Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition 5 Murphy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission finds 5 Murphy Avenue historically significant but declines preservation review, allowing demolition
Summary
At its April 9 meeting the Newbury Court Historical Commission found a 1947 house at 5 Murphy Avenue historically significant but voted not to consider it for preservation, meaning no demolition delay or public hearing will be required under the commission's procedures; the commission authorized a letter to zoning expressing neighborhood concerns.
The Newbury Court Historical Commission on April 9 voted that the 1947 house at 5 Murphy Avenue is historically significant but declined the further step of designating it "considered for preservation," a decision that removes the commission's ability to impose a demolition delay or hold a public hearing under its current procedure.
The commission's chair led the review after the owner described the property as structurally unsound and unsafe. The owner (identified in the record as the person who spoke in support of removal) told commissioners the house is "rather dilapidated," has tarps on it for years and is "not structurally sound" because it sits on blocks with rusted beams and widespread moisture damage.
Commissioners debated the property's neighborhood context and the limits of the commission's authority. One commissioner said it was "a shame that has to come down, but it's gonna have to" while others pushed for more information about what will replace the building if it is removed. After discussion, a motion that the structure be "considered for preservation" failed on a 3-4 vote; earlier the body had voted the structure met the threshold for historical significance (vote reported 6-1).
The failed preservation motion means the commission will not impose a demolition delay or open a public-comment hearing under its process; as the chair explained, that leaves the applicant free to proceed with demolition consistent with other permitting requirements. Commissioners emphasized they lack the zoning authority to control future designs and that any review of replacement buildings typically occurs in a separate zoning or permitting process.
Following the votes, commissioners moved to authorize the chair to draft a letter to the Zoning Board/Planning staff expressing the commission's concern about future replacement design and urging context-sensitive outcomes; commissioners voted to authorize that letter.
The commission also discussed the broader demolition-delay law under review by the city council; staff and a process consultant said the council is considering procedural changes intended to simplify the commission's review and to ask applicants to provide plans earlier in the process. Commissioners were advised that changes to the ordinance could affect whether future demolition requests trigger public hearings or longer delays.
The owner of 5 Murphy Avenue may proceed with demolition under the present local process; the commission will send an advisory letter to zoning/planning regarding neighborhood context and design concerns.
