.
• Denial – It is determined that the project does not
meet the requirements for the granting of a Certificate.
The applicant can work with Staff to bring the project into compliance with Guidelines or appeal to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council within 20 days of the Commission decision.
OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER
Commission approval is required for some work that does not otherwise require a building permit.
This includes maintenance and minor repairs.
In addition to obtaining approvals from the NHC/HDC, there are typically other required approvals needed prior to the granting of necessary permits to begin construction work. Reviews and issues that should be considered include:
• Zoning: Use, setbacks, lot coverage, floor-area-ratio (FAR), open space (Applies to new construction and additions)
• Engineering: drainage, curb cuts
• Building Code
• Scenic Roads, Signs and Fence Ordinances
• Conservation Regulations
It is recommended that all zoning reviews occur prior to NHC/HDC review whenever possible. The remainder of the requirements and reviews should be considered in the process, and coordinated with the overall approval of the project.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/47021
@Marti-
I actually wish these restrictions had been in place before the prior owner of my property decided to make it look like it was brick with the most horrendous faux brick asphalt shingles. I understanding he caused an uprising in the neighborhood so he wrapped the entire debacle in aluminum that looks similar to the original wood siding. All those layers provide great insulation – that’s the only good thing I can say.
Lisap
@Marti,
Regarding: “If the NHC thought the building was significantly historic why issue a demolition delay rather than deny one?”
When an owner comes before the NHC asking for permission to demolish or substantially modify a building that is over 50 years old, the NHC can determine that the building should be “preferentially preserved”. When they do that, they can institute a demolition delay of 12 months, or 18 months if the property is on the National Historic Register. If they they think the property is not worth preserving, they will waive the demolition delay, and the owner can apply to Inspectional Services for a demo permit immediately.
The NHC can’t forbid an owner from demolishing their property, but they can slow the process down, ostensibly so that the owner can consider alternatives. For developers, tying up capital for a year might be a disincentive, but the reality is that many developers are willing to wait out the delay.
Of course, the rules are much more restrictive within a Historic District, and giving a building Landmark status has much the same effect.
@mike yes but hence the controversy- one mans good taste is another mans bad taste.
Especially in America. Europeans seem to have more consensus opinion on what is good art, or architecture. Americans seem to have bad taste in practically everything. Or maybe kitcsch is the right word. Saugus preserved the hilltop steakhouse sign. Whatever knocks you out. But for me, Austin Street looks like crap
. That’s my taste. In 100 years, will someone say it should preserved? I have no idea.
@Rick Frank – ain’t it the truth
Jerry, great example of differing tastes. It makes me laugh whenever I see it.
Rick, “to me Austin Street looks like crap.” To me too. And these tiny boxes are being built all over. I, and I’m sure others, tried to get the design changed but little boxes made in big warehouses won the day.
Robert, I was speaking of landmarking a building. The NHC and it seems almost every elected official can nominate a building for landmark status. If a builder comes before the NHC wanting to demolish a building, such as was the case here, there are several avenues the NHC can go down.
The way the laws are written, it seems that one of those people with nomination authority could nominate that building for “urgent” review to become a landmark so it couldn’t be demolished. Hypothetically at least.
The process to get a building permit is itself arduous if the NHC becomes involved because of all the information that must be presented to them. So it seems to me that if the NHC has granted a builder a demolition delay, then its unfair and unethical to attempt to landmark the property after the fact, particularly when the demolition delay is almost completed.