Legal & Legislative Committee — 2025-11-24
Attendance
Cal Finocchiaro ; Mark Garipay ; Leila Migliorelli ; Devin Romanul ; Kimberly Vandiver
Agenda
Minutes
Legal & Legislative Committee Monday, November 24, 2025, 7:30 PM City Council Chamber, 1st Floor 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Devin Romanul Vice Chair Cal Finocchiaro Mark Garipay Kimberly Vandiver Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Offico Member Maya Jamaleddine Chair Meeting was called to order by Chair Jamaleddine at 7:30 PM Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Devin Romanul Vice Chair Present Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Present Mark Garipay Ward 4 Present Kimberly Vandiver Ward 5 Present Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Present Officio Member Maya Jamaleddine Chair Present Councilors Hamilton, Karamcheti, Stewart and Williams also attended as non-voting members. II. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Legal & Legislative Committee Meeting November 17, 2025 6:45 pm Motion to Approve the minutes without reading and with no objections made by Chair Jamaleddine. RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Devin Romanul, Cal Finocchiaro, Mark Garipay, Kim Vandiver, Leila Migliorelli, Maya Jamaleddine NAYS: None III. PUBLIC COMMENT When: Nov 24, 2025 07:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Legal & Legislative Committee Meeting 1 Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose- org.zoom.us/j/93247990396?pwd=TuV8abaQz1hw8lRBlLMJ8eaG6MmZ5w.1 Passcode:109707 Webinar ID: 932 4799 0396 Motion to Open public comment made by Chair Jamaleddine at 7:32 PM Comments on the floor: -Diana Caparella of 18 Bellevue Avenue, Melrose, is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution and is in favor of saving the Benjamin Lynde House at 244 Main St. She commented that the demo delay is long overdue. Melrose has no laws to protect its historic buildings while other towns do and she is in total support of a demolition review ordinance. -Robert Tulles of 8 Thurston Road, Melrose, is a member of the Historic District Commission and is in support of this ordinance on an individual basis. It will give the city a chance to protect some of its properties and Melrose is in the minority by not having an ordinance to preserve significant architecture. -Jim Bennett of 45 Wentworth Road, Melrose, is in support of this ordinance and drafted a similar ordinance when he was Chair of the Historical Commission in September 2017, which was never passed. This current document is far better than his prior proposal and he urges a vote in favor of this. Motion to Close public comment made by Chair Jamaleddine at 7:42 PM. IV. ORDINANCES
A. (ID # 2025-571): That the City Council adopt a Demolition Review Ordinance as set forth herein, to preserve and protect buildings of historical significance in the City of Melrose. Chair Garipay asked for clarification on the latest paperwork. The Historic District Commission provided a letter and individuals gave input. The Planning Board has recommended these changes, and the Zoning Board has not met about it yet. President Migliorelli commented on the paper document with edits to the online agenda. Councilor Hamilton stated that he and Councilor FInocchiaro met with the planning board and legal department and compared it with the town of Somerville ordinance, which resulted in this current version. President Migliorelli brought up topics of the following: demo delay is not a stoppage/what is the mechanism to stop, the possibility of creating a historic district around the downtown area or composing a map of older special homes, how does this affect minor projects to historic properties, what is the application process, what is the cost analysis to the city to enact and enforce this. Councilor Hamilton commented that demo delay is the first layer of this ordinance. Once approved, the next layer could be creation of a historical district. Over the last 3 years, 9 older buildings were destroyed amounting to an average of 3 per year. Councilor Finocchiaro stated that over 150 communities in MA have this type of ordinance so Melrose is not re-inventing the wheel and it makes sense to implement this. Councilor Vandiver has invested about 20 hours into her analysis and finds that almost half of the homes in Melrose were built 100 years ago which is a very broad determining factor. Using the guideline of built in 1875 is about 4% of the homes. Councilor Karamcheti stated that any house older than 100 years would be subjected to the current language and this is too broad of a catch all. Councilor Williams stated that Melrose has about 800 2 family homes and 600 of these are over 100 years old. These are more affordable and the city does not see much demand to demo these. This ordinance does not cover interior demo or work, unless it affects the exterior. He suggests thinking 2 more carefully about the 100 year mark. Of the 9 recent demo projects, 6 of them resulted in multi- housing units and 3 of them went to single family dwellings. Councilor Romanul is in favor of historic preservation and asked how demo delay affects housing development in general. The planning board prefers a guideline of 100 years old instead of a specific year built but is flexible and the ordinance can be changed in the future. Councilor Stewart asked how long a typical delay would be. If the property is deemed to be preserved, it will be delayed 1 year unless the applicant is willing to work to shorten it. He is more comfortable with a specific year built instead of 100 years old as the determining factor and asked who will manage this. Inspectional services will review applications to catch the properties and they need to be brought into this plan. He feels like this process is being rushed to save one particular house and we need to create the right process for Melrose. Chair Jamaleddine asked if the historic commission reached out to the owner of the Benjamin Lynde house and no, they did not since there is no mandate in place. Councilor Finocchiaro feels rushed since the Benjamin Lynde house triggered this but it's a good ordinance based on proven rules already established in other towns. Most towns in MA have a 50 year mark and some a 75 year mark. Out of recent demos in Melrose, only the Caruso building might have had significance to this nand the demo permit was issued 1 year ago and the work is only now starting, after it was closed for many years. The master plans for Melrose from 2004 and 2017 had this goal and it was never done, so now is a good time. Councilor Hamilton agreed that this is definitely being rushed but that other towns have this in place and it is necessary. President Migliorelli asked if there are legal ramifications to this being done now in relation to the Benjamin Lynde home. No there are not since this would apply to the entire city and is not specific to one particular property. She asked if shed/garages are included in this and there are some interesting accessory structures but not many and that wording can be changed. She is concerned about getting the key players all on board before a final vote, noting that the planning board members had varying opinions. Motion to Hold in Committee made by President Migliorelli. No one seconded the motion, motion failed. Councilor Vandiver stated it's important to establish what is historically significant to Melrose versus other towns. She expressed concern in the wording being open to interpretation with a lot of latitide. She suggests using the year 1875 as a starting point for the ordinance and amending in the future as necessary. Motion to Accept the red-lined documents from Lori Massa made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Garipay On discussion President Migliorelli brought up concerns of wording on pages 2 and 4. Councilors Vandiver and Garipay withdrew their motion and second. Motion to Accept all of the changes in the document with the exception of on page 2 last full sentence to read "at least 100 years old", should not read "built on or b efore 1930" and page 4 underC3 the word "significance" to be changed to "significant" made by Councilor Vandiver. Seconded by Councilor Garipay Roll call was taken, all were in favor and motion passed. Motion to remove all references to 100 years and replace them with the year 1875 made by Councilor Vandiver. Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Councilor Garipay supports this order and wants to see it pass. He is okay with changing the date but is not comfortable going back to 1875 and he will vote no on that. Councilor Vandiver stated that 20% of structures in Melrose have 1900 as their date, which is a lot. Councilor Hamilton stated that the records are not all accurate and that 1900 was used as a catch all date. 3 Councilors Vandiver and Finocchiaro withdrew their motion and second. Motion to replace all references of 100 years old to the year 1899 made by Councilor Vandiver. Seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Roll call was taken, all were in favor and motion passed. Motion to recommend as amended to full council made by Councilor Finocchiaro Seconded by Councilor Vandiver On Discussion: President Migliorelli stated that she cannot support this measure until feedback is available from all stakeholders and with a final clean version of the document. Councilor Stewart as a non-voting member expressed that Mr. Talarico is away on vacation with little or no time to review this. He would vote no on this item at the council meeting on 12/1 in light of this. Chair Jamaleddine asked about the impact to the Benjamin Lynde House if this ordinance does not pass. Lori responded that if a demolition permit is requested for that property, it could be granted and demolition could proceed. It could take 30 days or more to review and process the application for a building permit. Most property owners don't start demolition prior to a building plan for the site. There is currently no demo permit application in process for this property and we don't know if one will be requested. If this ordinance is put on hold, what are the risks to this property and it is anyone's guess as to what the owner will decide to do. We have 45 days to pass this ordinance from the date of introduction. Councilor Hamilton commented that there is no such thing as a demolition permit, it's a building permit. The building permit may necessitate demolition and the inspector has 30 days to respond to that. If someone requested a building permit tomorrow with ISD and applies for a building permit that demolishes 50% or more of a structure, they will be grandfathered in and nothing will stop it without this ordinance. If we move this forward and it's acted on by next Monday night, anyone then applying for a building permit would be stopped. Time is of the essence to preserve this structure. Councilor Wiliams commented that there are only 2 more council meetings this year, 12/1 and 12/15, and suggested doing more work quickly to finalize the document and include interested parties. Councilor Stewart wants to give fair representation to all stakeholders and city departments and is willing to attend extra scheduled meetings in the short term to allow this to pass in a timely fashion. Councilor Finocchiaro stated that the planning board and historic commission are deeply involved in the ordinance thus far and have done most of the work, and that other city departments will not require as much effort to get involved. Councilor Vandiver is not as concerned about the amount of time required from the building inspector and shared that the ordinance can be amended in the future if pushed forward now in this version. President Migliorelli stated that she is not comfortable rushing this through especially in light of the holidays approaching and the possibility of more meetings being required. Roll call vote was taken, all in favor except for President Migliorelli voting no. Motion passed. RESULTS: Accepted TO: City Council AYES: Devin Romanul, Cal Finocchiaro, Mark Garipay, Kim Vandiver, Chair Jamaleddine NAYS: President Migliorelli 4 V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Melrose does not discriminate based on disability and is committed to hosting accessible meetings and events. Individuals with disabilities who need auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, written materials in alternative formats, or reasonable modifications in policies and procedures, in order to access the programs and activities of the City of Melrose or to attend meetings, should contactthe City’s ADA Coordinator, Polina Latta platta@cityofmelrose.org. Motion to Adjourn made by Councilor Garipay at 9:33 PM Seconded by Councilor Vandiver All were in favor and meeting was adjourned 5 City of Melrose City Ordinances, Article II. General Legislation Chapter 132 Demolition review. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve and protect significant buildings within the City of Melrose (“city”) which constitute or reflect distinctive aspects of the architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city, and which are outside of designated local historic districts; to encourage owners of such buildings and the Melrose Historical Commission (“commission”) to develop strategies to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore such buildings, rather than demolish them; or, in the alternative, to seek out persons willing to purchase and to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore such buildings, rather than demolish them; and to promote the public welfare by making the city a more attractive place in which to live. To achieve these purposes, the issuance of demolition permits for significant buildings is regulated as provided in this ordinance. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below: Abutter means an abutter as defined in M.G.L. c. 40A. Applicant means any person filing an application for a city permit. Application means a written application for a permit for the demolition of a building, a building permit, or zoning relief/compliance. Board of survey means the board ordered to respond, by M.G.L. c. 143 § 8, when an owner of a building does not respond to a notice that the building is unsafe. Building means any combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property, as well as any constructed, erected, or placed material or combination of materials in or upon the ground, excluding fences, walls, side & rear decks, sidewalks, stairs and paving on streets, driveways and patios. Building official means the Building Commissioner, or his/her designee. Calendar day means any day of the week, including a Saturday or a Sunday or a holiday. City clerk means the person holding the office of city clerk in the city. Demolition means the act of pulling down, destroying, removing, moving, or razing a building. Demolition includes commencing the work of the destruction of 50 percent or more of the exterior surface area (including walls and roof) of a building. For the purposes of this section, the term "demolition" shall not include routine maintenance as long as the maintenance undertaken does not fit the definitions of demolition contained in this section. For the purposes of this section, "demolition" does not include: (1) Removal, replacement, or installation of siding, roof shingles or windows; (2) Routine maintenance as long as the maintenance undertaken does not fit the definitions, of demolition contained in this section; (3) Interior renovations (except where the renovation is conducted for the purpose of compromising the integrity of the building); (4) Exploratory demolition, to the extent that it does not compromise the structure of the building; (5) Interior demolition, to the extent that it does not compromise the structure of the building; or (6) Minor projects as defined below. Demolition by neglect is a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a property to suffer severe deterioration, until it is beyond the point of repair. A deliberate process of ongoing damage to the fabric, viability and/or functionability of a building leading towards and/or causing its eventual demolition due to decay and/or structural failure and/or severe degradation over a period of time as a 1 result of a general lack of maintenance, and/or failure to secure the building from pests or vandals, and/or failure to take reasonable measures to prevent the ingress of water, snow, ice, and wind through the roof, walls, or apertures. Demolition review period means a period of time whereby a window of opportunity is enacted in order to enable the owners of a property, working with the commission or its designees, to determine ways of preserving and/or rehabilitating and/or restoring the property as an alternative to demolition. Exempt areas means the following: (1) The local historic districts as identified in Chapter 131 of the Code of Ordinances; and, (2) Buildings owned by the city. Exploratory demolition is the act of removing or uncovering (non-structural) building materials located on the interior of a building prior to renovation, rehabilitation, restoration, or remodeling in order to verify the existing conditions present in otherwise unexposed areas. Final determination means a determination that a building is preferably preserved, made by the commission in accordance with subsection (f) of this section. Illegal demolition means a demolition undertaken by any person without an application having been reviewed and approved by the commission and/or without building or demolition permits from the inspectional services department. Initial determination means a determination that a building is significant, in accordance with subsection (5) of this section. Interior demolition is the act of removing non-structural interior building materials for the purpose of renovating, rehabilitating, restoring, or remodeling the interior space. Minor project is the removal of a portion of a single-, two-, or three-unit structure for the purpose of only accomplishing one or more of the following: adding a dormer, dormer window, entry canopy, bay, or gable; adding an addition to the side or rear of the structure; adding or altering a portico, porch or deck; or, changing the shape, style or structure of a roof. Owner means the entity with legal title to a building. Permit means a written permit issued by the Building official that allows for the demolition (as defined herein) of a building pursuant to an application. Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, trust, society, or similar entity. Preferably preserved (building) means a significant building, which, as the commission determines, as provided in subsection (f) of this section, that it is in the public interest to be preserved or rehabilitated or restored rather than to be demolished. Premises means the parcel of land upon which the building proposed for demolition is located and all adjoining parcels of land under common ownership or control that are identified in the permit application. Reasonable economic return means the cost to rehabilitate or restore the building to the point at which a reasonable use or a reasonable profit can be realized from the property. This may mean bringing a building up to code to the point at which it can be occupied, not necessarily to its “highest and best use,” preferred use or a restoration project. Significant (building) means any building within the city which is listed on, or is within an area listed on, the National Register of Historic Places, or which is the subject of a pending application for listing on the National Register, or is at least 100 years old and has been determined by the commission in their initial determination to be a significant building, per subsection (e) of this section. Voluntary means any act(s) done by design or intention, which is proposed, intended, or not accidental. An act of God is not considered voluntary, but rather is regarded as an act done without the will or 2 choice of the applicant (or owner, if different from applicant). For the purposes of this section, the destruction of a significant building for failure to properly secure or maintain it shall be considered voluntary. 3. Review of demolitions. No building in the city may undergo demolition, as defined in subsection (b) of this section, except through the provisions of this section. Demolition may only be permitted if one of the following apply: A. The building does not meet the prima facie definition of a significant building (i.e. it is less than 100 years old, and is not currently on, or proposed to be placed on, the National Register); B. The building is located within an exempt area; C. The building is determined by the commission or its designee to not be significant, through the procedure of subsection (5) of this section; D. The building is determined by the commission to not be preferably preserved through the procedure of subsection (6) of this section, and has met any condition of such determination per subsection (f)(5)c of this section; E. The commission lifts or shortens a demolition review period per subsection (7) of this section; or F. The demolition review period, per subsection (7) of this section, is exhausted. 4. Notification. When the building official or planning director receives an application for a demolition permit, a building permit or a permit for zoning relief (including but not limited to special permit, site plan review or variance), for work that will constitute demolition, as defined in this section, and is on a building that is or could be determined significant, as defined in this section, and is not within an exempt area, then the building official or planning director shall, within ten calendar days, notify: A. the commission or its designees in writing that a relevant application has been received. This notification shall include a copy of the application, and shall be delivered to the commission or its designees by interoffice mail, email, other electronic means, or by in-hand delivery; and, B. the Applicant to complete and submit an application to the commission. 5. Initial determination (determination of significance). A. Determinations by the commission. The commission shall move to determine if a building is significant, as follows: i. If a building is listed on, or is within an area listed on, the National Register of Historic Places, or the subject of a pending application for listing on the National Register, it shall be automatically determined significant, and shall be scheduled for final determination of this section. ii. Otherwise, for buildings over 100 years old the applicant must submit an application to the commission, using the forms developed per subsection (10)(D) of this section. Upon receipt of an application, the commission or its designee shall make a written determination whether the building, which is the subject of the relevant permit application, is a significant building. B. Criteria for determination of significance. To determine if a building over 100 years old is significant, the commission must make a finding by majority vote that the building is: i. Associated with one or more important historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the city or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; or, ii. Historically or architecturally significant (in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with a reputed architect or builder) either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings; and therefore it is in the public interest for the premises to be explored further through the final determination process. The commission shall consider: a. Setting - the character of the location and how the building is situated in relationship to other features, such as the streetscape and neighboring buildings. 3 b. Materials - the elements that were originally combined to construct the building, sometimes referred to as historic building fabric. c. Design - reflects the historic building style. d. Location - the place where the building was originally placed. e. Workmanship - evidence of the builder’s craft skills and technology. f. Feeling - the expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular time period. g. Association - the direct link between an important event or person and the building. C. Procedure for public meeting, notice and hearing. i. The determination of significance of certain classes or types of buildings including concrete block garages, outbuildings, sheds and similar accessory buildings shall be made at a public meeting. The public meeting shall occur within 21 days of the application submission to the commission. If the commission determines such a building does not meet the criteria of this section, and is therefore not significant, this determination shall be transmitted to the building official. Otherwise, the applicant shall proceed with the request for a final determination in a public hearing per subsection (6) of this section. ii. A determination of significance shall be made in a duly noticed public hearing by the commission, except as exempted in subsection (C)(i) or waived per subsection (5)(E) of this section. The public hearing shall be held within 65 calendar days of the commission or its designees receiving a copy of the application, unless an extension of time is permitted by mutual agreement of the applicant and the commission. The commission shall give the public notice of the hearing by publishing the time, place, and purpose of the hearing in a local newspaper, at least 14 days prior to the hearing. The commission shall also mail, in a form designated by the city, a notice to the applicant, the owner of the building and abutters to the subject property, postmarked at least ten days prior to the hearing. The Applicant shall pay the cost of the newspaper notice and postage of mailed notices. The commission shall complete the public hearing within 35 days of opening the public hearing, unless an extension of time is permitted by mutual agreement of the applicant and the commission. D. Notice of decision. i. If the commission determines that the building is not a significant building, this determination shall be transmitted to the building official, the applicant, the owner of the building and to the city clerk within 14 calendar days from the date of determination. The applicant shall not be required to take any further steps toward preservation of the building and the demolition may proceed, subject to all other building permit and zoning requirements. ii. If the commission determines that the building is significant, it shall notify the building official, the applicant, and the city clerk, of its determination within 14 calendar days from the date of determination. The owner or applicant, or their representatives, shall then be required to attend a subsequent final determination public hearing with the commission during which the commission will determine if the building is to be preferably preserved. iii. If the commission fails to act in accordance with this process within the prescribed timeframe, the building official may grant the demolition permit, provided that the applicant has met all other requirements under the filed applications, and shall notify the commission in writing that the permit has been granted. E. Waiver of initial determination. An applicant, when submitting the required documents for an initial determination, may voluntarily select to waive initial determination. If the initial determination is waived, the building shall immediately be determined to be a significant building, without further action from the commission, and shall be scheduled for a final determination per subsection (6) of this section. F. Expiration. An initial determination is valid for three years. If an applicant does not proceed to apply for final determination within three years, the review process must start over from the beginning, prior to 4 a building being demolished. If an application does not demolish a building within three years of a determination that the building is not a significant building, the review process must start over from the beginning, prior to a building being demolished. 6. Final determination (determination of preferably preserved). A. Additional application and plan review materials. Applicants who did not submit an application for an Initial determination must submit an application to the Commission for a final determination. Applicants that submitted an application for an initial determination may need to provide additional information, in addition to the information requested, in the process of a final determination, as follows. In the event that the applicant and/or owner seek to take a position that the building is of deficient structural integrity, the applicant shall submit an independent licensed structural engineer’s report, from a qualified and experienced structural engineer with proven expertise in historic building techniques. In the event that the applicant and/or owner seek to take a position that a financial hardship applies to a property, the commission may request any or all of the following. It will be incumbent upon the applicant to provide such information in order for the demolition review process to continue: i. The appraised value of the property by a licensed appraiser for the following conditions: in the property’s current condition; after completion of the proposed demolition; and after rehabilitation of the existing property for continued use. ii. An estimate from an architect, developer, contractor, or appraiser experienced in rehabilitation as to the cost to rehabilitate the building to the point of which a reasonable use or a reasonable profit can be realized from the property. Such considerations may include, but not be limited to, bringing a building up to code so it can be occupied. iii. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the person from whom the property was purchased, a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record, the applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased or is being purchased, and the terms of the purchase or proposed purchase, including financing. iv. Operation and maintenance expenses, depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any. v. The name of all mortgagees and the balance of all mortgages or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service. vi. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing and ownership of the property. vii. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, the price asked and offers received for sale or rent, if any, within the previous five years. viii. The assessed value of the property for the previous two assessment years. ix. The form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for profit or not- for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture or other. x. Any other information considered necessary by the commission to determine whether the property yields or may yield a reasonable economic return to the property owner(s). xi. Proof of the applicant’s efforts to obtain financing, tax incentives, preservation grants and other incentives to allow the applicant to earn a reasonable economic return from the property. xii. Documents, including copies of invoices, detailing the applicant’s efforts in ongoing maintenance and repair. B. Procedure for public notice and meetings. The commission shall conduct a public hearing on the application within 45 calendar days of the initial determination of significance, unless an extension of time is permitted by mutual agreement of the applicant and the commission. The commission shall give the public notice of the hearing by publishing the time, place, and purpose of the hearing in a local 5 newspaper, at least 14 calendar days prior to the hearing. The commission shall also mail, in a form designated by the city, a notice to the applicant, the owner of the building and abutters, postmarked at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. The Applicant shall pay the cost of the newspaper notice and postage of mailed notices. C. Public hearing. The commission shall complete the public hearing within 35 days of opening the public hearing regarding the determination of “preferably preserved”, unless an extension of time is permitted by mutual agreement of the applicant and the commission. The applicant or their agent must present their demolition request in person to the commission and be prepared to answer questions asked by the commission. If the property applicant, their agent, or property owner is unable to address questions regarding the demolition request or the supporting documentation, the experts/professionals who prepared the information must be present. If the applicant, owner or their agent cannot attend the meeting or adequately address questions, the demolition request will be continued to a later meeting and the commission’s determination will be delayed. D. Peer review. The commission may call for a peer review of any professional report, should the commission deem it necessary to make a final determination, subject to the availability of funds. E. Final determination. Upon completion of the public hearing, the commission shall determine if a significant building shall be preferably preserved by majority vote of the commission, as follows: i. The commission may, at their discretion, determine that a building is a preferably preserved building, as follows: by determining that the demolition of the building would be detrimental to the architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the city. ii. The commission may, at their discretion, determine that a building is not a preferably preserved building, as follows: by determining that demolition of the building does not merit a finding under subsection (6)(E) above; or, by making a finding that the negative impact on the heritage of the city would be exceeded by the benefit to the city of the development that would occur if the demolition were permitted to go forward. iii. The commission may, at their discretion, place conditions on a determination that a building is not preferably preserved, which may require an applicant to provide one or more of the following to the planning department prior to demolition: 1. photographic documentation of the building to be demolished; 2. architectural renderings of the building to be demolished; 3. identification of materials for salvage of material; and/or, 4. a plan for installation of historic or interpretive signage at or near the site. F. Filing of decision. Within 14 calendar days following the date of the public hearing, the commission or its designees shall file a final determination, in writing, with the city clerk, and shall inform the building official, the applicant and the owner of the building. G. Expiration. A final determination that a building is not a preferably preserved building is valid for three years. If an applicant does not demolish a building within three years of a determination that the building is not a preferably preserved building, the process must start over from the beginning prior to a building being demolished. 7. Process for preferably preserved buildings. A. Demolition review period. Upon the commission’s final determination that said building is preferably preserved the building official shall not issue a demolition permit for building during the demolition review period. The demolition review period shall be as follows: The demolition review period shall be a maximum of 12 months. The demolition review period shall begin on the date following the day upon which the commission made the final determination that building is preferably preserved. B. Alternatives to demolition. During the demolition review period, the applicant, their agent, and/or the owner (if different from applicant), and the commission or its designees are encouraged to actively pursue alternatives to demolition of the preferably preserved building, including but not limited to, finding a buyer for the building that is willing to rehabilitate the property, rather than demolish it. The 6 applicant, their agent, and/or the owner is encouraged to actively pursue alternatives to demolition by meeting with the commission at a minimum of once per month during the demolition review period. C. Shortening/ending the demolition review period. The commission may shorten or end the demolition period, at its discretion, upon determination that one of the following conditions applies: i. The commission determines that there is no reasonable likelihood that either the owner or some other person or group is willing to purchase, preserve, rehabilitate or restore such building. ii. The commission and the applicant come to a mutually agreeable plan for a more limited demolition that adequately preserves the property and permits the applicant to meet the findings of subsection (6)(E) of this section. iii. The commission and the applicant come to a mutually agreeable set of strategies for addressing the heritage on the site, including but not limited to: 1. photographic documentation of the building to be demolished; 2. architectural renderings of the building to be demolished; 3. identification of materials for salvage of material; 4. a plan for installation of historic or interpretive signage at or near the site; and/or, 5. the establishment of design standards for a replacement building, provided that the standards are limited to the reflection of elements in the building to be demolished or are intended to complement the character of adjacent buildings of historical significance. Upon making a determination to shorten or end the demolition review period, the commission shall file a decision and inform the applicant and the building official. D. Withdrawal. If the applicant chooses not to proceed with demolition, the applicant may, at any time, inform the commission and withdraw their application without prejudice. E. Expiration. Upon expiration of a demolition review period, or upon a determination by the commission to shorten or end a demolition review period, an applicant shall have three years to demolish the building. If an application does not demolish a building within three years of the expiration of the review period or the determination to shorten or end the review period, the process must start over from the beginning prior to a building being demolished. 8. Enforcement. A. Authority. The Inspectional Services Department is the enforcing authority for this section. The Building official is authorized to institute any and all actions and proceedings, in law or in equity, as they deem necessary and appropriate to obtain compliance with the requirements of this section. This may include, but is not limited to, the complete reconstruction and restoration of the demolished building. B. Fines. The provisions of this section may be enforced by a noncriminal disposition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40, § 21D. Each violation shall be deemed a separate offense. Each day a violation occurs shall be deemed a separate offense. Unless otherwise provided, any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity violating any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of $300.00 per day, per violation, in accordance with section 235-3.4 of the Code of Ordinances. Unpaid fines shall result in a municipal lien against the subject property. C. Building permit delay. No building permit shall be issued for a new building on any premises where a significant building is demolished in violation of this section, for the period specified therein. 9. City-owned buildings. 7 A. Exemption. As noted in the definition of “exempt area,” buildings owned by the city are not subject to the demolition review process. B. Historical commission review. Prior to the demolition of any building owned by the city, the city administration shall submit information about the demolition to the commission for a non-binding review and comment. C. Comment meeting. The commission shall schedule, at their next available public meeting, for the city administration to present the building to be demolished and the purpose and need for the demolition. D. Commission role. After the presentation by the city administration, the commission may, within 35 days, issue comments on the demolition. Comments will be provided to the city administration and the city council. Those comments may include, but not be limited to: suggestions for photographic documentation or renderings of the building to be demolished, identification of materials for salvage and/or suggestions for installation of historic or interpretive signage at or near the site. E. City council action on demolition. The city council may not approve any order, including appropriation of funds, that will permit the demolition of a building owned by the city, until the building has been submitted for review by the commission and either a) the commission has provided comments to the city council or; b) 35 days have elapsed after the date of the presentation to the commission, with no comments submitted by the commission to the city council. 10. Other provisions. A. Secure building. Upon a determination by the commission that a building is a significant and/or preferably preserved building, the owner shall be responsible for properly securing the building in order to protect it from the weather and trespass/vandalism. B. Emergency demolition. Nothing in this section shall derogate from the authority of the building official and/or a board of survey to act under M.G.L. c. 143 and the State Building Code. C. Historic Districts Act. If any provision of this section conflicts with the “Historic Districts Act,” M.G.L. c. 40(C), the Act shall prevail. D. Rules and regulations. The commission may establish rules and regulations of procedure for the implementation of this section, including but not limited to establishment of application fees. The planning staff shall develop application forms to accept and process submittals under this section. E. Transferability. Where the owner sells or transfers ownership of a property that is in the middle of the demolition review process, that new owner may continue the review process but may be required to submit updated documentation as required by the commission. F. Effect. This section shall take effect upon approval. The Ordinance and amendments thereto do not apply to applications for demolition submitted prior to the approval date. G. Severability and reinstatement. In case any section, paragraph or part of this section for any reason shall be declared invalid by any court, every other section, paragraph and part shall continue in full force and effect. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this section is held invalid, the relevant section, sentence, clause or phrase in effect prior to the effective date of the section shall be reinstated in full force and effect, without further action from the city council. 8 November 20, 2025 Dear Members of the Melrose City Council, I am writing to share my concerns about the proposed demolition-review ordinance (Article II, Chapter 132 Demolition Review) for buildings over 100 years old. From what I understand, this proposal has been advanced quickly in response to concerns about a single property (“The Lynde House” on Main Street). While I respect the desire to protect uniquely historic structures, creating a citywide, permanent regulatory framework in reaction to one specific situation raises substantial and lasting risks for homeowners, for property values, and for the City of Melrose. Because the ordinance applies to all buildings over 100 years old, its scope is very broad. The number of properties in Melrose that meet that criterion means the impact would not be limited to a single historically notable house but would reach many ordinary homes. For that reason, I have several concerns I respectfully ask the Council to consider: 1. Over-broad coverage of ordinary homes. Many houses over 100 years old have little historic or architectural significance and may require substantial investment to make them safe or habitable. A blanket age threshold inevitably sweeps in these ordinary homes and imposes new burdens on owners who never intended to be part of a preservation regulatory regime. 2. Conflict with housing goals and the practical impact on buyers and sellers. We have encouraged multi-unit and infill housing to help address local housing shortages. A demolition-delay process creates an added barrier for buyers and developers who might otherwise invest in renovating or replacing older, inefficient homes. This is especially significant for older homeowners who rely on the equity in a sale; if the only viable buyer is a developer, delaying demolition can materially reduce marketability and value. This also potentially impacts our “New Home Build” tax base increase we are always reliant upon to grow our tax base. 3. City resource and administrative costs. The ordinance requires notice, hearings, written determinations, and potentially peer review of engineering and financial reports. Given how many homes could be affected, this will demand substantial time and resources from the Historical Commission (volunteers), Inspectional Services, Legal staff, City Clerk staff, etc. I am concerned the City does not currently have the staffing or budget to absorb this workload without creating backlogs or inconsistent outcomes. Coming literally days out of a Proposition 2 ½ Override election has my full attention here. 4. Enforcement and legal exposure. How will the City respond to pre-emptive or “sneak” demolitions, or to owners who ignore the review process? What penalties will be effective and enforceable? Further, the City could face legal challenges alleging regulatory overreach or an unconstitutional taking, which could expose taxpayers to costly litigation and settlements. 5. Risk of neglect and blight. We’ve watched “The Caruso Building” for 15 years as it has fallen into disrepair over legal issues, environmental issues, etc. In my own neighborhood near Howard Street, we’ve watched an abandoned home (circa 1889) over the past years fall further into neglect, including overgrown property and inhabited by rodents and animals, and undoubtedly diminishing abutting property value. I can think of several other houses around Melrose already in this situation. Requiring lengthy administrative reviews, expensive reports, and waiting periods may incentivize abandonment or accelerate deterioration if owners cannot afford required compliance steps during a prolonged review. This harms neighborhoods and nearby property values. I understand and sympathize with the desire to protect truly exceptional historic properties. I hope individuals and preservation groups succeed in finding private buyers and funding to save the Lynde House. But a permanent, citywide ordinance created rapidly in reaction to one urgent case risks creating many more problems than it solves. I urge the Council to pause as well as substantially narrow this proposal if it were to move forward. If the goal is to protect genuinely historic structures, please consider a targeted approach: protect only designated or formally recognized landmarks, strengthen incentives for voluntary preservation, or create a narrowly tailored, time-limited moratorium specific to the immediate concern while the City develops a thoughtful long-term policy. Thank you for your service to our community and for considering these concerns. Sincerely, Kathy Vines 43 Howard Street Richard Curl and Susannah Clark 155 Myrtle Street Melrose, MA 02176 20 November 2025 Melrose City Council City Hall, 562 Main Street Melrose, MA 02176 Re: Demolition Delay Ordinance Dear City Council, We are writing to express our very strong support for the proposed Demolition Delay Ordinance. As the pace of redevelopment in our town continues to increase, we need very much to have some mechanism for preserving the most important of our buildings and history. We strongly believe that the Demolition Delay Ordinance is important not only to slow down or prevent the demolition of historically important structures, but also just to question, as a community, the attitude that demolition needs to be the only way to redevelop a property. Additionally, enacting this proposed ordinance would be a strong expression that we all value our town and its built heritage. If we are now only one of the very few towns in eastern Massachusetts without this type of ordinance, that feels to me like we’re saying we don’t care. Enacting the proposed ordinance would be a more accurate representation of how I know we feel as a community. Sincerely, Richard Curl and Susannah Clark
Transcript
▶ 4:38 Maya Jamaleddine: Council. Thank you. (clears throat) Good evening. The time is 7:30 on Monday, um- Recording in progress. ... November 24th, 2025. This is a meeting of the Legal and Legislative Committee. I am Maya Jamaleddine, pronouns she and her, the chair. Also joining me tonight, uh, Vice Chair Romanul, um, Councillor Stewart, uh, President Migliorelli, Councillor Vandiver, Councillor Finocchiaro, uh, Councillor Hamilton, Councillor Stewart, uh, Councillor Karamcheti and Councillor, um, uh, Garipeh. Excuse me. This serves as notice of a quorum for their record. In accordance with the Open Meeting Law, this meeting is being recorded and broadcast live on MMTV. Uh, um, moving to the minute approval, uh, Legal and
▶ 5:37 Maya Jamaleddine: Legislative Committee meeting November 17, 2023, time is 6:45. I will, um, um, uh, motion, uh, without reading to approve the minutes of, uh, November 17th. Seeing no objection, um, the minutes are now approved. Um-Moving to the public comment, um, uh, portion. Um, if there is, um, I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment, seeing no objection. We are now open for public comment, and this is the portion of the meeting where anyone can speak on any item on our agenda for tonight. Um, do we have anyone in public wishing to speak? Please state your name and, um, address. Good evening. Hi. Good evening. My name is Diana Caffarella, 18 Bellevue Ave. I'm, I'm a member
▶ 6:49 of the local chapter of Daughters of the American Revolution and I also r- run the recent social media campaign, Saint- Save the Benjamin Lind House, Melrose. Thank you to the City Council for giving your attention to this matter on the agenda and to those who came tonight in support. A house in Melrose recently came on the market, 244 Main Street. This is a home that has seen all of Melrose's sea- seasons. 250 years ago, church bells everywhere rang the alarm that the British had reached our shores and were marching toward Lexington to, to destroy our supplies. Melrose wasn't yet Melrose, but North Malden. Yet, these residents, determined to protect their home, gathered here to train and guard the idea that
▶ 7:35 America could be free and indep- a free and independent state. One of its residents, Benjamin Lind, along with his neighbors, marched together with their company in the event they had to intercede the British on their way back from Lexington and to also protect the banks of the Mystic River. A house in Melrose recently came on the market, 244 Main Street, the homestead of Benjamin Lind, a patriot, a veteran. Now it's our turn, as neighbors, to partis- to protect his home, a home that saw Melrose in its infancy. A demoli- a demolition delay ordinance in Melrose is long overdue. Melrose is so unique from its surrounding towns. Our architecture is a hallmark of the community, the Victorian vere. This house here is
▶ 8:23 older, but unlike many surrounding towns, we have no laws in place to protect and preserve our history. I urge everyone to pause and give thought to what else can be done to save our history for future generations. There is so much more that can be done. Particularly, the Benjamin Lind House was important not only Recording in progress. ... but in 1976, it was registered with the Massa- Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System, or MACRIS. The Benjamin Lind home is a significant part of our community's heritage, and its removal would be an irreplaceable loss to Melrose's cultural and architectural character. It's not the fault of the seller for wanting to sell their house, nor the developer for just trying to do their job.
▶ 9:04 However, development can be done in a conscientious way and not at the expense of a 200-year-old property that thus far has been well maintained. This, this is not the type of structure for it. The responsibility to safeguard it and our, and our other historical buildings falls on our shoulders as a city and a community, and our decisions today impact the legacy of Melrose. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Caffarella. Anyone else wishing to speak in public comment? Good evening. My name is Robert Tullis. I live at 8 Thurston Road, um, near the Horace Mann School. I've lived there for, I don't know, 38 years or something like that. Um, I also serve as a member of the Historic District Commission. I'm not here to speak on their behalf tonight.
▶ 9:57 I'm here to speak on my own behalf. Um, I believe that the Historic District Commission has filed a letter with the City Council supporting the idea of a demolition delay permit, so I think we are already on record as supporting it. I would just like to support it individually. I think that, um, as the previous speaker said, one of the assets of Melrose is, uh, its distinctive architecture and its architectural history, and the, uh, demolition delay permit will give the city the opportunity to at least help protect some properties that come under risk and are identified as being worth preserving and worth additional attention. Um, we are one of the towns, um, in this area that do not have a demolition delay, uh, permit
▶ 10:52 process, but there are many, many, many towns that do, um, and so we are actually sort of in the minority of not offering the citizens of this town, um, the opportunity to, uh, hopefully impact, um, and save significant, um, architecture in Melrose, and we have a lot of it, um, not only all of the Victorian homes that the city is known for, some of which would, uh, possibly deserve such protection should they come under risk, but a number of, uh, 150, 200-year-old homes, um, that represent the founding, um, colonial, uh, citizens of North Malden. So, uh, the building at 244 Main Street is, I think, what has, uh, kicked this all into, uh, a high pace, but it's not the only, um, building that, um,
▶ 11:52 deserves, uh, some additional inspection at the time that it's under threat. So again, personally, um, I would like to, uh, register my support for the City Council enacting a demolition delay permit. Thank you. Thank you.Do we have anyone else wishing to speak? Hello there. I'm Jim Bennett. I take, um, any pronouns. I'm at 45 Wentworth Road. And if I'm a little incoherent tonight, I woke up on the other side of the Atlantic this morning, but got off the plane and had to come here, because this is so important to me. So, uh, good evening, city councilors, President Migliorelli, uh, and Chair Jamaleddine. I am here tonight to speak in support of the draft Demolition Review Ordinance before you and I'm experiencing a sense of déjà
▶ 12:44 vu. In September 2017, over eight years ago, I was chair of the Melrose Historical Commission, and in that capacity, I presented a similar draft to the Legal and Legislative Committee of the then Melrose Board of Aldermen. The Historical Commission had worked on that draft for two years, had improved it with the help of the city solicitor, Rob Van Kampen, who's about to become the new mayor of Everett. And we had gained the full support of Mayor Rob Dolan and the director of the Office of Planning and Community Development, Denise Gaffey. After fielding reasonable and friendly questions from the board that night, I went home feeling quite optimistic that Melrose would at last join the vast majority of municipalities in greater Boston who have a version of this tried and
▶ 13:23 true commonsensical ordinance on their books. And by the way, here is the map for anyone who's not seen it yet. Any community that is not in white already has this on the books, and it's just about every community in greater Boston. Uh, alas, going back eight years ago, it was not to be. Less than a month later, Rob Dolan suddenly resigned as mayor, and for reasons that to this day I do not understand, the draft demo- Demo Review Ordinance was filed away and was never given serious consideration again. But my friends, tonight we can rectify that. What you have before you is a far better document than the one I presented eight years ago. Since that time, people have been working on this; historic preservationists, lawyers, architects, city
▶ 14:04 planners, and even bumbling generalists such as myself. Uh, while the potential demolition of the Benjamin Lynde House has given a renewed sense of relevance to this movement, the draft you have before you is really the work of many hands over many years, and it might be the single most long-lived legislative draft in existence in Melrose. Uh, critics of demolition review largely rely, I think, on scaremongering. They propose the demolition review emp- empowers a panel of reactionary NIMBY types who want to kill potential development. The experience of the many dozens of Massachusetts communities with demo review ordinances on the books argues otherwise. They have used demo review as a helpful tool
▶ 14:49 in their municipal smart growth toolbox. I first came to understand that reality by listening to the deep experience and wisdom of former Melrose Historical Commission member, George Proakis, who was at that time planner for the City of Somerville and is now the city manager of Watertown. Somerville and Watertown are cities that have enviable records of building dense, affordable housing. They have also both achieved 40B Safe Harbor status, and they both have demolition review ordinances on the books and historical commissions empowered to administer them, and as you talk to George, he'll tell you he's worked very hard to make sure they have those powers. Demolition review is not the enemy of development
▶ 15:32 Maya Jamaleddine: or of dense urban growth. It is a smart tool to ensure that Melrosians can say to developers, "Yes, in my backyard," in a way that respects the historic built environment of the community. In closing, I urge you all to vote tonight in favor of this draft ordinance. I would rather not wait another eight years for it to see the light of day again. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. And, uh, if there is anyone else in person wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing none, do we have anyone online? No one online. Okay. Um, if there is no objection, I will motion, um, to close public comment. Seeing none, we are now closed for public comment. Um, thank you all. Uh, thank you for everyone who, um, spoke in public comments.
▶ 16:30 Maya Jamaleddine: And now, uh, to our, um, only, um, uh, order on our agenda, ID, uh, ordinance number, ID number 2020-571, that the City Council adopt a Demolition Review Ordinance as set forth herein, um, uh, to preserve and protect buildings of historical significance in the City of Melrose. We have, um... I will turn it to the, um, uh, maker of the ordinance, uh, to speak and then we can turn it to the, uh, members of the, um, administration. Um, Councilor Karamcheti uh, Councilor Takara. That's okay. (laughs) Sorry. Close enough. Thank you, Chair, uh, Jamaleddine. And thank you everybody for being here tonight and for the people that spoke. Um, I am not an expert at demo delay. (laughs) Um, we have some experts in the, in the house, so I just want to say thank
▶ 17:30 Cal Finocchiaro: you to our city planner, Lori Masa, for her support and, uh, for s- supplying the revised d- draft ordinance that we're looking at tonight. Um, her knowledge and expertise in housing development and also preservation is greatly valued. Um, I also want to thank Shane Egan and the historical commission members, um, our city solicitor, Shannon Phillips, and Council Hamilton for, um, your guidance and show of support with this. So Lori and Shane, if you, um, want to come and present and we'll talk about... So we- I know we have some, you know, I know we some- have some revisions too to walk through as well, so... Yes, so we have, um, Director Masa and we have Chair Egan, uh, both, uh, present with us to, uh, speak
▶ 18:13 Maya Jamaleddine: on this ordinance. Uh, just for the record and for the public, I understand that my colleagues have been working tirelessly on this ordinance, uh, in collaboration with the different departments and different, um, uh-... parties involved, um, and we just received some recommendations, last-second recommendations, so we haven't had the chance to read it, but we welcome all the, um, uh, recommendations and suggestions that, um, was shared, um, and the floor is yours. So, if- if I could just say, I- I- I'd like to say, on behalf of the Melrose Historical Commission, and- and knowing that Jim Bennett's a tough act to follow- (laughs) ... uh, we really endorse what, what, what Jim says, but also, uh, you know, I
▶ 18:58 think to reiterate that we're not looking for, uh, you know, demolition delay to, to stop development. Uh, we are looking for a sensible demolition delay, uh, to pause and say, "Wait a second. Uh, let's analyze if this particular structure is of historical value and should be potentially saved and/or adjusted so we can, uh, honor that, uh, the past of that particular home in some way." So, it may not always be a situation where the house stays the way it is and it doesn't change at all. It's gonna change, we understand that, but if we respect the past, the Historical Commission will work with developers, uh, in that pause period, or even before that, to make sure that the, uh, home is going to
▶ 19:42 retain that, uh, uh, you know, historical significance. So, I just wanted to put that as a preamble to, to this. I think it's very important, uh, and that we are very supportive of this, uh, agenda item. Thank you so much. I appreciate, um, your comments, and, uh, Director Massa - Yes, yeah. ... to share. Thank you for having me. I put together a few slides just to, um, show some data that, um, we thought might come up in this discussion. Um, so, let's see. Mm-kay. (laughs) I don't know if there's a delay or- (laughs) ... this is not working here. Oh, okay. Um, so the purpose, um, of a demolition delay ordinance, um, is, uh, typically not to prevent demolition, that is a potential outcome, um, but it is for a pause in the construction process, uh,
▶ 20:36 to consider alternatives to demolition, um, for preservation, rehab- rehabilitation or restoring- (clears throat) ... um, buildings, um, and- Okay. ... so that, that can be a great outcome or, um, other alternatives in this delay period, um, are photo documentation of buildings, um, architectural renderings or, um, inventories of properties, identifying materials for salvage, um, that can be used elsewhere or with- or within the, um, whatever happens next with the building or the site, um, and a plan for installation of historic interpretive signage at or near the site. So, this is the map, um, that, um, shows from the Mass Historical Commission of the communities in Massachusetts that have this, um, demo,
▶ 21:31 you know, it's called demo- demolition, demolition delay or review, or there's other names depending on the community. Um, this is a regulation that is, um, a local regulations, it's not in state law that specifies exactly how this process works, so you kind of work with it, um, how you'd like at the municipal level. Um, so there are many communities that have, um, demolition delay and the timeframe for that delay varies, um, from, you know, none to, um, greater than 12 months. You know, it's, uh, can be sometimes up to, um, two years. Recording in progress. (laughs) That happens. Okay, there we go. Um, so Melrose is, um, right here, if you can see- (laughs) (laughs) ... the cursor here. Um,
▶ 22:28 so the proposal, um, before you includes, um, this review period for any buildings in the city that are 100 years or older, um, or if properties are on or proposed to be on the National Register of Historic Places. And, um, the way that it's, uh, in the- the draft is that the Historical Commission, um, determines if, uh, a property is (soft thump) um, there's a two- two kind of phase determination. Um, if it's a building is, um, significant and then if it's preferably preserved. And so, um, this slide shows (object clattering) some of the factors in determining- making the determination about the association with an important historic person, event, or significant architectural style, um, culture, political, economic or social
▶ 23:21 history, um, or historically or architecturally significant either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. Um, and then we, um, (smacks lips) pulled together a map that shows the number of buildings, um, in Melrose that are 100 years or older, um, and there's also a paper copy if anyone wants to take a closer look, um, on the table (papers rustling) . Um, so there are a number, so the ones in- in yellow are the residential properties, the ones in pink are commercial or mixed-use, um, the purplish are churches or, um, religious institutions, and then the green is the local downtown historic district, um, which is along Main Street, um, from Emerson to, um, to Foster. And, um, also on this map is marked the National
▶ 24:15 Register Properties, um, with the red square and municipal buildings that fall into this 100 years or older, um, with the- with the blue square. So, I can zoom in if we'd like, but we also have the, um, the paper map here.And then that map, in terms of the numbers, um, are on this slide. So there are s- 7,800 structures, um, in Melrose, and the number that are, that are 100 years older is, um, 52%, um, of all the structures. And the breakdown in the table, um, shows the, those structures, um, by use so, not surprisingly, you know, most of the structures are single family houses in the city, as we have, um, a lot of that, um, building type. And then, um, looking at the National Register properties, um,
▶ 25:12 there are, um, the local historic district, which are th- those downtown properties, and then there's these different breakdowns of, um, National Register designation. Um, so with all of those designations, we have 36, um, in the city, and that, uh, preservation restriction at the bottom of that key there is, um, three properties that, uh, have a more, kind of, um, restrictive, uh, protection. Um, the other National Register properties typically don't have protections, um, they're just in this, um, in a database that's run by the Mass Historical Commission. It's called the MACRS database. Um, and so you can get a lot of information by going to this website and, um, searching Melrose and, you know, you can
▶ 26:06 search by a lot of different things, um, to find some great information, um, that people have submitted over the years, um, and submitted for National Register properties or just inventories. Um, so there's a lot of good, good, uh, data there. And then, to give you a sense of the number of demo permits that the city, um, often sees, we looked at the last three years. Um, there were nine demolition permits that were issued for principal structures that were 100 years or older. Um, and there were 13 demolition permits for garages or sheds, um, and we'd have to take a closer look at the, the age of the structures to get a sense of how many would be within this category of needing review. Um, and then that's it for my presentation.
▶ 26:56 I, um, am happy to answer questions or walk through any of the, um, the kind of steps involved. Um, but it is kind of, uh, the way that it's drafted is, provides for some flexibility with, um, you know, kind of jumping to that second phase of a, um, preferably preserved status if a property owner or, you know, somebody interested in, um, doing something with the property kind of wants to jump to that second step, um, to try to have some flexibility with, um, kind of getting to the, the results without, um, having to kind of go to the, the first step and kind of adding, adding meanings to the process. Um, and, um, we did put a requirement for public hearings, uh, because it is, I feel, a good thing to have public
▶ 27:50 notification for these decisions that a pub- uh, public body is making. Um, so that, you know, the community is aware and that, that initial determination, which in some communities isn't done by public hearing, it's just a public meeting, um, you know, if, if that decision is made and then people find out after the fact, um, it can be, um, frustrating. So, um, that's the way that we've, we've set up the, um, the current draft. Awesome. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna turn it back to, uh, Councilor Panachio. Thank you. And open for any other colleagues who would like to ask questions. Yeah, I just want to provide some context. So Ward and I had a, a draft. We brought it to Lori, met with city f- uh, solicitor Shannon Phillips.
▶ 28:39 Cal Finocchiaro: Um, they gave some revisions. Um, this is the draft that we're looking at that Lori had provided to us that was on the agenda. And then the planning board, and I believe the CBA, ZBA, also the Historical Commission, gave some feedback as well, um, earlier in the process. Um, and then most recently, those changes that we're seeing right now, the updates are, and you can, um, you know. (laughs) Sure. I, I think this is from, they're from the, uh, planning board mostly, correct? Or- Right. So, um, I can, I can- Feedback from them. ... share my screen again. So, um, we've met with the, um, historic district commission and the planning board, um, reached out to the zoning board of appeals. Um, you know, this is not a zoning ordinance, but it
▶ 29:27 affects, you know, a lot of cases that the, the land use boards, um, see. So, um, we've, you know, provided the ordinance to get some comments and so kind of started the public hearing process of gett- getting feedback and, um, taking, you know, another look at the ordinance. And so we have a, a version here, and I can, um, I can go through, um, the changes that are, um, that are marked on, on this draft, um, if you'd like. Um, I was just gonna say, if, if you wanna, we can go through them each one, but is there an overall sort of theme to the changes that were made? So, a lot of it is just making sure that it's clear of what the, the process is, and, um, the, kind of the general, the, the biggest, um, pieces of these
▶ 30:17 ordinances, how old is the structure that you're re- you're going to review, and, um, what's the time for kind of setting for, um, determining...... if something else can, you know, so the delay period. The, the period where you're looking, you're working with the applicant. Um, and so they, those things haven't changed as, you know, it's, uh, buildings of 100 years or older. Um, and from that final determination, it's 12 months, um, that the Historical Commission, um, would be, you know, hopefully working with the applicant. Um, it's possible that applicants choose not to engage and just wait out the, the time period. Um, but, you know, I would say typically, people, you know, want to, um, to work with the
▶ 31:02 commission and that, uh, that allows them to potentially shorten the time, um, if they're, you know, satisfying the conditions, are able to, you know, find a, um, an alternative to demolishing the building. Mm-hmm. Okay. Um... Um, uh, are y'all set? I was gonna say, should, do, uh, is everybody okay with going through each change one by one or is there- How about we, we turn it, uh, to questions- Okay. ... and if there is any clarification- Yeah, perfect. ... it, this may come up. Yes. Um, Councilor Garipay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have some clarification. The paperwork we have in front of us now, um, this i- was in collaboration with the Zoning Board, Board of Appeals, and your office, these changes? Is, uh, is, is this what's
▶ 31:53 recommended I guess? So the Historic District Commission, um, wrote a supportive letter, um, that submitted as public comment. Um, they didn't provide specific, um, feedback. Um, the, the Planning Board reviewed it as a, as a whole board. Um, they were a- able to meet on Monday night, so it was good timing to be able to, to get some feedback. Um, a few of the members individually sent comments, but it wasn't as a, a whole board that they submitted the comments. It was a f- a few individual members. And then, the Zoning Board, um, hasn't had a meeting that we, you know, to be able to, to discuss this. Um, so I did inform them, but, um, we haven't received direct feedback. So, so what I have in front of me right, right now is this from
▶ 32:39 Mark Garipay: your office, the recommended changes? Yes. From the Planning Board? So you- It's- ... the Office has recommend- recommend... You're the, you guys are the experts, I'm not, so when I was look- Right. ... when I was looking at it, it looks like it's kind of just cleaning up some language. Mm. There's a few additions, right? There's nothing major change- There's, there aren't major changes. It's, um, yeah, just making sure that some of the, the wording was clear of what the process is. And then, um, there is a, um, an ability for, in that first kind of determination, if the Historical Commission finds that a building is significant, but they fi- find that they could condition, um, the project in a way that didn't need kind of a full second public
▶ 33:21 Mark Garipay: hearing, that they would have the ability to do that. Okay. Um, the only question I had on here when I was briefly looking at it was, had to do with the years, right? Um, trying to figure out what page it was on. Three. Three? Thank you. Um... The first version's on two. Two? Bottom of two. Yeah, the... Looked like it was, uh, the whole thing was lined out. The, the, I, what, what's... Right? Yeah. Looks like both of them, 100 years and age is line- is, is, um, withdrawn from this. So what is the recommendation in the ordinance? I can't seem to find it right now- Oh. ... but you, is someone else, uh- There, so page two, there was a, um, potential change to switch to a cert- a date of 1930. So buildings, um, up until 1930 would be
▶ 34:15 Mark Garipay: reviewed and, um, kind of, we went back to the, the 100 years and it was just a error that that one wasn't caught on page two. Okay. So that would go back to the 100 year. That, that's the ordinance we want to make sure- Mm-hmm. ... that's amended here. Mm-hmm. So we have something in there, 'cause right now, if we adopt this, it looks like there's nothing in there- Mm-hmm. ... 'cause they're both marked out. Right. Okay. Um, I mean, I'll let everyone else speak, but I mean, I'm o- or I think I'm okay with the changes, kind of like we did with the food truck. I mean, I would, I would accept an amendment, um, I don't know, after some of the other questions, just to do it all at once, um, 'cause a lot of it's just
▶ 34:52 Leila Migliorelli: eliminating some language, but... Thank you, Councilor Garipay. Thank Um, um, President Migliorelli. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here and thank you to the makers of the order for all your work on this. I, I do have a lot of questions, so, um, bear with me and I can pause and stop. Um, so this document, so just for thinking logistically through, the document that is in, in the system, in the agenda that I reviewed earlier, this is edits to that document that was purp- just given to us tonight, okay. And I don't know through the Chair if the makers of the order are comfortable with the edits in the document or, or not? Okay. (laughs) Thank you. Go ahead, Councilman- So for context, I think it would be helpful to understand that Councilor
▶ 35:41 Ward Hamilton: Franochiaro and I met with Ms. Masa and we had a draft ordinance and she reviewed that and she reviewed that with Ms. Phillips and then came back to us and said, "Here is the document that the City of Somerville uses and has used for years." And she made those changes and we said, "Yes, we embrace those changes." And so that document was then shared with the Planning Board and the Chair of the Planning Board, Greg Sampson, shared specific changes that we then went into this document and made so that it would conform with his recommendations and that is the document that's before us tonight. So the, m- through the Chair, the makers of the order, you, you made these, uh, you took those edits and made them to this document?
▶ 36:32 Leila Migliorelli: No. Or the planning board did. The pla- uh, the, the floor. Yeah. The planning department. Okay. All right. Mm-hmm. Thank you. That's helpful. Um... Okay. So for, uh, you know, demo delay, just, I think for, it's important for the public 'cause I know that a lot of people are here about the Lind house. And demo delay is delaying, it's not stopping. Mm-hmm. It's not stopping. Is there... Is the only mechanism to stop the, you know, f- um, (clears throat) in your presentation you talked about, I think it was, is it only three properties that are historically preserved? Or was it 36? I was just trying to follow along with that. Yeah. So, um, we have, uh, down at local historic district, which is one district in downtown.
▶ 37:16 Mm-hmm. Um, so there is an ability to have single building districts. And we've started the discussion with the historic district commission, um, along with, um, Shane and the historical commission to kind of work collaboratively to, um, you know, discuss creating a single building district, um, for the 244 Main Street. But, um, you know, that process is, um, you know, can happen at the, the same time as, um- Mm-hmm. ... demolition review. So, um, it is related, but it's, um, it can often be an outcome also of a demolition review if, um, uh, you know, gives time for a community to, um, create a local historic district. And, and that is a way to, um, preserve the, uh, structure. So that, that local dis- district designation for
▶ 38:13 Leila Migliorelli: like a, a single, singular home- Mm-hmm. ... would preserve it and would then, if somebody purchase it- purchases that home, they have to, if they want to, can they not demolish it or can they just renovate it, but have to follow a different set of guidelines that's completely different than this- Right. ... demo delay? Okay. So this, um, demo review ordinance wouldn't apply to any oth- any local historic district, because that's the jurisdiction of the historic district commission. Okay. Um, so there's the historic district commission, which has the task of, you know, the, um, local historic district review, and that's any change to an exterior, um, of the property that's visible from the public right of way. So, they would have jurisdiction over a dem-
▶ 38:53 demolition or changing, you know, windows or, um, siding or, you know, any of those, um, small details. So it's a high level of, um, review for historic districts. Okay. Um... (clears throat) it- So, so I guess, uh, has the... So is it the historic... Well, actually one more question. The city council would then ultimately approve that local historic district, so that would be because it's a zoning? Right. It, so it's- Or... ... um, it's outside of zoning, but it's a, um, it is a city council vote. Okay. So, that process is creating a preliminary study report that is sent to the Mass Historical Commission, um, and then there's a 60-day window, uh, where they have to review the application and
▶ 39:41 Leila Migliorelli: they make an advisory comments to the, the city council. And that also, that study report also goes to the planning board for, um, comments back to the city council and then it's a two thirds vote of the city council to create that district. And the Mass Historical Commission doesn't necessarily have to recommend that it's passed, um, it's just advisory. So there is an existing mechanism by which we can protec- protect historic homes in Melrose that would actually do more than this, which is just delaying it, and not actually preserving the home itself. Am I- Right. Yes. Um, is there... Has the historic district commission or historical commission ever undertaken like a proactive effort (clears throat) to look at
▶ 40:28 Leila Migliorelli: historic homes in Melrose and tried to, before it's, you know, in this kind of limbo, like, Lind house is on the market now, and I mean, it's a beautiful old home, it is historically significant. Um, is there a way to do that proactively throughout Melrose, to kind of go through and see which homes, um, might warrant that and then that would have that sort of like public process, e- you know, for that, so that there's a, a preservation angle to something that's truly historic? 'Cause I think what struck me about that map is that, e- like, all of Melrose is, uh, so much of Melrose is 100 years or older homes, and, I think like as time goes on, that 100-year mark, and I, I would be... I, I wouldn't be in favor of 100-year mark, I would, I would prefer
▶ 41:13 Leila Migliorelli: to like look at, uh, pick a date and time. Um, I, you know, was interested when I saw that 1930 area because, you know, my home is, I think built in the 1950s. It's not, it's fine if somebody y- (laughs) years from now wants to go ahead and tear it down, it's not historically significant at all. Um, but there, there are these older homes in Melrose that are, are very special to our community and so, just curious if the historic district or historical commission has ever done a proactive review of those homes so that, so that we can retain them. So... I, I could, speaking for the Melrose Historic Commission, not in my time. Okay. Uh, three years on the commission there hasn't been. I know that it, I've heard it's been looked at in the past.
▶ 41:54 Leila Migliorelli: (clears throat) Uh, there might be a list out there somewhere. Uh, and we all kind of anecdotally know a bunch of houses that would probably apply. Uh, but there is nothing that, uh, is a strict list that we have already done. Okay. Uh, but we've talked about it. So if, if any of those homes were to go up for sale and, and someone would potentially demolish it, we would, you would be in the same process you're in right now with seeking that single family, single home, um, local district, historic district. If it were subject to demo delay it would just be delaying the demolition, it wouldn't necessarily... Or though, I guess throughout this whole process you're going through and there's an opportunity, um-Is there an opportunity through this
▶ 42:35 Leila Migliorelli: process, and I- I admit, like I did not get to read everything, all these edits and stuff like that. Um, would there be, can you then designate the property as n- n- you know, as needing preservation? Or is this just, this on- the only results in this is just extra process to, to potentially delay? 'Cause I did, sorry, I did notice that there was, in the first paragraph it says, um, an opportunity to seek out persons willing to purchase and to preserve, and I just didn't know if that was part of this whole, this whole demo delay, and how that works. So the, um, delay period would be a, a time that, um, you know, the city could create that preliminary study report and go through the- the steps to, um, seek the local
▶ 43:19 Maya Jamaleddine: historic district, um, designation. So, um... Um, maybe I can address that now- So, no- ... speaking as a member of the- Yes. ... Historic District Commission. Um, I'm gonna ask, because this, uh, you could have shared anything during the public comment, and we already closed- We're not doing another public comment on that. I'm answering her question. That would be off the record, um, because now we closed pub- So now I'm answering to your question. That's- That, thank you. (laughs) (laughs) Um- So, um- ... the history- Sure, so, um, the, so it d- it does set a delay, but it is kind of an independent, um, process. And the Historic District Commission in the discussions with, you know, about kind of moving forward with the single
▶ 44:02 building designation talked about, um, you know, moving forward with other properties, um, and so kind of testing it out with one, and then kind of moving on and, um, because there are, you know, there, so there is the, um, the inventory already that you can, you can look to, to um, to see what properties, um, are, you know, National Register properties, or, um, that, that have inventories. And then also the local knowledge of the Historical Commission, and um,- Mm-hmm. ... but that, that discussion already started that, you know, if we do move forward with one, we would want to follow up with, um, with others. And that would be like a, that's a public process obviously through all of your meetings that are public meetings.
▶ 44:48 Leila Migliorelli: And so there'd be an opportunity for people to come and talk in public comment about the importance of adding that home, um- Right, it- it does require a public hearing. Okay, great. That's wonderful. Um, I don't know how much time I have left, uh, Madam Chair, but um, I think, um, okay, just wanna go through my, you bear with me. Um, does this cover it all? I was looking for like if a home is, let's say like partially destroyed by fire or something like that. Like is this at all related to that or would that be completely different, um, in terms of would this ordinance apply to that? So if it was, um, it- it would be triggered by an application of, for a request for the Historical Commission to- to start this, um, review
▶ 45:46 period or, you know, a demolition permit or a, um, special permit. So it'd kind of trigger to the applicant to apply to the Historical Commission, um, for this review. If there was a- a fire or some, you know, natural disaster, that would happen, and then, you know, the- that property owner would be repairing the- the structure. So it's not that they would kind of get in trouble if, you know, the kind of the demolition was not, um, their doing. Okay. I'm just curious 'cause I know- Yeah. ... that's come up a few times in Melrose. Um, and then just in the definition section saying, um, a minor product- project is adding an addition to the side or the rear of the structure, so if somebody wanted to add
▶ 46:31 Leila Migliorelli: something, do an addition to the front of the structure, that's not, um, that would, that would be considered demolition? So, so that relates back to the definition of demolition? Yeah. Um, so- So page two, there's minor, a minor project, so just wasn't sure if those are like adding an addition to the side or the rear is considered a minor project, does that mean adding an addition to the front is a major project? The opposite? It- it could be if it's,- Okay. ... um, so the- the way that, another piece of this that, um, I should have specified is that it's written as, it's not just total demolition, but it's, um, demolition of more than half of the structure. So, uh, if we're gonna do this, I feel like we should do it.
▶ 47:18 (laughs) And you know, if people are trying to basically get around this demo delay by just, you know, trying to carve off ha- you know, half of the building and, um, or- or just less than half, um, then, you know, it's um, we wanna make sure the intent of this is actually, um, followed through with. So it's, um, if more than half of the building is demolished, then it would be triggered, um, for this determination from the Historical Commission. Um, and then there are some, um, exclusions if, that are listed in this on page one in the definition of demolition, um, so like removal of siding, um, roof shingles, um, windows, maintenance, interior renovations when it's not compromising the integrity of the building,
▶ 48:08 Leila Migliorelli: um, exploratory demo, interior, um, demo, and- and the minor produ- projects. Um, so um, we kind of have to look at this holistically in- in making a determination, um, when we get an application, if it fits within this, um, demolition, um, criteria or not. Okay. (clears throat) So if someone had like, you know, wanted to redo their house 50% or more of, um-... their home this- it would trigger this ordinance, it would trigger this process- Yes. ... and the home is over 100 years or whatever it is that the council votes on. Okay. (paper rustles) So that would apply to all the homes in Melrose that meet that criteria. Um, on page three, um, under notification, again, I'm looking at the online version, um, application for demolition
▶ 49:06 Leila Migliorelli: per- so that obviously, that process exists. There's an existing process for, for demolition. You file a- you get a permit from the building, um, office, and then what would be new would be after you file that application for the demolition permit, um, the commission reviews that and then, and then asks the applicant to then complete another application to the commission? So that's one of the things we clarified that there- an applicant can complete a demolition review, um, application and to apply directly to the, the Historical Commission. They don't have to go- they don't have to apply for a demolition permit which, um, you know, requires a checklist that from a l- a lot of different city departments and,
▶ 49:57 um, it, you know, there wouldn't be kind of a reason, um, if somebody knew that they had to do this, then they couldn't just apply to the commission to start the process. Um, if somebody doesn't know, that's why we have it in there that, you know, if they do, um, a- apply for a demo or, you know, this- a building permit or other, um, types of permits that would, you know, staff would realize that you- that would need to go before the Historical Commission, um, then that's, that's in there as well, just to make sure that that's called out that this, um, staff would be responsible for informing the applicant. Okay. Thank you. I'm mindful of my time. I just- w- I guess one, like, overarching question. Um, do you- have you done,
▶ 50:50 Leila Migliorelli: um, like, do you have a sense of the increase in cost to the city for going through this process? I just want to be mindful that that is something it's time, staff resources. You don't have a very large department. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, costs to put hearings, you know, notices in the newspaper, which I'm aware of, just so you know. City council does the same thing too. It costs money. Um, I just, I, I, n- sorry to put you on the spot- Yeah. ... with this, but if you happened to ha- do you have an estimate of how much this would be? So it, it is a big consideration. Um, we have, you know, a small department and we have a lot of boards and commissions, so, um, we did, you know, speak with the Historical Commission about kind of taking them on and, and our
▶ 51:28 department for the administrative, um, process and, you know, um, all that comes with that with the demolition, um, review applications. So we would have to take that on, um, in the planning office. It, it, you know, involves, um, mailing notices using the mail machine, you know, taking in money and, and all those things that, um, would be hard for a volunteer board but, um, you know, something that we do for, um, self-reports and commissions so we would be taking that on, um, in terms of the advertising fees and, um, application fees, we would be creating forms and, um, rules and regulations for the, the commission, um, and having the applicants pay for, um, the, the newspaper notices and, um, the
▶ 52:18 Leila Migliorelli: covering the cost of, you know, postcards that, um, that would have to go out to, um, all the abutters, um, for this operation. The applicants would cover, you'll be asking that? Okay. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um, okay. I will stop my questions there, just I- I feel like this is a lot of good work, I want to be really thoughtful about it, um, and, uh, given the time I'm not, I'm not sure that I could vote on this tonight, but I- I really appreciate all the work that everyone's put into it so far, so just wanted to say that. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, President McLearly. I have next, uh, Councilor Hamilton and then Councilor Panacciaro. Thank you. (clears throat) So when we talk about protections for
▶ 53:00 Ward Hamilton: buildings, and we talk about demo delay, that's one possible layer, and it's pretty much the lowest layer because it doesn't actually stop anything from happening. It delays it. And the next layer is the creation of a local historic district which you're planning to do for this building. Mm-hmm. So hypothetically, demo delay could be voted on and approved by this committee tonight and then approved by the full council in one week. And if the ordinance in this document was approved with a one-year delay, would that be sufficient time for you to create a local historic district to protect a building? Yes. Okay. You wouldn't need that much time. Thank you. So, um, one of the things that we talked about was the
▶ 53:54 Ward Hamilton: burden, or we talked, you spoke to was the burden that this would be on the Office of Planning and Community Development as far as applications and review and fees and certainly we would, we would add fees so that applicants paid for the cost of a demo review process. So for it, our, you know, we have the planning board, zoning board, historic district commission, conservation commission, and the affordable housing trust. We, um, th- this, um, the city council, um, approved increases to our fees for those boards and commissions. Um, recently we, you know, we don't cover really our staff time with, with that, um, so it's not, you know, kind of-We're not recording our, our time and, and if we did
▶ 54:44 Ward Hamilton: that, we'd have to charge a whole lot more. So- Yeah. ... it is a fairly nominal fee typically, um, for these kinds of applications. How many, how many applications have you had, or how many, other than Caruso's, which is a recent very obvious example, when was the last time a building more than 100 years old was demolished in Melrose? So, we, we pulled the data in that presentation, so there were nine of the last two, three years. So- Nine out of nine. ... about three a year? About three a year, yeah. Um, just to reiterate, the document that we're reviewing tonight, this is the document largely that you offered, in that the city solicitor reviewed. Right. Right, so- And this is the document that Mr. Sampson, the chair of the planning
▶ 55:38 Ward Hamilton: board, gave feedback to us and we made changes. So we've taken the document that you provided, and that the city solicitor reviewed, and obviously felt good about, legally. And then Mr. Sampson, who is the chair of the planning board, gave input, which we reviewed and made changes, and that's the document that we've put forth before the Legal and Legislative Committee tonight. Right. It's, it's from the, it's from the planning office. Uh, we took, uh, Mr. Sampson's suggestions. They're not verbatim, but- Well, I, I, I took them. ... with his input. He sent them to me this weekend- (laughs) Yeah. ... and I- Yeah. ... implemented them into this document. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So we, we have. So I, I just want
▶ 56:29 Ward Hamilton: folks on this committee to be aware that this isn't a pie in the sky thing, where we're esoterically discussing, what should we make for a demo delay ordinance? This is founded in, um, a document that's, that's being used in Somerville for how many years? Right, right. So, um, I, I had worked, I worked in Somerville for nine years, and, um, so, and sat next to the historic preservation planner. So, um, and, and worked with George Vericus, who I discussed this with also, so, um, he was mentioned earlier. Uh, so yeah, very familiar with the process there. They, um, changed their, their ordinance, um, a few years ago to, to address some of the issues that they had with that. So, um, we felt comfortable kind of using their,
▶ 57:14 Ward Hamilton: um, ordinance as the, um, kind of the base, um, and, and then changing it from there to, you know, make sense for Melrose. Thank you. I think that's fair and I think that's an excellent basis on which to found our ordinance and if we're averaging three buildings a year that this affects, in a city of about a thou- 8,000 buildings, um, I think that's something that I'm comfortable with. And, and I thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Um, next, uh, Councilor Finocchiaro. Is it- Li- point of order, I haven't spoken yet on the committee. Don't we each get one comment? I, I know, it's just because she's the maker, so if sh- if she wants to add any clarification. Okay. Um, actually, Councilor Hamilton (laughs) um,
▶ 58:01 Cal Finocchiaro: asked some of the questions that I had, um, but I guess my, my one thing that I keep on coming back to is, there, I think there's, like, over 150 communities in Massachusetts that have this, so there's, we're not reinventing the wheel here. This is something that, you know, if you look at that map, it's specifically all around us. I think maybe Stoneham's the only city that doesn't have this. So it's, it's sort of like, it makes sense that we implement something like this. So I think that is sort of, that comes back to me every time I kinda think about this and think about all the, um, the steps and lo- logistics, and, um, so anyways, I just wanted to make that comment, but thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Finocchiaro. Councilor Vandiver.
▶ 58:45 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you, Chair Jamaleddine. Uh, I have quite a few comments, and I'll try to simplify, um, and, and keep it brief. Um, so thank you very much to the makers of the ordinance. Um, you've done a lot very quickly, as far as going to many involved parties and making sure to get their input. Um, and I also want to acknowledge the constituents who are here tonight and have emailed as well and sat down for conversations. Um, I've probably put at least 20 hours into this. Um, the, it's an eight-page ordinance, there's a lot of detail. We've, we've gone back and forth a little bit with comments on the document. Um, I actually looked at the Massachusetts Interactive Property Map, which may be the same data source that you use as
▶ 59:28 Kimberly Vandiver: well. Um, so if, if the councilors are interested, I have, I have, uh, the data in graph form- (laughs) ... um, that I'd be happy to pass around. It says a lot of the same things that, that that map probably shows, as far as the houses in yellow, um, which is that we have a lot of historic homes in Melrose, um, about half of them, um, almost exactly half of them built a hundred years ago, currently. Um, so, uh, I guess to me, that both says that, that the, the commenters are right, that that's a key defining characteristic of Melrose, that we have these, this great breadth of historic homes, and at the same time, it, it makes me wonder if there's a way we could really narrow in on the really critical historic homes with this.
▶ 1:00:17 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, because this is, you know, this is pretty broad, um, if we look at... And, and, and it's only three houses a year on average that are actually going through this demo process. But it's, if you were to demo a random house, half a chance that it would go through this process basically, right, because h- you know, half the houses would fall into that. So that's, my, my key question is really around, is it a, what is historically significant and is it a year, is it a time range, um, is it something else, like a collection of these registries, like the National Registry and the Massachusetts Registry and other registries that we could look at? That's, that's really the key question for me. Um-I, I know there had been the year 1930 that some people
▶ 1:01:00 Kimberly Vandiver: had talked about, and that, by my read of the data, is 59% of houses in Melrose. Um, interestingly, if we actually look back at 1875 and before, that's only 4%, and that would encompass the Benjamin Lyde House. And so, uh, I guess, my overall thought is that if the r- (gavel bangs) you know, the urge to do this right now is because we wanna get a protection in place, a temporary hold of a year that protects the Benjamin Lyde House so that we can establish a historic district for that house, if that's the goal, I would be much more comfortable with saying 1875, that does catch 4% of the houses in Melrose still, and they're the really, really old ones. And, and certainly the Historical Commission could look through and say, "Actually,
▶ 1:01:41 Kimberly Vandiver: there's this house from 1910 that's really important, and that one should also have a district or something like that." But I, to me, that would be more comfortable. I guess that's my primary comment. Um, and I'd be happy to continue, but it sounds like we also may... I'll, I'll let someone else speak and come back to my other questions and see if that resonates with anyone. Thank you, Councilor Vandiver. Councilor, um, Karamchandy and then Councilor Williams. Uh- Just for the record, I'm a non-voting member, so- That's okay. Go ahead. All right, I just always wanna make sure that every voting member has had a chance first. Um, You're a voting member? No, please go ahead. I insist. I mean, you really should, though.
▶ 1:02:24 Manjula Karamcheti: That's okay. Uh- Someone go. Um, that's true. All right. I said that's fine. (laughs) Well, so I just, uh, I think I'm sort of piggybacking a little bit off of Councilor Vandiver question or comments. I'm just like, really, I think for me, trying to like, understand the process and who potentially would be impacted. And so as I understand it, any house that is older than 100 years, for this ordinance, would be technically impacted. So my house was built in 1910, and so if I wanted to demo 51% of it and I applied for the demo permit, then a process would be triggered. And that process, is that a year-long? Or is the process to have a hearing to determine whether I qualify or my house qualifies as needing
▶ 1:03:25 a delay? Could you clarify that? Sure. 'Cause I think it's really important. So there is, um, so it's, it's the latter. It's, um, from when the Historic, Historical Commission determines, um, does that, that two-part determination of if the building is significant first, um, if it's not significant, it, the process stops there and demolition can proceed. Um, if it's, um, if it is deemed significant, then it goes to that second determination if it's preferably preserved, um, and then that starts the, the 12-month period. So, there is some process with those, (papers rustle) you know, two public hearings because we need notification and the newspaper and send out, um, abutters' notices. So, um, it does, you know, take some
▶ 1:04:09 time to, to go through those, um, meetings, and then that's when the, um, if the determination is made that it's, um, preferably preserved, then that starts the 12 month. Um, there is the ability to reduce that time if the applicant is working with the commission and agrees to, you know, to do the documentation or whatever, whatever the case may be, um, that's determined is best for that, um, for that site. So that could, uh, reduce the time. But Lori, correct me if I'm wrong- Yeah. ... but if you could have a situation where you have a house that's over 100 years old, you apply for a demolition of 51% or more, and then, um, that starts a process of, uh, the Historical Commission. Do we, setting up a public meeting, but, uh, we could
▶ 1:04:56 Manjula Karamcheti: determine that the house is not, uh, historically significant. That might take a matter of weeks. Right. Right. It's, yeah. Not, not, we're not talking a year for that part, and that could be a number of the applicants for demolition, uh, would probably fall into that category. Uh, so it's not talking about all of those. Yeah. But again, what it does is provide the opportunity to explore whether a longer delay is needed as like, and if I'm understanding correctly, this is like, allows for like, the deeper, more intentional work to happen if needed. And so, there, this, it's, this process is like, a yes, and that there is much more to be done within that for like, the historic dis- historic district, um,
▶ 1:05:53 designation and those kind of things, but it allows for a thoughtful process for that to happen. Yep. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, my understanding would be like, the demolition delay is sort of a, a catch-all for hitting that, uh, you know, primary age goal and for us to take a look at that home. Uh, and then, you know, we may decide it's not, you know, historically significant, and then that's it. Uh, but there, there could be, you know, houses out there that are, you know, if we're setting it at 100, they were built in 1900 that are historically significant, uh, and that could also set a process for review and demolition. The second part, as I understand, as far as looking at, uh, extending
▶ 1:06:31 local historic districts, uh, to single lot districts, that's a much more intensive process for one particular place. And, uh, you know, it could take a number, uh, while it may not take a year to get there, it's gonna take a number of months to be able to do that for a single property, uh, as far as my understanding of that. And then you'd multiply that by a handful of other properties, it could take, uh, qui- quite a bit of time to protect those most historically significant.Uh, but I think the demolition delay is really a, you know, a catch-all for some - Okay. ... other ones as well. So, it, it is the pause, it is the trigger to explore sort of what else we might want to do in terms of preservation
▶ 1:07:11 Manjula Karamcheti: and determination. Like my house is cute, built in 1910, but probably not historic. So then, I would get the approval and keep moving on with whatever. Okay. So, that part is understood. And it does sound like, and I think this goes back to, uh, President Migliorelli, this is a more reactive approach, but there are other proactive steps that could be taken as well. And so, those we would potentially, if we're serious about preservation, if we're serious about this, we would want to pursue those as well. Is that a f- am I understanding that correctly? Right. Those, yeah, these things can, you know, happen at the same time. Okay. And then, just in terms of the data of how many 51% demolitions have been applied
▶ 1:08:07 Manjula Karamcheti: for, it's been nine in the past couple of years, regardless of the fact that there are 4,000 houses in Mel- Melrose that are over 100 years- Mm-hmm. ... old. Is that correct? Yes. And- So, in terms of the, like, number of applications for 51% demo, there aren't that many. There aren't that many. There aren't that many. And, and, you know, we've given ti- So, impact-wise for the community, I think I'm just trying to understand, like, the amount it would impact your department, the number of times it would be happening, um, for residents to, like, go through this. That, those are what my questions are for, but I, I think I get it. So, I will pass it off. Thank you, uh, Councilor Kamchary. Um, uh, Director Massa, if you don't mind just, um, bring the mic a
▶ 1:08:56 Maya Jamaleddine: little bit more, but we, or higher your voice. We, it's, we're having some difficulties, um, hearing, uh, your comments. Um, next I have, um, Councilor, uh, Williams. I do understand that, um, you know, it's just because of this time period, all my colleagues, uh, um, are interested in this ordinance. So, I am opening for everyone to participate regardless if they are on this committee or not. Uh, and I go with, uh, Councilor, uh, Williams, uh, next. Thank you so much, Chair Jamaleddine. Um, I want to sort of dive right in. I had done a lot of work, like, uh, Councilor Vandiver on trying to understand this ordinance as a person who came into it with really no understanding of how these things intersect. Um, and I want to say that I very much
▶ 1:09:48 Ryan Williams: appreciate the time that the, the co-sponsors put into this as well as Mr. Egan and Ms. Massa to join me in a call with MAPC to do a little bit of learning. Um, I learned a lot, and I want to share a little bit of that while I ask some questions about the changes that have been made here and some of the data that you provided in your, excuse me, in your presentation. Um, so the first, the first thing I wanted to ask is could, could the historic commission folks raise their hands? Because I don't know if everybody knows- (laughs) ... exactly who you are. Thank you. Okay, um, you mentioned in your presentation, um, I want to start there. You, there are 600 plus two-families in that list? Yeah? Um, and
▶ 1:10:29 Ryan Williams: I was thinking about how many two-families generally do we have in the city of Melrose, do you know? I don't. Okay, that's fair. That's completely fair. (laughs) You know. I'm sorry. Madam Chair, just based on what I knew from the, uh, Water and Sewer Commission, we have about 800 two-family houses. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Hamilton. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I apologize for the, um, for the crosstalk. Um, I, I ask because as a person who came to Melrose in a two-family and found it one of the most affordable housing options I could find, really the only one, um, the idea that a majority of the two-families are covered under this is, is something that I find very interesting. Um, and so I wanted to ask if you, uh, with that in mind with the,
▶ 1:11:12 Ryan Williams: um, the, the other multi-family structures that you had on the list that were under the, under the existing sort of 100 years, if that's what we stick with, um, when we're doing the housing production plan redo, um, do you think that it would be possible to think about how those structures play into housing affordability? Um, in terms of, like, whether preserving these structures through a demo delay ordinance would be preferable and would lower or stabilize rents? You know, if you ha- if you can think at all of the intersection of these two things. Um, so knowing that, um, you know, multi-family, existing multi-family homes are probably pretty valuable, um, I don't see a big change with kind of demolishing them to, to rebuild, um, sites
▶ 1:12:04 Ryan Williams: to, to build new housing. Um, it's, it's definitely possible, but I, you know, I don't see that happening, um, so much, um, in the n- near future anyway with, um, the kind of price or rents that you can get with existing multi-family housing. Um, does that answer your question, or is there- S- ... more to it? Yeah, I think so. So, you're saying that you don't see there a lot of demand for demolishing multi-family- Right. ... housing. So, we have, and in this specific case of the Benjamin Lyne house, the parcel's being joined with another parcel that is a multi-family building. The two- yes, the two-family. Mm-hmm. So, at, at least in this case it's relevant, but maybe not broadly throughout
▶ 1:12:44 Right. And, and there are, um, a lot of our neighboring communities that are trying to create regulations that prevent people from taking two-families and converting them to single-families. 'Cause oftentimes, you know, people desire a single-family if they can afford it. And so there is a, a real effort in the, the planning world to figure this out. Um-This doesn't really kind of fit that, because you often keep the existing structure and you're just doing interior demolition, and this does not, um, address interior demo. Okay. Um... I noticed enforcement, we talked a lot about enforcement. And I wanted to ask if you felt that the enforcement was achievable? It's a penalty of $300 per day and a block of
▶ 1:13:30 Ryan Williams: 18 months on the building permit if you illegally, or in violation of the ordinance, demolish a property. Right. So the, the zoning, um, fees are sim- are, you know, the same. And so it's, it often is more of a, kind of a threat (laughs) to, to tell a, you know, a property owner that that's, we have the right to charge that. Okay. Um, I wanted to ask about some of the strikes that I've seen here, 'cause I had looked over the old one pretty carefully, but I, some of these I wasn't too sure about. Um, so why did we strike illegal demolition and interior demolition? So, uh, it's not referenced in the rest of the ordinance, and I believe it's in there just for discussion during, you know, public hearings about these kinds of cas-
▶ 1:14:13 cases as, um, to define them to be part of the conversation. But it's not actually referenced in the, the text, the rest of the text of the code, so we did take them out. So, that means that this ordinance doesn't cover interior demolition? And, and, um, there is no jurisdiction to do that. Um, it was just the in- it was in there as a, um, a reference to, you know, if you're totally... If, it, it takes a lot of kind of review of an application, but if you're kind of totally gutting a property and you're, um, gonna create a structural issue that then would, you know, cause the exterior to, uh, be demolished, then that's included in there as a, you know, just in case that, that were to be the case.
▶ 1:15:00 Ryan Williams: Okay, thank you. Um, and I, I wanted to call out for colleagues who are interested in the year that the year appears in several sections. And notably, in section five, there's references to the 100 years, so, um, I'm also interested in, in thinking more carefully about the years. Um, but as a non-voting member, I'd sort of leave that up to the folks on the committee to think through. Um, on page four, I wanted to ask about in section three, the sort of penultimate pair, the second from the bottom. There's a sentence that through edits reads, "The building is significance." And I think that's supposed to be significant, right? Yes. The building is significant, yeah, okay. Um, super minor but, um... Okay, the meat of this.
▶ 1:15:44 Ryan Williams: I wanted to ask about, um, page seven. There is a series of sections called Shortening or Ending the Demolition Review Period. My understanding from reading this that essentially the commission, I mean it says this, "The commission may shorten or end the period at its discretion if it determines that no one's gonna buy it or preserve it or rehabilitate it." They come to a plan for limited demolition that preserves the property. They agree to some mutually agreeable strategies for preserving heritage like photographing, renderings, uh, salvaging materials. Basically, they come up with an agreement to preserve some of it that the commission finds suitable. The commission's allowed to, at any point, just say
▶ 1:16:24 Ryan Williams: the demo period is, is, is eliminated. Right. Yeah, okay. So, I was thinking to Councilor Karamcheti point about, you know, the house that you find out, you know, was owned by a famous person, um, and you go through the whole process, but then you come up with a plan, "I wanna really, like, photograph or preserve this element." If the commission feels that that is sufficient to preserve the history, you may waive the demo period. Yes. Yeah, okay. Um, um, and I notice that we're excluding city-owned buildings (laughs) , um, which I, I, I'm interested, how many city-owned buildings do we have there besides, of course, the one we're in in Melrose Hall, I'm s- I'm, uh, Memorial Hall? So, we are in a local historic district here at City Hall-
▶ 1:17:13 Yeah. ... and, you know, the fire station, um, the, so there, there aren't many that, um... So we took a look, especially at the ones that are, um, kind of the, the new public safety building sites, and none of those fall within the, the 100 years. Um, the, you know, Mount Hood, um, that structure, um, the police station, um, is just outside of the local historic district, so that would be something that, um, would, um, when, you know, we figure out what we're gonna do with that site. If, if it does involve demolition, that would be something that would have to go through, um, review the... And, and so it's, it's still going to the historical commission, um, for a look at the municipal properties.
▶ 1:17:56 Ryan Williams: Um, it just doesn't require the, the public hearing in the same way. Okay, and, um, the nine demos per year, do you know even the most (coughing) , even the most recent ones? Do you know what those buildings became? Did they become... Was it a single-family home that became a single-family home? What was it? Mm-hmm. Yeah, so they were, um, six of those were redevelopment sites that went before the planning board, um, and then the rest were conversions back to a single-family house. Six of them were, were, we'll call them upscaled from single family to multi-family. Or two family to four. Oh, I see. There are a few of those, yeah. But to be clear, that was nine over the last three years, right?
▶ 1:18:34 Ryan Williams: Correct. Could you say that again? To be clear, that you said nine over the last year? I'm sorry, yes. Over the last three years, yeah, I just wanna be clear. Thank you. Yes, nine over the last three years. Thank you, I'm sorry about that. Um, well, I... Okay. Um, thank you very much, uh, you guys. This has been a super thoughtful process. I really appreciate it. I feel that this is sort of a planning tool more than it is... I mean, it's a planning tool that sort of injects historic preservation as a community goal. Um, I've, you know... If anybody wants to see a really great example of this in work, they should go to Bow Market in Somerville because that was a, um, historic property that was, um, preserved and turned into a thriving
▶ 1:19:09 Ryan Williams: commercial, uh, commercial use. Or they should go to Union Square, which has a couple of very funny little tiny-... buildings that have giant apartments behind them- (laughs) ... because the character was the little, itty-bitty front entrance, and then all of the affordable housing was built behind it. Um, in my conversations with housing colleagues in MAPC, I found this to be a way to balance the community needs of affordable housing, environmental, uh, preservation, for instance, not demolishing structures or protecting them, or salvaging them, adaptive reuse, um, to balance housing development with architectural preservation. And I think that this is written thoughtfully, and I really appreciate the work of everyone who's put so much time and
▶ 1:19:51 Devin Romanul: energy and thought into this. Um, so I just wanna say thank you, and I look forward to seeing what the committee discusses. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Williams. Um, Vice Chair Romanul. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, I wanna thank first, the sponsors of the legislation for all of your legwork, the members of the administration for, uh, doing what you're doing, and, and for all the members of the public who are still here. (laughs) My goodness. Um, congratulations to you all. Um, uh, this is what meji- messy legislating looks like. And, um, uh, certainly and everyone who wrote in as well. Um, most of my colleagues have asked, uh, and answered all the, many of the questions that I had, particularly on the micro, but
▶ 1:20:29 Devin Romanul: perhaps piggybacking on the, uh, most recent speaker, I, I wanted to ask very broadly, um, I, I'll, I am, uh, uh, very much in favor of historic preservation, so I'm, I'm very grateful to see this. Um, I am also, uh, sometimes you hear on the macro, like, uh, demolition delay used as a tool to prevent development, and so I wanted to ask what you've seen, given the map of myriad communities in the 128 Belt, um, that are using legislation like this, but also have housing production plans of their own and MBTA community compliance and, and just general, um, housing goals that they might have. Have you seen ... What is the interplay between historic preservation and, um, you know, housing development and, um ... and I appreciate those considerations
▶ 1:21:13 here. Sure. So, um, most, as you know, most communities have it, and so, um, developers that aren't familiar with Melrose will ask, you know, what, "What's the delay period?" So, they kind of factor that into their permitting and, um, it often does take a long time to, to permit projects. So, um, they're able to kind of, uh, start the process and, um, you know, still get the results. Um, there are a lot of communities that build a lot of housing that, that have demolition delays. So, um, it's, you know, it's, it's not a, um, it's not a barrier. It's something you have to consider though. Um, and I think having criteria, as we've put into the ordinance, to focus the commission, um, we, you know, always have to think about a future commission, not the people that
▶ 1:22:11 Devin Romanul: are on the commission today. Um, so and, and being thoughtful about that. And, I think also, um, you know, having professional staff that can help the commission, um, to, to really make sure that they're looking at those criteria and, um, evaluating applications is helpful. Great. Um, and my only other question is, since a couple of people have asked about it, do you, do you have a preference as to a fixed year versus having a hundred years and eventually e- encapsulating more and more of the city? Do you think there are comparative advantages of either of those approaches? I, I'd love to hear some professional feedback. Yeah. So, I've ... You know, I ... Historic preservation ha- was never my specialty, but, um, so
▶ 1:22:55 I, um, I don't know if you wanna take my opinion. (laughs) (laughs) I'm asking. But I, I- (laughs) ... feel that even though, you know, there's times when buildings weren't constructed to the same quality, that it feels a bit arbitrary to me to pick a certain date. Uh, I mean, a hundred years is also arbitrary, but it, it, it's like a moving, you know, more of a, a moving target with you're, you're reevaluating as history, you know, moves forward. So ... And, you know, obviously the, the City Council could always, always change this ordinance if, you know, in like 20 years- (coughs) ... it, it feels ridiculous to be reviewing, um, you know, buildings of a certain age. Um, we didn't kind of do a
▶ 1:23:34 more fine-grain look at, um, to see if there was like a particular year that would make more sense for kind of setting as that, uh, target. So, I felt more comfortable with a hundred. It gives, um, some kind of, um, timeframe, but also it is flexible with, as we move forward, um, looking at, at, uh, buildings. So- Great. Thank you so much for, uh, for your answers, and I appreciate everyone's feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Romanul. Uh, next I have Councilor, uh, Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. (clears throat) Uh, thank you for being here. Um, so just Mr. Breuer, 'cause I've known him for quite a while, I have a great deal of respect and I think, uh, his, his opinion and guidance carries a lot of weight in my personal, uh, impact on this.
▶ 1:24:28 Robb Stewart: So, thank you for sharing that. Um so I didn't get quite a (laughs) clear answer. Like, how long do you think a delay is gonna be for, you know, a typical ... I just don't want it ... gi- give me your, your honest feedback on it. For, um, considering the, the time that it takes to schedule public hearings and things like that, like on the- Yeah. ... front end of things? And if you need to give me two or three different examples of when it, it's gonna be three months versus six months ver- versus a year. I'm just curious about that. So, it'll, it'll be a ... If, if a building is deemed, um, appropriately preserved, it will be a year. And then it's up to the applicant to work with the commission to reduce that time.
▶ 1:25:12 Robb Stewart: Okay. So, but there will be a few months of, um, meetings and process before that year starts. So, table stakes are the year, and then the applicant has to figure out how to make it smaller? Right. Got it. And after that year is up, then they can demolish it anyways. Yes. Okay. Unless they go and do all the stuff that the Historical Commission will do to make sure that little piece of property is, like, historically significant and then they can touch the building. Did I get that right? Unless the, the Historic District Commission submits for a, a single building local historic district. Right. And makes that little plot of land historically whatever you call it. Okay. Yes. Got it. That would only affect the external of the building.
▶ 1:25:56 Robb Stewart: Yeah. Okay. And so then, and that fits within the year so that way you have a year to save the lion house or whatever house, right? Okay. Um, so, uh, you know, generally, this sounds great, um, but in practice when I start thinking about the details and to think about the future, and you were bringing this up just a moment ago, um, you know, I look 10, 15 years down the road and all of a sudden we're 1940, houses in 1942 and post-war. And these houses are not historically significant, which is why I'm not comfortable with that 100-year mark. And I would be, as opposed to you, I'd be much more comfortable with the date and time. Um, and that could be changed if we needed to move it. So, I don't think I'd support the 100 year, uh, just because
▶ 1:26:49 Robb Stewart: of the fact that, not today, but we're moving forward. And we will, we are (laughs) you move forward quicker than you realize, as I'm learning. Um, so, um, that's something that I'm not comfortable with. I just want to share that. Uh, the other aspect that was talked about briefly, but, um, I still don't have a good read on it is, who's managing this process? And you're saying, "Well, volunteers will do it." You have no accountability with volunteers. And I know they're very good people and they, they're gonna do that, but you don't have that accountability that you have with an administration. And that's concerning to me, especially when it is something of significance like this. So who, who's managing? I mean, l- what's, who's managing that
▶ 1:27:29 process? So the, the planning department would, um, manage the demolition preview ordinance and, um, you know, uh, just as we do for the other boards and commissions, um, take in the applications, you know, process the applications, set up the meetings, um, send out the notifications and all of that. And, you know, Inspectional Services will have to play a key role in, uh, reviewing applications that come in, um, to ensure that they're caught before, um, they issue a demolition permit. So, it is, it is increased, um, work for, for that department as well. And has Inspection Services looked at this, signed off on this? No. So they need to. We, we wanna get their buy-in, right? I would think.
▶ 1:28:19 Robb Stewart: Yeah. They- Okay. ... um, would have to be involved. So, I would acce- I would suggest that we involve them as well. Um, and let's see. What else? Uh, there was one other point I wanted to make. So, no. Oh, we actually covered it. We were talking about the, um, so yeah, on the garage. That's right, the garage and shed. Right? That was the, the number that you quoted was 13. Is that over that three-year period, was 13? Yes. Okay. So it's still not significant. So you're talking 22 overall application processes. Right. And those 13, um, we didn't capture the year, so it's, it'll be a lot less than that for the number that were over 100 years old. Um- Okay. And, um, yeah. Just, uh, you know, and getting back to the, the date,
▶ 1:29:18 Robb Stewart: I, you know, we can take a closer look at what, you know, if there's kind of a clear way to, to pick a certain, um, year. But it, you know, there's obviously varying opinions about that. It's like if someone may think that a 1940s house is, uh, you know, um, histor- historically significant because time goes on and things... (laughs) Look at the linoleum. Right. I get it. (laughs) So it's, um, you know, it's, there's varying kind of philosophies on this. Yeah. Yeah. Well, at the same time, I, you know, it feels like this process is being rushed to save one house. And we should do it right. Right? We shouldn't do it for one house, we should do it for the community, I would think. Right? I mean, I think the lion house, very, very important building, I
▶ 1:30:11 Robb Stewart: agree, um, with the Historical Commission and, and hate to see that, anything happen to that, but in this process, I don't think, uh, it shouldn't be the means to the end, right? Is, "Oh, we got this done, so we could save..." No. It should be, "Oh, we created, uh, the right process that the other communities have that makes sense for Melrose." So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Uh, thank you, Councilor Stewart. Um, I'm, I'm gonna pass it back to my colleagues. I just w- have comments, uh, uh, since Councilor Stewart brought this up. Um, did the commission reach out to the owners, I'm just wondering, uh, of the lion's house? Uh, the commission? No, we haven't reached out to the owner of the lion house-
▶ 1:30:58 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. ... at this point. And d- do you usually, you know, have any communication with, owners of, uh, historical properties? So, right now, the only time we've been, we've been involved when we've been, we've been invited into the process, uh, on a few occasions and we've gotten involved and rendered our opinion in that case. But right now, there's no mandate for us to do that. Uh, uh, and so we, we don't make a practice of reaching out- Right. ... in special cases, uh, or whatnot. Okay. Thank you for clarifying this. Um, I have next Councilor, um, uh- ... Panachiaro. Yeah. And then, uh, Councilor Hamilton. Thank you. Um, so I just wanna make some comments to some of the councilors that are, um, bringing up valid points.
▶ 1:31:46 Cal Finocchiaro: Um, Councilor Stewart, um, through the chair, I think that this actually... it feels very rushed. Um, and obviously, the Benjamin Lyon house kind of got this going, um, but I'm, I'm going to state this again, it's- we're not reinventing the wheel. This is Somerville's re- revised, refined ordinance that multiple parts of our administration have looked at, and they're knowledgeable in this area, and I feel like we have a, a really great ordinance put together. Um, we didn't pull it out of thin air. Um, the other thing I want to say is, in Massachusetts, most demo review ordinances have a 50-year standard, okay? And the next from there is 75 years. So, we actually are being very gracious with 100
▶ 1:32:33 Cal Finocchiaro: years. Um, so I'm not op- opposed to putting a date, but I said this to Lori and to Shane, I defer to them. Um, this is what they do for work, and, um, based on the fact that 50 years is standard, I think 100 years is pretty, pretty great. And like, like you said, it shifts sort of with, or, uh, as time goes on. You know, a 1940 house is (laughs) historical in context to what we're, the year that we're in. So, um, so I just, I just wanted to make those, uh, two comments. And then my other question was, could you go over... I think the criteria that we have in this ordinance is unlike other ordinances, right? We added specific criteria that, um, I think Councilor Williams had created. Um, there's a lot of, a lot of ordinances do- sort of have more of subjective
▶ 1:33:28 Cal Finocchiaro: review and don't have like, um, for instance... if we look at... sorry, I thought there were changes here. Like, it has to be associated with one or more historic persons or events, so that's under 5B, criteria for determination of significance. I know, it has to be- The next page as well has the list. Okay. This one? Right. So there's multiple, you know, criteria. Can you kind of talk about that a little bit more? I think that's what keeps us from reviewing, um, hundreds of homes in the city. It's mostly, they have to kind of fall into this. Right. Um, so... All right, so on page three, um, B, there's, um, the list there. So the first one that's there, associated with an important historic
▶ 1:34:24 person or event or with a broad architectural, cultural, political, or economic, or social history of the city or the commonwealth, um, or the historical or architecturally significant based on, um, period of time, style, method, building construction, or association with a re- um, reputed architect or builder, either by itself or in the context, um, of a- a group of buildings. And then it continues on to, um, add more specificity with looking at the setting, the materials, the design, location, workmanship, expression, and association. Um, and then we added another kind of, um, point about this, that the commission will adopt further design, uh, standards, um, and that can be within, you know, rules and regulations of the commission, um,
▶ 1:35:12 Cal Finocchiaro: to establish minimum criteria for evidence for, um, supporting the significance, um, and outlining the methods that they're, uh, they're gonna use to, to weigh that cri- that cri- criteria, um, in advance of getting an application. Okay, great. So I feel like, you know, um... I mean, you said three a year that you've been sort of... and this is not even using really this criteria, correct? So th- the, um, the three a year was based on the, the age of the, the building. Okay. Um, and the applications that... Th- the demo applications that we got, um, narrowed down by the ones that were for s- uh, buildings that were 100 years or older. So you think... I mean, I know this is... You'd have to kind of go back to these structures, but you think of those three per
▶ 1:35:59 year, were any of them, would you deem historically significant? Would they have to go through this process? I mean, I know that's... But just off the re- like, off your memory. Well, I mean, so an interesting one is the, um, 681 Main Street, that Caruso site, so- Mm-hmm. ... I'm not sure, uh, what the (laughs) commission would- Mm-hmm. ... um, would say with that one, and um, the, you know, building was not in great shape. Um, there could have been, you know, a, a process that, um, of documentation or, um, you know, doing more inventory work for that building. Um, I'm not sure how much that building was altered over the years. That's- That's often what happens- Yeah. ... um, with some of these structures, but that's kind of the part of
▶ 1:36:46 the, um, the homework that's done. Um, but that's kind of an example of one that, um, you know, may have piqued interest. Um, and typically, you know, there, there have only been kind of a few that, um, I can kind of remember in my 10 years here that were, um, kind of more homes, like th- uh, singles or two families that, um, were kind of sad that the... there wasn't kind of an investment to restore the property, um, because it does, it does often take a lot of money (laughs) to, um, if it, if a building hasn't been kept up- Mm-hmm. ... to restore it to its former glory. Mm-hmm. And there really just needs to be a desire to do that. Great. Thank you. I just want to make another point too. Um, establishing a demo review ordinance was a part of both the
▶ 1:37:46 Cal Finocchiaro: 2004 and 2017 master plans for the City of Melrose. Um, and now we're here years later without one, and we're finding ourselves kind of scrambling to kind of figure out something. I, I know it's not about the Benjamin Lyde House, but that's kind of brought this, you know, forefront. And I just, I just feel like personally, I think this is something that should be part of our community, and, um, we shouldn't kind of wait 10 more years to find ourselves. Maybe the Phineas Upham House will be, you know, regardless if we do the local historic, uh, districts and whether we actually pursue that. And, you know, that takes time. Um, so this is obviously, (laughs) I'm sponsoring the de- (laughs) the ordinance, but, uh, this is
▶ 1:38:30 Ward Hamilton: why I think it's so important. It's because so much time has passed and they're part of the city plan. So, that's it. Thank you. Thank you, um, Councilor Panachio. I have, um, Councilor Hamilton, President Migliorelli, and then, uh, Councilor Vandiver. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, and thank you for the privilege to speak earlier, and I will be brief. I'm mindful of my fellow councilors' time. Um, Caruso's very interesting example because in my conversations with Mr. Talarico, who's our building commissioner, he issued a permit for demolition of that building almost a year ago. So, I don't think that a demo review process would have hindered what was going on with that building, which has been closed for decades.
▶ 1:39:17 Ward Hamilton: Um, is this rushed? This is absolutely rushed. This is about that building being knocked down. My predecessor as chair of the Historical Commission, Mr. Bennett, spoke earlier. He was here before the Board of Alderman in 2017, advocating for a demo delay ordinance in 2021. I was working towards that, and it didn't work out when I was chair of the Historical Commission. Here we are now. It's no longer this esoteric conversation about protecting important buildings. We now have an important building that is endangered. Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Brookline, Wellesley, Arlington, Belmont, Winchester, Wakefield, Reading. They all have demo delay. We don't. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next is, uh, President
▶ 1:40:13 Leila Migliorelli: Magliorelli. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just to actually, with Caruso's, I feel like that's a good example of a building that probably should have been brought down a lot sooner. So, I guess I'm not understanding how demo delay would... Uh, I, I guess I feel like demo delay in a historic home, uh, on Caruso's versus a historic home are two different things. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. I don't think Car- I mean, saving Caruso's charm, I, I think there's a lot in that building that was problematic. It's not like it was not torn down because of historic charm. It was not torn down because there was- (laughs) ... issues, chemical issues in that building, and the, the culvert underneath it.
▶ 1:40:55 Leila Migliorelli: So, I don't, I don't know if that's an example that w- is relevant here as, as maybe other homes. Um, which brings me to my question, are we at all concerned about, um... Are there any legal ramifications for us driving this conversation around a home that is about to be sold or purchased, and, and we are enacting legislation for a singular home, which has been said frequently throughout the night? Do, do you have any concerns about that? I don't have concerns about that. Um, I mean, this, this process does apply to, to all structures, um, in Melrose. So it's, you know, there's oftentimes reasons why, um, uh, residents get interested in things, and, you know, and councilors or... Um, so I, I don't see a legal issue, um, with that.
▶ 1:41:47 Um, with the- So you- ... local historic district designation, we're kind of looking into that process, and, um, the Mass Historical Commission does recommend contacting property owners to inform them, um, you know, at the, the start of the process that, um, the commission is, um, looking into that for, um, somebody's property. So, we will do that when we, you know, as we move forward. Yeah. No, I understand that process. Yeah. I'm just wondering if this ordinance, there's no, we don't have to be concerned about the, the- No, it's not specific for that, you know, for that property. But even the conversation- So- ... here is specific? That doesn't matter? No. Uh, you know, it's the City Council's right to, to
▶ 1:42:30 Leila Migliorelli: pass an ordinance, and, um, you know- Okay, if you're comfortable with that. ... kind of the, the motivation be, you know? Yeah. Um- Yeah, but this, this does apply to all, um, buildings, not just, um, houses. So, uh, if I, I use the Carusos as an, as an example, as, um, a recent building that was demolished, that if this ordinance was in place, the Historical Commission would be, um, reviewing that to, to make these determinations- Mm-hmm. ... before it could be demolished. Okay. Um, do you... Is it... So I know that we've talked a lot about how this is based off other communities. Are sheds and garages really like... That's really something that would need to be reviewed? I, I, I don't know that there's a reason to protect a shed or a garage
▶ 1:43:15 Leila Migliorelli: over- Yeah. I mean, it doesn't have to be part of this. It's, um- There are often kind of interesting, um, accessory structures in Melrose. So, that's why it's included in here, but, um, it, it could be struck. I'm, yeah, I'm just thinking if you had a, you know, you had a property and you had an old garage or shed that was falling apart. Uh, I mean, I, I suppose, I guess you go through this, the process, and it just, it seems like it's hindering what people can do to their own private property. So, I would, I'd just be kind of curious about that. Um, what was the...You said the Planning Board reviewed it. They didn't take a vote on it? Do you have a sense of ... So, we've ... So, in t- in talking about the other, uh, 'cause Councilor Stewart
▶ 1:43:59 Leila Migliorelli: just reminded me of this. So, Inspectional- (laughs) Services hasn't looked at it. You've looked at it. Um, your offices looked at it, the Planning Boards looked at it. Planning Board did not take a vote on it, but there was conversation at the Planning Board meeting. Could you describe that? Was there, you know, overwhelming consensus for this, or support, or not? There were a lot of varying opinions. Varying opinions, okay. Um, some members were supportive. Um, some, you know, thought the 100, um, years was, or the, I'm sorry, the 12 months was too long. Um, some, you know, were not supportive of it. So, it really was kind of a range of, um, responses from the Planning Board. And the Zoning Boarder- Board of Appeals?
▶ 1:44:40 Leila Migliorelli: Did they- They didn't, um, review this as a ... We didn't have a meeting within the- the time to- Okay. ... discuss it with them. Okay. Um, Madam Chair, just as, um ... I- I feel a little bit uncomfortable moving forward without getting those key, key players, um, uh, you know, their input on this. Um, I would be, uh, (microphone thumps) like to make a motion to hold in committee, um, if there's a second? So, motion to hold. We have a motion to hold made by President, uh, Maglierli. Do we have a second? Once, twice, okay, that motion dies. Um, uh, Councilor Vandiver. Uh, thank you Chair Jamaleddine. Um, a few comments in response to the discussion. I really appreciate the robust discussion.
▶ 1:45:31 Kimberly Vandiver: I'd, I- I, uh ... One of our other colleagues at one point commented that we should not be so timid to, uh, work on legislation and ordinances, and I- I- I agree. I- I think this is great. It's a meaty discussion. Um, to an earlier point that was raised, um, through the Chair, about the a- about, uh, other communities and having 50 or 75-year, um, versions. I think, I would guess, I have not looked at the data for other communities, but Melrose is older, right? And so, you know, what's old in Somerville is different than what's old in Melrose. And so, that's why I think a larger number makes sense, because we have, we have so many more and so much older housing. So, I, and to Councilor Stewart point, I think, I think that's part of
▶ 1:46:11 Kimberly Vandiver: making it work for Melrose is finding out what is, what is historically significant from Melrose and- Yeah. ... putting that in there. Um, I, I, I, I appreciate the, um, the discussion around we have these criteria, um, that would be used. I still ... I- I do feel there's a lot of discretion in that, um, because you know, you, uh, and I- I see that it's going to, you know, uh, we would have, the commission would adopt standards, but they're not yet specified around that. And I mean, there's- there's a lot in here, right? Like you could zero in on the building using certain materials or being in a certain style. I mean, I could see an art... I feel like, uh, not being at all an expert in historic preservation myself, but I
▶ 1:46:52 Kimberly Vandiver: feel like I could see a commission interpreting that fairly broadly (microphone thumps) and defining many, many buildings as significant or representative of the style or part of a block of houses that's significant. So, I- I feel like there's a lot of latitude in that, which- which, you know, could be okay. But, um, but we should be aware of. Um, so I guess, um, uh, that brings me back to my earlier comment about 1875. And- and while this- I- this process is fast, I- I personally would be okay ... I would just like to reiterate with starting with 1875 as a more restrictive year, getting the process in place, getting it going, and then we could always come back and amend it, um, further to a different year or other things as we see what's working, what's not
▶ 1:47:36 Kimberly Vandiver: working. And like, I would like to get a starting point out there. So, um, I, uh, if it's okay, I would like to make, um ... First, I would, uh, I think, we're probably through discussion, okay, we're working off of this document with the changes. So, I would make a motion that we would, um, accept the, um, red lines and update that document, if that's okay, so that we can have that one going forward to work off of? So, we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver to accept all the changes that, uh, were made, uh, and suggested by, um, Director, uh, Massa. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Uh, and as seconded by Councilor Garipay. Um, discussion. Uh, President Migliorelli. Madam Chair, um, through the Chair, uh, how do we want to
▶ 1:48:27 Kimberly Vandiver: handle ... I haven't looked at everything yet, 'cause we just got this when we got here. On page two, the double strike outs (paper rustles) of the years, and then I think Councilor Williams had pointed out some other part on- It's on page four, significance. ... page four. So, I don't know how you want to handle that. And I don't know if there's any others in there. I think those are the two. Uh, I- I could amend the- the motion to include those two changes, or we could do a separate motion after? Are you, um, withdrawing I- I- I ... If people are comfortable with it, I would withdraw my prior- Uh, I'll withdraw my second, if you want to redo the motion- When I withdraw your- ... and make those changes, I'll second.
▶ 1:49:04 Kimberly Vandiver: Yeah. So, uh, I motion to accept all of the changes in this docu- No, I, uh, so, you withdrew your motion. I withdraw the second. And Councilor Garipay withdrew his second. Now we have a new motion, uh, by Councilor Vandiver. Go ahead. Okay. Uh, I would like to motion to accept all of the changes that are in the document before us, with the exception of, on page two, uh, the last full sentence, uh, page two should read, "At least 100 years old," and not built, and it should not read, "built on or before 1930." And on page four, uh, in C3, the word significance should be changed to significant. I'll second that. So, we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver, um, to, uh...Um, accept, uh, all the amendments, uh, made
▶ 1:50:04 Kimberly Vandiver: by, uh, Director Masa and, uh, to make the change in page two. Uh, Councilor Vandiver. Yes. At the bottom of page two, what's read on our document, to, um, uh, keep the at least 100 years, to be consistent with rec- the rest of the document. And to, um... Or say, sorry, at least 100 years old and to remove built on or before 1930, again, to be consistent with the rest of the document. And, um, the other change- In page four? And on page four, under C3, to, uh, there's a word in reg, in red, significance, and it should actually read significant. Did you get that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, we have a second, uh, by, um, Councilor Garipeh. On discussion. No discussion. Um, I'm gonna ask for a roll call-
▶ 1:51:04 Kimberly Vandiver: Sure. ... if you don't mind. Yes. Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Garipeh? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. President Migliorelli? Yes. Chair Jamaleddine? Yes. This motion, uh, passes. Uh, we're still with Councilor Vandiver. Thank you. And, uh, I would like to make a, I would like to make a motion, and tell me if this is possible right now, because we may need to find all the places it's referenced. But, uh, I would like to make a motion to update, uh, to remove all references to 100 years, and to instead reference the year 1875. Would you accept that motion? Or is that not specific enough? Um, w- let's see if we have a second for that. So we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver to
▶ 1:52:00 Maya Jamaleddine: remove all, um, uh, references of, uh, 1930, year 1930, and replace it with- 100 year, sorry. 100 years. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, remove all, uh, references of 100 years and replace it with- Uh, the year 1875. ... replace it with the year 1875. Uh, do we have a second? Second. Uh, we have a second, uh, made by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion. Councilor Garipeh. Um, thank you. I, I support this order. I, I want to see something pass. I'm okay with changing, changing to a date. I think 1875 is a little too far back. We didn't become a city until 1900, so we're, we're losing, uh, you know, 20... At least, if we went with 1930, we're losing 25 y- years as us not being North Malden, but being the City of Melrose.
▶ 1:52:59 Kimberly Vandiver: So, um, I'm okay with changing a date, but I not am comfortable going back to 1875. So I'll vote no on that, but if someone wants to come up with a, another idea, um, I, I support this and I want to see it go through, so, um... 1900? Thank you. Uh, if I... Can I respond or... Yep, go ahead. Um, just as far as considering the date, when I was looking at this, um, about a full 20% of the structures have 1900 listed as their year. Um, and I assume that's because of, you know, record keeping issues going back that far. So, um, I would even go, well, I would even go to 1899 or something like that. But there's just so many structures at 1900, and I... So that, that's my stance on it. Um, Councilor Hamilton.
▶ 1:53:50 Kimberly Vandiver: Madame Chair, very briefly. So, uh, assessor's records are frequently wrong. And so to Councilor Vandiver point, 1900 is a catchall. So if you used a year like 1899, that would probably be a good compromise. Okay. Uh, would you like to withdraw your second and I'll... Yeah, I will withdraw my second. I withdraw my motion about 1875. Okay. Um, so that motion, uh, was withdrawn, uh, and the second as well. Um, councilor- Uh, may I, may I make, hopefully my final motion- (laughs) ... uh, to replace all references to ni- uh, 100 years old with instead, a reference to, um, the year 1899? Second. Awesome. We have a, a motion made by Councilor Vandiver replacing all 100 years, uh, oh, by 1899, um, seconded by
▶ 1:54:53 Maya Jamaleddine: Councilor Finocchiaro. Uh, on discussion. Seeing none. Madame Clerk. Okay. Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Garipeh? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. President Migliorelli? Yes. Chair Jamaleddine? Yes. That motion passes. Um, what is the will of the committee? Um, Councilor Finocchiaro? I'd like to make a recommend- a recommendation for passage. (laughs) I'm so tired. Second. So we have a motion to, uh, recommend to the full council- As amended. Um, as amended, made by Councilor Finocchiaro. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by, um, uh, Councilor Vandiver. On discussion, uh, Madame President. Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, I, I can't support this motion, um-... as amended
▶ 1:55:54 Leila Migliorelli: because I need input from the other companies. We, when we just, uh, the other, uh, organizations within the city, when we did this, um, for food trucks recently, we held it in committee til we got a final clear draft. I would feel comfortable getting that, get, before taking a final vote, um, getting that feedback from the, the necessary, uh, stakeholders in the city, and also looking at a clean copy. I, I can't just, editorially, I, I can't approve something without seeing a fine clear, final cle- clear copy and we have precedent in the Council for not doing that as well. So, that's why- Thank you. ... I won't be supporting it. Councilor Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as a non-voting member, I just wanted to state
▶ 1:56:38 Robb Stewart: my, my thoughts on, um, what, uh, President Migli- Migliorelli is sharing as well. Um, (clears throat) given that it's a holiday week, I know that, uh, Mr. Talarico is on holiday this week, um, 'cause I tried reaching out to him this morning, he wasn't available. Um, so he will not have a chance to review this before next Monday. I don't think we want to give him one day to review this 'cause there may be questions. There may be questions that people on the Council may have. So (clears throat) , if this came to the full Council next Monday for a vote, I would vote no. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I have a question on discussion. If we, whether we pass, uh, this ordinance or not, what are the risk for, and I'm gonna be
▶ 1:57:24 very specific, on the, uh, lined house? Uh... So, if the (clears throat) , if a demolition permit was, um, requested for that house, um, it could be granted and then demolition could proceed, if this didn't, if this wasn't approved. Uh, how long does it take to get a demolition approval? I, I believe it's ... S- so for a building permit, the inspectional services has 30 days to respond and, you know, the, it often requires additional information and, you know, so there's kind of a back and forth. Um, it needs to be a complete application. Um, I'm not 100% sure for a demolition permit if that's the same timeline. Um, so, I mean, typically, property owners don't demolish structures until they
▶ 1:58:17 Maya Jamaleddine: know what they're going to be building on a site, um, but there's no kind of protection, there's no requirement that they do that. And as of today, we don't have a request, uh, for permit for demolition for that specific property? No. We don't. So we still don't even know if this is going to be requested or not? Right. Okay. Um, so if it wa- if we put this ordinance on hold, what are the chances that ... I guess, it's, uh, it's very subjective right now. Um, what are the chances or the risks that we're taking to, uh, for that specific property? Uh, right. It would, it would be my guess as to, you know, what, what the property owners would decide to do. But they, you know, um, they would have the right to do it. I, you know, I don't know that they would.
▶ 1:59:17 Ward Hamilton: But- We ... Right. Because we only have 45 days limit to hold it in committee. We don't have over 45. After 45 days, that ordinance would expire if we don't vote, uh, on it. Um, so just, that's just for the public also, and, and as, um, general information. Um, I have Councilor, uh, Hamilton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Under Mass General Laws 780 CMR, there is no such thing as a demolition permit. It's a building permit. And that building permit may necessitate demolition, and the building inspector or his designee has 30 days to act on that. So if somebody walks into ISD tomorrow morning and applies for a building permit- Mm-hmm. ... that demolishes 50% more of 244 Main Street or any other building in Melrose built earlier than
▶ 2:00:15 Ward Hamilton: 1899, they're going to be grandfathered in and nothing that happens here tonight is going to stop them. However, if we move this, if this is moved forward and is acted on by next Monday night, then anyone who were, was to go into ISD and apply for a permit would be stopped. So, time is literally of the essence. And, um, if I owned 244 Main Street and I was advertising that building to be attractive to developers, as they are, and I knew that this meeting happened tonight, I would hurry up and go apply for a building permit- Mm-hmm. ... and demolish the building, or a permit to replace the roofing and windows. And what they'll frequently do is take the roof covering materials off, they'll blow out the fenestration, and they'll create a building that is just
▶ 2:01:12 Ryan Williams: gonna be exposed to the weather. So, um, time is of the essence. That's, I, and I understand and I, and I absolutely respect the considerations and the comments of President Migliorelli, of Councilor Stewart, but this is literally time is of the essence. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Councilor Williams. Thank you. I appreciate your, your deference for allowing me to speak on this. Um, I know everybody's very tired. We have two more City Council meetings, uh, is that right, in this year? December 1st and December 15th, right? (papers rustle) Um, so I, I, you know, with the motion on the floor and the, um-... ability of the committee to decide and send it up to the full council. I just wonder, not knowing if there's some flexibility within
▶ 2:02:01 Ryan Williams: that window of the 1st to the 15th, by which we could get the answers we're looking for, rather than sort of have to have another committee meeting to then send it back up to the council, or if there's a way to, to handle this in council, (sniffs) while we wait for the, you know, feedback people are seeking. I, I tend to agree, like if, if you skip the 15th, the next meeting is January 5th, um, which is, you know, notably more than 30 days after today. (laughs) So, um, you know, I just, I, I, I, I tend to agree that time is sort of of the essence on this and would rather do something slightly imperfect and then adjust, um, later or immediately. If that's the case, um- Mm-hmm. ... than, than do nothing.
▶ 2:02:46 Robb Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Um, Councilor Stewart. Yeah, my... Madam Chairman, (clears throat) my intent is to give the fair representation of the, um, the part of the a- administration that's gonna be directly impacted by this. But in, uh, deference to the concerns about, uh, the immediacy, I, you know, I don't think any of the councilors will like this, but I'd be happy to come in at any time to do any kind of special vote on this. So, um, you know, if the 15th is deemed too long of a time, then if we have to come in on... If, if I, I will not speak for the others, but if I have to come in on the 4th to make that vote, I would be more than happy to make that vote. Thank you, ma- councilor. Thank you. Um, Councilor Pinocchiaro.
▶ 2:03:35 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. Um, I think we're actually looking at the two people (laughs) that are gonna be actually doing the bu- bulk of the work for this ordinance, correct? It's gonna come to your office, and then you're gonna be reviewing it and working together. Sure. So, I just, I just want to say, I, I appreciate your concerns, uh, through the chair, Councilor Stewart and Councilmember Migliorelli, but I do feel like this is, this is the ordinance. (laughs) These are the people that will be working with the ordinance, and I just keep on coming back to that. If they're okay with it and they feel... And I, I, I do appreciate that we should get some other, um, departments to review it, um, but I do feel comfortable with moving it forward and
▶ 2:04:12 Kimberly Vandiver: then coming back with maybe some edits and, and suggestions, uh, before full council. So, um... Thank you, Councilor Pinocchiaro. Just for the record, my comments were not to, uh, to try to delay this as much as just to clarify- Mm-hmm. ... what could happen, um, but that does not reflect my decision yet. Um, Councilor Vandiver. Thank you. Uh, through the chair, to co- uh, to piggyback on Councilor Pinocchiaro's comments, um, I, I think that, uh, number one pre- I, I think my understanding of this is, is that the, the building inspector, while involved, would be, would not be taking on a significant workload relative to this. So I, personally, I'm not... I... If we got comments to the, like, contrary, I'd be happy to make adjustments
▶ 2:05:02 Kimberly Vandiver: there, but I don't expect... I would be surprised if there was a lot of concern about the form of it from the building inspector. Um, and then secondly, we do have the ability in full council to make amendments, I believe, prior to voting. So if we got that feedback the morning of the 1st, or if we scheduled a meeting for the 4th, you know, that would- Mm-hmm. ... give us some time. I know it is rushed. I completely, (taps table) you know, agree it's rushed. I don't like that it's rushed either, but I do see that there's a reason it's rushed, and so I, I'm still advocating that we move this forward. Anyone else on discussion? Um, President Migliorelli. Just, uh, like the timing point, if this, we have a meeting on the
▶ 2:05:48 Leila Migliorelli: 1st, to Councilor Stewart point, I don't, I don't know that the answers that I need are gonna be available. I'm not making anyone work through the Thanksgiving holiday to get me my answers. Um, I, I also don't like to make people like come in from Thanksgiving holiday in a day to answer questions on the 1st. If it, if we can get answers and then hear it on the 15th, that's fine, and I get the answers, you know. I just, I don't feel comfortable, um, doing my due diligence. However, it seems, if I were to read the tea leaves, there's enough votes to keep this going. So you don't need my vote to, to keep this moving. (laughs) So thank you. (laughs) Thanks. Um, if there is no one else on discussion, um,
▶ 2:06:27 Madam Clerk. (papers rustling) Do you want to restate what we're voting on? (laughs) Do it, do it, and then, and then I'm good. (laughs) Okay. (laughs) All right. Here we go. Vice Chair Romanul. Yes. Councilor Pinocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Garipay. Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. President Migliorelli. No. Chair Jamaleddine. Yes. Okay. This motion passes. It's actually, I'm surprised, I did not expect that was gonna happen. (laughs) I thought it was gonna be like the food truck. (applause) Make a motion to adjourn. Um... (laughs) Motion to adjourn made by- Second, second, second. ... Councilor Garopay- Second it. You can't second it. ... and we have a second by- ... the day of your... Him, here, you have a second.
▶ 2:07:14 Second. What? Oh, did I? Councilor Vandever- Councilor Vandever- ... someone said it. (laughs) He can't have seconded yet. (laughs) On discussion- Oh, man. ... we have adjourned. (laughs) Come on, we're trying to keep order here. (laughs)