That’s what some 45 to 50 mostly Mendon residents were trying to determine at a Demolition Delay Workshop held last Tuesday, October 2nd at 7PM. Most came away with more insight about how a Demolition Delay Bylaw works and the awareness that alternatives to tearing down historic buildings should be contemplated.
“I consider myself generally knowledgeable on preservation issues and yet I learned a lot about the pros and cons of a demo delay bylaw” said John Stephens, one of the few non-Mendon residents in attendance. Mr. Stephens, the Director and Curator of the Willard House & Clock Museum in North Grafton, saw no real disadvantages to a well-written demolition delay bylaw. “Although it’s not a magic cure, it does give the property owner and the Town some time to reflect on alternatives such as adaptive reuse”, he said. “The meeting was well worth my time”.
Mendon's Universalist Church
Preservation Mendon sponsored this event which was held at the Unitarian Church. We meet on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month in this same room. This particular building is very special to all of us in Mendon. It is Mendon’s 5th Meeting House, a Federal style edifice, the crème de la crème of our historic village. It was built in 1820 on property purchased from Seth Hastings. Famous for its beautiful architectural design, the plan was created by Elias Carter. Its one-hundred thirty foot steeple is an impressive land mark of Mendon center’s skyline. The first minister was Reverend Simon Doggett. He was later succeeded in the 1830’s by Reverend Adin Ballou, who eventually was the founder of the Christian utopian community-Hopedale. What a pleasure, such a delight it is to be in this building.
I opened the workshop with a welcome to the attendees and a request that they all visit the Preservation Mendon website at their leisure. It’s full of information and stories. We try to keep it fresh. It has some useful links to other important sites.
Christopher Skelly addresses the Demolition Delay Workshop
Mr. Christopher Skelly of the Massachusetts Historical Commission was the guest speaker. He is the Director of Local Government Programs at the Massachusetts Historical Commission. He has been at the Commission for almost 10 years. His degrees include a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and a Masters in Regional Planning from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. At the Massachusetts Historical Commission, he primarily assists the volunteer local commissions around the state in community-wide historic preservation planning. MHC publications prepared by Mr. Skelly include Preservation through Bylaws and Ordinances and A Guidebook for Historic District Commissions. Most recently, he has assisted several towns in western Massachusetts prepare a community-wide historic property survey plan. His interest in historic preservation goes back to growing up in Northborough, Massachusetts and exploring old buildings, stonewalls and farms. He currently resides in western Massachusetts. His knowledge of the workshop subject was clearly evident as the group remained for over an hour after his presentation, asking questions and generally listening to his numerous experiences. His “ On the Road Show” show was certainly appreciated by all.
Early on in his presentation, Chris flashed 5 or 6 very lovely historic buildings on the screen and asked all of us “What’s so special about these buildings?.” I thought to myself, they are all old, they all seem to have a lot of historic character, etc. He paused a moment or two for all of us to reflect on his question and he then told us “They are ALL DEMOLISHED”.
Mr. Skelly then spoke of the increasing number of towns/cities in Massachusetts that have implemented demolition delay bylaws, the potential time frame of a demo delay bylaw period and the basis of determining “preferably preserved” buildings/sites. I’ll explain these terms later.
We have 351 cities/towns in Massachusetts. 115 of them now have some form of a demo delay bylaw implemented. Ten years ago there were only 60 or so. The direction is clear.
Massachusetts towns and cities have typically implemented demo delay bylaws with time frames of 6 to 12 months. Some are 90 days. A few towns have implemented times frames of 18 months. Chris believes that the norm is from 6 to12 months.
What is supposed to happen during that time? Chris stated that this time period is the “reflection” period, the time to seek alternatives to “tear-down”, the time to find common ground and methods to save the building. If, after this designated time period elapses and no acceptable alternatives are found then the demolition may commence. It’s as simple as that. All parties must agree as to what is acceptable alternatives.
The following terms and questions, and their answers are critical to the demolition delay process.
What does the term “preferably preserved” mean?
Preferably preserved simply means that the building or site is a building that has been determined to be historically significant and applicable to the bylaw.
Who determines the “historical significance”?
The Town of Mendon determines this, (i.e. in the best interest of the public), via Town Meeting.
How is a building or site determined to be “historically significant” so as to be applicable (preferably preserved) for a demolition delay?
In other words, what criteria are used in that determination? This is where the basis for determination of historical significance comes into play. Typically, there are three categories in use today. They are AGE, CATEGORY or LIST. The bylaw formally designates and documents the basis of this determination, whether it is Age, or Category or List or a combination of them. Again, this “determination” process is written into the specific Mendon bylaw.
AGE simply states that a building is applicable to demolition delay based on how old the structure is. A typically acceptable age clause could be “75 years” or “older than 1925” for instance. Again, that clause is written into the bylaw. The sample demolition delay bylaw presented on the Massachusetts Historical Commission website uses an AGE-based criteria.
Or it could be CATEGORY. Category could be something like “all of the houses/buildings that are on a certain inventory list” or “those on a State or Federal register” or “those pending inclusion to a State or Federal register”. This basis in not generally used because it becomes too vague and also because it somewhat conflicts with the “honorary” concept of these registers.
Or it could be LIST. A List would be a Town-generated list that would be generated as part of the bylaw. It would have a clause whereby “additions” to the list would be allowed based on a "public controlled process”.
COMBINATION would be the utilization of a couple of these criteria such as Age and List.
Assuming that Mendon residents vote to implement a demolition delay bylaw, how does the process actually work in real life? A documented flowchart is being developed at this time to facilitate a simple and easy to read process flow that depicts “who does what and when”.
To elaborate, let’s say that Jane and/or John Doe own a building in town and they want to tear it down. They would go to the Building Department to request demolition. Besides the normal Building Department forms that are required for a Demolition request, a Demolition Delay Form (DDF) will need to be filed. The Building Inspector would forward the DDF to the Historical Commission. The Historical Commission would have a short amount of time to determine if the building was “preferably preserved”. The Commission uses the criteria above to determine historical significance”. If yes, then a public hearing is held (within a designated time period) to determine if the building is truly “preferably preserved”. If the answer is yes then the demolition of the building is delayed (per the bylaw and for the time frame designated by the bylaw). If not, then the building is not applicable to the demolition delay.
During this delay period alternatives to demolition are reviewed and discussed by all parties. If the demolition delay period ends with no agreeable and acceptable alternatives to demolition then the DDF is returned to the Building Department. The building can then be demolished as long as all other Building Department forms are complete. This is generally how the demolition delay process works. Mendon’s specific bylaw documents the EXACT nature of the process.
Towards the end of Chris’s presentation Ken O’Brien, a former Board of Selectmen Chair, said that this was an excellent meeting. “The homogenization of the American landscape has finally come to Mendon. It's difficult to identify where you are when each town looks the same. When history is lost, it is lost forever, irreplaceable. The destruction and planned destruction of the homes located at North Avenue and Hastings Street tears at the very fabric of any community. People do have a right to be concerned what their town looks like”, he stated. Mendon is the second oldest town in Worcester County. It has kept its rural character for the most part. A demolition delay bylaw does not take the rights of a land owner away. It allows the Town and its citizens some time to investigate an alternative plan to keep that character. "The historic homes in Mendon have for the most part stood the test of time. The owners are in essence, the caretakers of our history for future generations. Let's all work together keeping Mendon, Mendon.”
Not everyone in attendance was in favor of implementing a demo delay bylaw. Sharon Cutler, past Chair of the Mendon BOS and respected and long time Mendon resident had these observations via email.
John,
I do appreciate the efforts of your group to bring someone out to talk to us, however, from my perspective, when I now stop at the lights and look across at that beautiful vista whose view was lost to the public when those houses were built, I say thank you for providing us with a glimpse of what our ancestors saw pre 1830?
Simply put, history is a recording of change. I think we have to look at other avenues to ensure the quaint and historic character is continued. If the time limit on the proposed by-law could be lessened to 6 months (as it stands now it is about 15months), I believe it might help you. My concern is for the potential personal financial loss of the property owners that wish to make a change. There are usually tight time constraints when signing a P&S of this type and more often than not now, it is not an outright sale but a land lease arrangement. A demolition is never taken lightly or considered without a great deal of thought. And the reasons may be of a very private nature.
This by-law would only apply to “some” residents in Town not all – and in this I have another concern of discrimination and diminished property values for those falling under the proposed by-law. (Whenever you limit the buying market you devalue the property involved.)
The Thomas Jefferson quote is “To own land and make it productive, is the right of every American.” To loose these rights granted by the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution for some of the individual property owners in Town in order to gain another for the Town is something I have a real hard time with. I guess it comes down to perception, and what is conceived as the common good should be for all – not just some of the residents in Town. Sorry,
We were also pleased to have Marie Parente from Milford attend this educational event. Marie is, and always has been, interested in the well-being of Mendon. She offers her comments (via email) below.
John: The positive aspect of carefully thought out delay demolition laws is that they promote discussion long before the demolition target date. Over one hundred Massachusetts towns have enacted such by-laws, so Mendon must find among them, language best suited for such discussions and delay periods. When talking about private property and the rights of owners, the carrot approach is always better than confrontation. That is why I asked about the availability of resources, or agreements such as the Agricultural Restriction Program, which offers owners of historic buildings a “carrot. I was pleased and honored to be an invited guest to a meeting that will help Mother Mendon maintain her historic treasures with dignity. After all, John, Mendon is the mother town of the entire valley.
Preservation Mendon President John Trainor Thanks Mr. Skelly
To summarize, in response to significant historic resources disappearing possibly within hours, many towns in Massachusetts have established a demolition delay bylaw. A demolition delay bylaw simply provides a window of opportunity to seek alternatives to demolishing a building. Today approximately 115 towns in Massachusetts have a demolition delay bylaw and that number grows each year. This workshop was an initial attempt to explain the basics of a demolition delay bylaw, the advantages of having a demolition delay bylaw and the different types of demolition delay bylaws found in Massachusetts. More and more information will be collected and disseminated over the coming weeks and months. Please stay tuned. We appreciate your opinions and request your feedback. Please Contact Us with your feedback, pro and con).