[MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs

[Dennis De Witt]

I believe It does not automatically extend Demo Delay to every municipality.  Rather, it may negate all existing demo delay by-laws and require that any place that wanted demo delay would have to adopt the form in the bill, essentially without modification, just as is the case with LHDs under 40c.  This would definitely be a major regression for places that have more refined laws — perhaps not so much for others.

It would be a disaster for 40c in all cases.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline


> On Jun 12, 2025, at 6:20 PM, Eric Dray <ericedray at gmail.com> 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 Director
>>> Cambridge Historical Commission
>>> 831 Massachusetts Avenue
>>> Cambridge, Mass.  02139
>>> 617 349-4684
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S1428__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!dX4iYk9y0jhxEVc5Nb2Bid6DSlM_3a-nK8fp5kNAadkVRp3Fw2UnyN5BQTFC2JML_Nv3gqAgUdwetknPaEDDKEw0nOKW4zdk$>
>>>  
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250613/2b4bd503/attachment-0001.html>