The Story Doesn’t Hold.
By Jim Conley • January 24th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
I’ve been doing some reporting on the Dennis Dewitt demotion of last month (see previous post) and it’s worse than I thought.
I’m taking this story in two parts. In the first, I look into the justification used to demote Dewitt - the citizen complaints used by Selectman’s Chair Bobby Allen.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
This post suggests a need for a cost/benefit analysis of the Preservation Commission and the five historic districts it governs. On the cost side, there is a paid staff, one full time, one half time, with support from the Planning Department. Also, there are the costs incurred by property owners in historic districts dealing with a layer of regulations in addition to building and zoning laws. Brookline started with one such District and then a second. Now there are five. None of these districts are historical in an academic sense regarding properties located therein. Rather, the designations are artitrary. I would challenge the Preservation Commission staff and Commission members to demonstrate the benefits to homeowners in these districts, not anecdotally but in verifiable economic terms. If significant value can be proven, then why not make the entire Town one humongus historic district and let all homeowners enjoy the intrusion of the “taste police”, aka the Preservation Commission.
By the way, the Commission recently undertook consideration of adopting rules and regulations, assigning the matter to a subcommittee. Several years ago the Planning Director Bob Duffy proposed that the Commission consider adopting rules and regulations for its proceedings. Under Chap. 40C, the Commission is not required but may adopt such rules and regulations. The Commission holds public hearings, which involve due process. But the Commission has not as yet adopted rules and regulations therefor. (It should be noted that the ZBA, which is required under Chap. 40A to adopt rules and regulations for its proceedings finally did so a couple of years ago, only 20 or more years late. But better late than never?) Thus, someone going before the Commission does have the benefit of rules and regulations to follow. Granted, Commission members are not paid, but if they are prepared to serve, they should be prepared to let homeowners coming before them know what the rules and regulations are. This is not rocket science. In addition, Chap. 40C makes it clear that Commission members are not to substitute their tastes for what homeowners want to do.
This post calls for more comments. But let’s not forget, in these pressing financial times, the cost/benefit analysis suggested earlier.
Regarding the Cottage Farm example, I assume that zoning issues were not involved. The property owners filed for a building permit for their project. While zoning relief was not required, the property was located in a historic district. Thus, the Building Department was required to refer the matter to the Preservation Commission. The Commission has jurisdiction if the building or structure involved with the project “is open to view from a public street, public way, public park or public body of water ….” (GL c.40C, Section 5.)
The Commission’s staff then goes to the site to determine whether the project is subject of its jurisdication. Apparently in its eagerness to have jurisdiction, this site review is addressed from every such possible view. Here, apparently the view was from Hall’s Pond, its Sanctuary and/or Amory Park, but not from any public street or way.
It is interesting to note that the project several years ago of the DPW that provided in the Sanctuary what many of us in the neighborhood termed “The Swamp” was heavily backed by the spouse of Commission member Gary Gross, one of Brookline’s leading preservationists, Betsy Shure Gross. Perhaps that is why Dr. Gross was so protective regarding the role of the Commission.
It is also worthy to note that Hall’s Pond, its Sanctuary, The Swamp and Amory Park are located within the Cottage Farm Historic District. The DPW as the sponsor of The Swamp project was thus subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. And the Commission took jurisdiction only after someone (guess who?) alerted the Commission of its jurisdiction.
If permitted, more comments may follow. But let’s not forget, in these pressing financial times, the cost/benefit analysis suggested in the prior comment. With now 5 historic districts, who knows, the staff may have to be enlarged to make sure that all views of a project are taken with extreme care to provide the Commission’s “GOTCHA!” to homeowners for their projects.
Chap. 40C provides in Section 7: “The commission shall not make any recommendation or requirement except for the purpose of preventing developments incongruous to the historic aspects or the architectural characteristics of the surroundings and of the the historic district.”
Do the recommendations of Commission members reported in the post violate this provision of Chap. 40C? Are these members substituting their tastes for those of the property owners? There is no BRIGHT LINE test regarding this provision. If it’s discretionary, then the “taste police”, aka Preservation Commission, take charge.
In any event, the process of a public hearing should require the production of evidence by the proponent and an opportunity for interested parties to voice their concerns or objections. When a Commission member makes a motion before all sides are heard, this is in a sense a pre-judgment lacking due process. And when a homeowner changes his/her plans, due process should require interested parties to voice their concerns or objections after they have been notified of changes. If due process is not provided, then it raises the legality of the public hearing. Perhaps the several attorneys on the Commission can explain this to the other members/alternates. This should be addressed in any rules and regulations that the Commission may adopt. After all, the Commission is a quasi-judicial body, isn’t it?