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

[Richard Smith]

Now I’m a bit confused (nothing new when trying to parse a legal process).  Sen Comerford introduced this bill, but she is saying “the bill is in no danger of passing”.  That leaves me trying to understand who and what is behind this bill.  Do legislators introduce legislation at a constituent’s request without necessarily supporting it?

 

I think Jennifer’s comments succinctly state the concerns the preservation community has with these proposals.  

 

Richard Smith, Chair

Swampscott Historic District Commission

 

From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Jennifer Doherty via MassHistPres
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 3:54 PM
Cc: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] S. 1428 - An Act relative to historic districts and commissions

 

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> > on behalf of Eric Dray via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> >
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 2:42 PM
To: 'Chris Skelly' <ccskelly12 at gmail.com <mailto:ccskelly12 at gmail.com> >; 'MHC MHC listserve' <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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

 <http://www.ericdrayconsulting.com/> www.EricDrayConsulting.com

 

 

 

From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ccskelly12 at gmail.com> 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Comerford, Joanne (SEN) <Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov <mailto: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 <mailto: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  <https://senatorjocomerford.org/#mk-footer> here.

  _____  

From: Chris Skelly <ccskelly12 at gmail.com <mailto:ccskelly12 at gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2025 8:18 AM
To: Comerford, Joanne (SEN) <Jo.Comerford at masenate.gov <mailto: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 <mailto:ccskelly12 at gmail.com> 

413-834-0678

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu <mailto: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 <mailto:jenn at barrettplanningllc.com> 

www.barrettplanningllc.com <http://www.barrettplanningllc.com>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250617/ba46a36a/attachment-0001.html>