[MassHistPres] S. 1428 - An Act relative to historic districts and commissions

[Jennifer Doherty]

Echoing the comments of others, I submitted the following to the
legislature:

I am writing in opposition to Bills S.1428 and HD.4331. With over ten years
of experience working across the Commonwealth with local historical and
historic district commissions, I am very concerned about how the amendments
to Mass. General Laws Chapter 40, §8d and Chapter 40C proposed by these
bills will impact the operations of local preservationists.

The bulk of the proposed amendments relate to the demolition delay process.
Since the late 1980s, Massachusetts communities have adopted demolition
delay regulations locally; there are now around 160 communities with a
demolition delay bylaw or ordinance. While there is no state enabling
legislation for demolition delay, the Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC) provides a sample demolition delay bylaw that communities can adopt.
Many communities follow the process outlined in this sample bylaw, but also
amend it as needed to suit local preservation goals.

The proposed amendments would 1. Require all communities with a local
historical commission to review the demolition of all structures 50 years
or older and 2. Introduce the demolition delay process into the local
historic district process. Both of these would be a significant departure
from how these regulations currently operate at the local level.

While it would be good to have enabling legislation for demolition delay,
it should be separate from the enabling legislation for local historical
commissions. Not all communities with a local historical commission want to
make use of demolition delay as a local preservation tool, nor do all
communities have the capacity to implement a demolition delay bylaw or
ordinance.

And communities should have the flexibility to choose what resources they
most want to protect; the proposed amendments would require the review of
all resources over 50 years old. The National Park Service sets a 50 year
threshold for including resources in the National Register of Historic
Places. This has filtered down into other levels of preservation as a best
practice, but it may not be practical for all communities. Some communities
may want to focus demolition delay on their oldest resources, deciding
locally how best to deploy the preservation tools at their disposal. The
proposed amendments would not allow for that.

The process as outlined in the amendments for local demolition delay would
require communities to go right to a public hearing. This is significantly
different from the sample process outlined by the MHC, which allows for the
initial decision around a building’s significance to be made at a public
meeting, and even sometimes by the local historical commission chair or
staff. As these bylaws operate now, their flexibility allows communities to
streamline the demolition delay process, not having to go through a full
noticed public hearing process for buildings the historical commission or
staff already know are not significant or that are in poor condition.

To the second point - adding demolition delay to the local historic
district process established by M.G.L. Chapter 40C, the Historic Districts
Act. A strength of Chapter 40C is that it allows local historic district
commissions to outright deny the demolition of a building if they believe
the demolition is not in keeping with the historic character of the local
historic district. This is one of the strongest preservation tools
available to Massachusetts communities to protect their most important
places. While communities apply demolition delay to resources
community-wide, local historic districts provide stronger, more targeted
protection for a community’s most significant resources.

Introducing demolition delay into the local historic district process
removes this tool. With demolition delay, properties can be demolished
after the expiration of the delay period, assuming all other required
approvals are in order. Thus, the proposed amendments will in fact limit
the ability of local historic districts to preserve historic properties as
the amendments will allow for demolition after the delay period. Currently,
most demolition delay bylaws expressly state that they do not apply within
local historic districts, as the local historic district designation
provides stronger protections for the buildings than the limited-term
protection offered by demolition delay. This amendment would invalidate
that and limit the ability of local historic district commissions to
protect their historic resources, allowing them only to delay the
demolition of buildings, rather than outright preventing the demolition.

It is not clear that there has been any public outreach around these
amendments, including to major preservation organizations such as the MHC
and the statewide non-profit Preservation Massachusetts, and perhaps most
importantly, the local historical and historic district commissions that
would be impacted by these changes. Implementing significant changes to the
existing legislation without the involvement of the MHC, Preservation
Massachusetts, or the wider historic preservation community is a mistake.
These organizations and individuals have decades of experience working in
historic preservation in the Commonwealth, and are best positioned to make
recommendations on how to amend the existing legislation.

While serving as the Local Government Programs Coordinator at the MHC from
July, 2021 to February, 2025, I provided technical assistance to local
historical and historic district commissions across the state on the topics
of demolition delay and local historic districts. Massachusetts’ existing
state and local legislation options provide a variety of tools to local
communities looking to preserve their historic resources. I agree that the
state legislation could use some revisions to make it more responsive to
the needs of current preservation practice; but as it stands now the two
chapters of legislation related to historic preservation function well for
most communities.

As someone who values the Commonwealth’s historic resources and works every
day for their protection, I encourage you not to support the proposed
amendments.


Thank you,

Jenn



On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 9:57 AM Anthony Sculimbrene via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> As a "40c" commissioner for Lunenburg's Architectural Preservation
> District I can assure you we were not looking to add demo delay language to
> the town bylaw.
> More importantly, I am concerned about the state legislature's misguided
> approach to local zoning issues, mostly, in the name of "affordable
> housing". Much of what is being proposed will not make any housing more
> affordable but rather make it easier for developers to build more new
> housing that *won't *be affordable. Having just returned from visiting
> the Seattle area I have seen first-hand what the state's legislature foray
> into local zoning has done to make housing less affordable. By allowing
> developers to build 3 homes on a 6,500 square foot lot where there was one
> home didn't make those three homes more affordable. What happened was the
> state's approach to zoning has now made that small lot and the home that
> was on that lot far more expensive than what any individual home buyer can
> afford.
> The same is happening here in Massachusetts. The state has imposed itself
> in the business of zoning of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) . Local zoning
> of ADU's is being superseded by state regulations and the end result won't
> create any more affordable housing units but rather make land (the single
> most expensive element of building a home) more expensive. In turn, this
> makes housing less affordable.
> There are many good reasons to preserve existing structures. Those who
> live in and around those structures should be able to control how that
> happens versus having to follow state mandates.
> Tony Sculimbrene
> Lunenburg MA
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> on behalf of Eric
> Dray via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 15, 2025 2:42 PM
> *To:* 'Chris Skelly' <ccskelly12 at gmail.com>; 'MHC MHC listserve' <
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [MassHistPres] S. 1428 - An Act relative to historic
> districts and commissions
>
> Thank you, Chris, for your leadership on this. I’m glad the senator thinks
> it has no chance, but this is likely just the first step in their efforts
> to get something passed.
>
> I think we need to better understand what their underlying goals are,
> especially as it relates to adding demo delay language into 40C. I can’t
> imagine that is something that any 40C commissioners were asking for.
>
> And I think we all still need to send in letters of opposition.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> Eric E. Dray, MA JD
>
> Eric Dray Consulting
>
> 71 Prentiss Street
>
> Cambridge, MA 02140
>
> 508.566.3797
>
> *www.EricDrayConsulting.com <http://www.ericdrayconsulting.com/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> *On Behalf Of *Chris
> Skelly via MassHistPres
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 14, 2025 9:14 PM
> *To:* MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> *Subject:* [MassHistPres] S. 1428 - An Act relative to historic districts
> and commissions
>
>
>
> Below is the response I received earlier today from Senator Jo Comerford.
> While it suggests less urgency regarding passage, I hope that many of you
> will submit testimony anyway as the more voices, the better.  Chris.
>
> *Chris Skelly*
>
> *Skelly Preservation Services*
>
> Community Planning and Preservation
>
> *www.skellypreservationservices.com
> <http://www.skellypreservationservices.com/>*
>
> *ccskelly12 at gmail.com <ccskelly12 at gmail.com>*
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
> From: * Comerford, Joanne (SEN)* <*Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov
> <Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov>*>
> Date: Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: S. 1428
> To: Chris Skelly <*ccskelly12 at gmail.com <ccskelly12 at gmail.com>*>
>
>
>
> Thanks for this important testimony.
>
>
>
> My team and I are taking it all to heart.
>
>
>
> Please know that this bill is in no danger of passing and that I will make
> sure that the committee sees all of the dissenting comments.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> *Representing 25 cities and towns in Hampshire, Franklin, and Worcester
> counties*
>
>
>
> SenatorJoComerford.org
>
>
>
> Sign up for our office newsletter *here
> <https://senatorjocomerford.org/#mk-footer>*.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Chris Skelly <*ccskelly12 at gmail.com <ccskelly12 at gmail.com>*>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 14, 2025 8:18 AM
> *To:* Comerford, Joanne (SEN) <*Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov
> <Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov>*>
> *Subject:* S. 1428
>
>
>
> I have just been made aware of Bill S.1428-An Act relative to historic
> districts and commissions.
>
> “By Ms. Comerford, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1428) of
> Joanne M. Comerford for legislation to establish and preserve historic
> districts and commissions. Municipalities and Regional Government.”
>
>
>
> With over 25 years of historic preservation professional experience and a
> deep familiarity with MGL Chapter 40C-The Historic Districts Act as well as
> the typical local bylaws and ordinances related to historic preservation, I
> am deeply troubled by aspects of this bill.
>
>
>
> It appears this bill was filed without the knowledge of the Massachusetts
> Historical Commission or Preservation Massachusetts, the statewide
> non-profit preservation advocacy organization.
>
>
>
> My experience over many years has demonstrated that revisions to state law
> in this area are warranted.  However, the proposed bill takes a very
> unfortunate approach.  What I see in this proposed bill will be ruinous to
> protecting what makes the cities and towns of Massachusetts unique and
> admired around the country.
>
>
>
> I strongly believe historic preservation, increasing access to housing
> that is affordable, new opportunities for growth, economic development, and
> environmental sustainability are best achieved together.  I would very much
> like to see revisions to state law that encourage this collaboration.  The
> current bill simply causes more confusion, division and fewer opportunities
> to reach shared goals.
>
>
>
> Those of us that work professionally in historic preservation are
> dedicated to making sure that our historic areas are vibrant, welcoming,
> adaptable and meeting the needs of the 21st Century.  I urge you to reach
> out and work with those of us in the historic preservation community to
> achieve these goals.
>
>
>
> *Chris Skelly*
>
> *Skelly Preservation Services*
>
> Community Planning and Preservation
>
> 22 William Street, Shelburne Falls, MA 01370
>
> *www.skellypreservationservices.com
> <http://www.skellypreservationservices.com/>*
>
> *ccskelly12 at gmail.com <ccskelly12 at gmail.com>*
>
> 413-834-0678
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>


-- 
Jennifer B. Doherty
Preservation Planner
Barrett Planning Group LLC
350 Lincoln Street, Ste 2503
Hingham, MA 02043
Office: (781) 934-0073
Cell: (508) 209-7443
jenn at barrettplanningllc.com
www.barrettplanningllc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250616/a1672996/attachment-0001.html>