Planning board approves revised draft of demolition ordinance 25-20, sends to mayor and council

The Township of Washington Planning Board on Jan. 3 approved a revised draft of demolition ordinance 25-20 clarifying how the town measures ‘‘full demolition’’ and what parts of a structure count toward the 50% threshold for demolition review. The board voted unanimously to forward the draft to the mayor and council for their review and approval.

The board said the draft aims to make clear how to calculate the length of an existing dwelling’s exterior at first-floor level and to narrow ambiguity that has led to disputes during past demolition projects. Chairman Cabeza opened discussion by saying the board had previously approved a demolition measure that the mayor and council returned with comments; the draft before the planning board incorporated input from the town administrator, the town engineer and the town attorney, Siobhan Bailey.

Engineer Paul Azelina said he wrote the procedure in the draft to reflect how building-department reviews have been handled in practice and that the ordinance necessarily requires some judgment by the zoning officer or construction official. Azelina told the board he would consider an enclosed porch or a three-season room that has a roof part of the structure for measurement purposes; attached decks without roofs would not be counted because the town’s building code defines a building as having a roof.

Board members debated wording and measurement technique. Councilman Ullman and other members asked whether the ordinance should require applicants to return to the board if the scope of work changes after approval—for example, if a contractor discovers additional decay and removes more of a structure than authorized. Azelina said the Uniform Construction Code and ordinary practice already require contractors to notify the construction official of changed conditions; he also pointed to paragraph (e) of section 4 in the draft, which gives the construction official discretion when a structure’s condition creates safety concerns.

To reduce potential circumvention, Azelina said the draft adds language requiring officials to "calculate the total length of any portion or segment of the existing dwelling perimeter requiring its removal on either a temporary or permanent basis" so work that replaces an existing wall with new construction without prior notification can be identified during inspections. Board members also discussed an informal suggestion that the building department inspect demolitions once they exceed 40% so inspectors can confirm whether a project will cross the 50% threshold in the field.

Members asked for a clarifying insertion of the word “full” before “demolition” in section 1(b) so the ordinance reads consistently about ‘‘full demolition’’ or ‘‘demolition of 50% or more.’’ A motion to approve the draft ordinance with that insertion passed on a voice/roll-call vote; board leadership said the next step is to present the draft to the mayor and council for their review and possible adoption.

The board’s discussion also reiterated that the enforcement mechanism for cases where work exceeds the approved scope remains through building-department inspection and enforcement actions for violations. The draft, as the board approved it, attempts to clarify the measurement method (perimeter/length of exterior walls at first-floor level), list minor exclusions (detached garages, storage sheds, gazebos and decks without roofs), and preserve discretion for the construction official in safety or changed-condition situations.

The board recorded its action as a vote to approve the revised draft and forward it to mayor and council; the board secretary was instructed to place the item on the next mayor-and-council agenda for their review.

Votes at a glance: The motion to approve the draft ordinance with the insertion of the word "full" in section 1(b) carried on a roll-call vote (see actions[] for the recorded yes votes).