Agenda Text
title
Alan Bingham submitting comments re: the draft Demolition Review Ordinance.
body
Official Text
To the Honorable Board:
Comments from the Aldermanic meeting February 1 on the draft Demolition Review Ordinance:
1) With regard to Section 7.1 (demolition delay period).
The wording in both a. and b. are still problematic.
Clause a. specifically refers to ‘residential occupancy’ whereas Clause b. refers to ‘”all other buildings”.
The issue with this language is that the “all other buildings” includes churches, historic store fronts, barns, historic structures that may be of importance, post offices, etc. The interpretation by the aldermen at the meeting tended to consider that this was only for commercial building and this is specifically not the case as it is articulated in the draft ordinance.
In Somerville there are a number of special churches that should be, but are not as yet, designated as historic districts (making them demolition resistant) that are under threat. There are few barns left in the city and the commission has agreed to several being demolished and several preserved. Recently one was moved on a site to a different location and is being restored (note moving does constitute demolition under the ordinance).
Most commercial and industrial buildings that come before the commission are reviewed and in most cases are approved for demolition after photographic documentation of the site is made. In many instances (Maxwell’s Green for example) an artifact of the industrial past and a plaque commemorating the previous use as well as photographic record are taken. In some instances (Tube factory on Summerville Ave near Union Square) the building is preserved and restored with internal renovations for successful new reuse.
The commission is sensitive to the needs of developers, the need for more development (residential and commercial) in our city and there is no intention to place the city is a time warp. However, making all demolition the same period of 24 months simplifies the process, and removes ambiguities for legal interpretation (a house used now for a legal or dental office, could be argue, is no longer a residence for example).
2) With regard to Section 2.12 (Exempting city owned structures).
There is a perceived ethical issue surrounding this that should be considered that is compelling to the inclusion of all city structures in the ordinance. The city staff, as well as the commissioners, must always be seen to be impartial and free of any sense of impropriety. This is one of the functions of a public meeting and why the commission is bound by, and adheres to, the public meeting regulations. That a city staff person could make a binding decision on a city (public owned) property without it coming before the commission (that is specifically structured to handle such matters publicly) raises an issue of visible ethics. Whilst there is no hint at all of any unethical behavior in city staff, the opportunity, and the perception of the opportunity, is there if this clause remains. By removing the clause the city frees itself of any potential accusation downstream while protecting the public property of the city.
3) With regard 2.10.2 (Serial Demolition)
The commissions prevue on demolition and structures extends so far as the structure in question is visible from the street, public way or water way. If a demolition occurs outside this visibility cone then it is not considered by the commission and is not subject to the ordinance. Internal changes to a structure are also not in the prevue of the commission.
However, this clause was inserted to enable the city to control unauthorized demolition that would seriously damage a historic structure where the owner had a rolling plan to change the structure over time without initially revealing this to the planning department, ISD, or the commission. This loophole has been used in the past as a method of circumventing the demolition ordinance.
The commission appreciates that home owners may want to continue to develop their properties over time and that such plans may not be consolidated at the time of initial application. In such cases where such an applicant comes before the commission the commissions typically provides guidance and support.
However, there are those in the community who see this current omission as a loophole they can exploit to demolish a building over time, and they have done so. This clause actually closes that loophole.
There was some discussion on additions to structures. It is important to note that the commission is not concerned with additions as such, this is the realm of planning and zoning. If a person wants to add to their building, and it is not a designated historic district, then the matter does not even come before the commission. However, if a person wants to demolish a building that is considered within the boundaries of consideration for significance then the commission reviews the demolition. While the commission can advise on buildings but designing new additions and buildings is not the charter of the commission.
I trust these make sense and reveal my thinking on this matter. Thanks you for your attention to the sensible and appropriate preservation and development of our city.
Regards
Alan Bingham