Everett committee delays vote on demolition‑delay ordinance, requests data on scope and timing

Everett City Council Committee on Legislative Affairs and Election members discussed a draft demolition‑delay ordinance on Feb. 24, 2025, and voted to postpone action for two weeks to let administration staff provide additional data and recommended language.

The draft ordinance, sponsored by Councilor Robert Van Campen, would require the Director of Inspectional Services to refer demolition‑permit applications for certain properties to the Everett Historical Commission. If the commission finds a property to be of historic significance, the ordinance would allow a 180‑day delay on issuing a demolition permit while the commission and property owner seek alternatives or document historic materials.

The proposal would trigger review for buildings listed on or pending nomination to the Massachusetts or National Registers of Historic Places and for buildings built before a specified cutoff year; the draft discussed at the meeting used 1940 as a starting point. Councilor Van Campen said the cutoff would capture a large number of properties: “1940 is the kind of starting point for us,” and warned that recent development has “replaced [two‑family homes] with 6 and 9 unit structures. And it is really starting to drag our residential neighborhoods down.”

Why this matters: committee members and the Historical Commission said the ordinance is intended to preserve buildings the city regards as historically significant, give the public and preservationists time to propose alternatives, and avoid the permanent loss of locally important places. Mr. Coniglio of the Historical Commission said the commission has identified roughly 180 Massachusetts state‑registered properties and maintains a longer local inventory that feeds walking tours.

Committee members pressed several technical and process questions. Under the sponsor’s outline, the Director of Inspectional Services must forward a demolition permit to the Historical Commission within 10 days of application; the commission would have 35 days to hold a hearing and determine whether demolition would be detrimental. If the commission finds detriment, a six‑month moratorium would pause the permit. As Van Campen described it, the pause “doesn't necessarily mean the structure won't be demolished — it just gives a pause to make sure that before it gets torn down, the community recognizes and has input on the historic significance and whether there's a better option.”

Councilor Stephanie Smith supported vesting the commission with review authority rather than leaving the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, saying, “I 100% support this, and I'm glad that we're giving, this power to the historical commission, and kind of taking it away from the ZBA and Planning Board where it kind of sits today.” Smith and other councilors also recommended tightening submission requirements so owners present structural or financial analyses (for example, a report from a structural engineer or a preservation‑focused evaluation) rather than leaving such evidence optional.

Several members raised concerns about how broad an age‑based cutoff should be. Committee members cited an estimate that a 1940 cutoff could capture roughly 6,800 structures citywide, compared with the roughly 180 state‑registered properties the commission already tracks. Councilor Rogers suggested the committee consider a tiered approach that prioritizes “keystone” properties for stronger protection and narrows the broader age‑based pool.

Staff and commission commitments: committee members asked administration and commission staff to provide several items for the next meeting — proposed language for an additional trigger tied to site‑plan or special‑permit filings (so review can occur before a long planning process has completed), the number of demolition permits issued in Everett over the past three years, and a comparative analysis of demolition‑delay periods in other Massachusetts communities (several members mentioned six, 12 and 18‑month examples).

Action: With that information requested, the committee voted to postpone consideration for two weeks. The motion to postpone to the next committee meeting and request information from the administration carried on an aye vote; no roll‑call names were recorded in the transcript.

Next steps: the committee set a follow‑up meeting in two weeks and asked the Historical Commission to review the draft and return a recommendation. Staff were asked to recommend a narrower cutoff or categorization that would reduce the number of properties subject to delay while preserving the most significant sites.