Newton Zoning, Planning Approves Demolition Delay Ordinance

NEWTON, MA — Patch has made corrections to the following article.

The Newton City Council Zoning & Planning Committee voted unanimously Thursday to approve updates to the city's Demolition Delay Ordinance, which protects historically significant buildings from demolition without proper review.

Since 2019, the committee's working group has been examining and updating the regulations with the goal of making sense out of a badly written ordinance, said ZAP Chair Deb Crossley.

Because Newton has so many buildings that are old enough to be reviewed prior to demolition, the updated ordinance includes an administrative process to eliminate buildings that obviously have no historical significance. It also clarifies the underlying principles of preservation regulation via changes to language and structure.

According to last week's meeting docket, three controversial proposals were also debated, including whether to create a secondary review panel for Newton Historical Commission decisions, continue the "historical context" language in the ordinance," and maintain the 50-year threshold for review of historical significance of properties.

Here's the context behind these three proposals:

Secondary review panel

According to the current ordinance, applicants who are unhappy with a "preferably preserved" determination by the NHC may appeal the decision to the Superior Court. ZAP discussed adding a secondary review panel outside of the NHC, but ultimately decided against it.

This does not mean a secondary review panel cannot be added in the future, however. ZAP members said it would just require more analysis and discussion that may be best addressed through a separate docket item.

Historical context language

Under the Demolition Delay Ordinance, a building is historically significant if it is determined to be “historically or architecturally important by reason of period, style, method of building construction or association with a particular architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings or structures."

Although members of the Historical Commission brought up the lack of clear explanations for why decisions to preferably preserve are made, committee members did not recommend amending the language. They did agree, however, that preservation recommendations must provide more information and reasoning in the future so that applicants are given a clear rationale.

Jurisdictional age requirement

The city's Demolition Delay Ordinance requires the review of buildings that are 50 years or older prior to demolition, but whether to increase the threshold to 75 years or older has been up for debate.

At last week's meeting, Crossley recommended that ZAP vote to retain the 50-year requirement, but advance an effort to complete the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information Survey (MACRIS) for properties that were built between 50 to 75 years ago to assist with future decisions. This could be funded through Community Preservation funds, shortening the time frame in which the surveys are completed.

Although ZAP voted to keep the jurisdictional age requirement at 50 years and older, this issue could be revisited in the future.

The amended ordinance was approved by the full City Council on Monday.