[MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs

[anneforbes at verizon.net]

 Has PreservationMass sent in comments or taken a position on this bill?
And why would MHC not have been consulted?
Anne ForbesActon
    On Thursday, June 12, 2025 at 07:14:25 PM EDT, Eric Dray via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:   

 Hi Frank and Sarah. This bill is really bad, and kind of odd. On the one hand, it would extend demo delay to every town or city with an historical commission, which is essentially every town and city (hard to imagine the builder class would want that) But then, it also extends the demo delay policy into the chapter 40C process. This would mean that the ability for 40C districts to prevent demolition outright would be substituted with demo delay. That would be a terrible, frankly unthinkable, consequence for 40C districts.Sarah, if I’m reading this wrong, let me know. And if I’m not, we need to sound the alarm. Eric 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2025, at 4:24 PM, Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:




It was introduced in the house by Rep Amy Mah Sangiolo (D) of Newton.


On Jun 12, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Sullivan, Charles M. <csullivan at cambridgema.gov> wrote:

The House designation for this bill is HD 4331.  ___________________________Charles Sullivan, Executive DirectorCambridge Historical Commission831 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Mass.  02139617 349-4684    From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:39 PM
To: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs  You should urgently be aware of S1428 a Senate bill that has been introduced in the Legislature, with an identical House counterpart (I don’t have its number).  See https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S1428  I have just quickly scanned it, but it seems to have at least two purposes:   1) Create a standard MGL format for Demolition Delay bylaws that would have to be adopted under MGL40 Section 8D (Historical Commissions), rather than by home rule.  It does allow 12-24 month delays, so the devil very much may be in the details.  (And would it trump home rule by-laws?)  2) Amend MGL4Oc to Introduce a similar standardized Demolition Delay process for properties in LHDs — i.e. eliminating the ability to prevent demolition in an LHD.    If I read (scan) this correctly, the second section may be a major 40c pro-developer loophole for which the first section may be a fig-leaf (he said, mixing his metaphors).   It was introduced by Sen. Joanne Comerford (D), representing Hampshire, Worcester & Franklin.  I do not see any cosponsors.    Dennis De Witt
_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250612/f2023172/attachment-0001.html>