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

[Dennis De Witt]

Richard — Yes, within some reasonable limits, legislators do introduce legislation at the request of constituents — the most obvious such constituents being the towns and cities they represent, but also sometimes for large employers and for constancy groups.  In this case there may have been two such constituency relationships involved, although who exactly may have been speaking for them is somewhat unclear to me.  Apparently the triggering event behind this proposal was an egregious demolition in Newton, hence apparently, the house cosponsor being from Newton.  The Mass. AIA has been presented as the primary constituent/proponent.  It appears that  Sen. Comerford, who first introduced it, has had a good working relationship with the recent past-president of AIA Western Mass., who is a constituent.  That might be why she introduced it.

There are hundreds of bills introduced each year, only a small fraction of which have any chance of passage (the average acorn is about as likely to become a tree).  This bill seems to have had no original cosponsors in either house, it had no one speaking in favor other than the E.D. of AIA Mass., the nominal sponsor, and it quickly raised strong credible institutional and grass roots opposition.  A legislator will not put any effort into something, with no legislative cosponsors, whose proponent has not prepared the ground, and which produces nothing but credible opposition — hence "this bill is in no danger of passing". 

Dennis De Witt
Brookline

> On Jun 17, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Richard Smith via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250618/22fcd59b/attachment.html>