Framingham subcommittee refers proposed demolition-delay changes back to historic commission

The Rules, Ordinances and Ethics Subcommittee of the Framingham City Council voted May 5 to refer proposed amendments to the city’s demolition delay ordinance back to the Historic Commission for revision after members raised concerns about how the draft would affect large numbers of older homes and how "demolition" would be defined.

The proposal forwarded by the Historic Commission would increase the existing six-month demolition delay to 12 months for properties 75 years or older and to 18 months for properties listed in the city’s Cultural Resources Inventory (CSI); it also adds a demolition-by-neglect provision and a proposed definition of demolition tied to a 25% or greater change to the exterior. The subcommittee voted unanimously to send the draft back so the commission can adjust the age threshold, revisit the 25% standard and provide implementation details before the full council considers it.

Why it matters: The change would expand the set of properties subject to review before they can be demolished or substantially altered. Councilors and commission members said the draft, as written, could capture many mid-20th-century houses — particularly repetitive postwar “Campanelli” slab ranches — and would require clearer limits and data about workload and grandfathering.

Paul Da Silva, chair of the Historic Commission, described the goals behind the draft and the commission’s experience using delays to negotiate preservation. "We put a 1 year delay on that at the time. And by the grace of the, town meeting and everybody involved, we got the, thing transferred to a historic district piece of property, which prevented the house from being demolished," Da Silva said, citing 613 Pleasant Street as an example where delay led to preservation.

Several councilors said six months is too short to marshal community action. "Six months is a blink of an eye," Councilor Tracy Bryant said, arguing a year — and the commission’s suggested 18 months for CSI properties — gives neighbors and preservation groups time to organize.

Other members pressed the commission on scope. Councilor Christine Long said she had renovated a house that once triggered review because the previous trigger thresholds were lower; she warned that at a 75-year threshold, ‘‘every single house ... they were all built in the fifties down here. Within a couple of years, they're all gonna have to go to the historic commission for demo delay no matter what if you're doing any type of renovation that kicks in over 25% of the value of your house." Long and other subcommittee members asked the commission to analyze how many properties would be affected and to consider raising the age threshold.

Commission member Kevin Swope urged caution about raising the age threshold to 100 years because it would remove review for some potentially significant mid-century buildings, saying, "I think if you made it a hundred years, I think you would sort of, by definition, exclude anything under a hundred years."

Members also asked for clarity on the proposed 25% measure that would treat a substantial exterior change as demolition. Building and commission members said the draft was attempting to define demolition more precisely so work that removes most of a historic exterior could not be used to circumvent review; subcommittee members suggested 25% may be too low and asked the commission to consider a higher threshold.

The legal question of where the rule belongs also surfaced. Some councilors asked whether the demolition-delay rule should be a zoning bylaw rather than a general ordinance; the city solicitor’s written opinion, discussed in the meeting, states the demolition-delay provision currently sits in the city’s general ordinances (chapter 284, article 1, section 284‑7) and is not itself a zoning ordinance subject to M.G.L. c.40A §5 amendment procedures. Councilor Leslie Harvey White and others said the current placement is the status quo but that the commission and city staff could study whether a move to the zoning code is appropriate.

The subcommittee approved a motion to refer the draft back to the Historic Commission with guidance to: reassess the 75-year threshold (members suggested 85 as a floor for discussion), reevaluate the 25% exterior-change definition, provide data on how many properties would be routed to the commission annually, and clarify implementation details including grandfathering and coordination with building-permit procedures. The motion was moved by Councilor Christine Long and seconded by Councilor Phil Adriani; the vote was unanimous.

The subcommittee did not adopt any ordinance changes at the May 5 meeting. Members said they expect the Historic Commission to return with a revised draft and supporting analysis before the proposal is sent to the full City Council.

What’s next: The Historic Commission will review the subcommittee’s guidance and return with revisions and data on affected properties; the subcommittee asked for a prompt follow-up so the proposal can be scheduled for the full council when ready.