Council proposes ordinance regulating demolition of historic structures

Van Campen: Need to recognize, protect city’s historic buildings

By Neil Zolot

The City Council is considering instituting a demolition delay for historic buildings. “We’ve seen a significant amount of overdevelopment in our neighborhoods where two family structures sited for over 100 years are torn down indiscriminately and replaced with 6–9-unit structures,” Ward 5 member Robert Van Campen said as he chaired a Legislative Affairs and Elections Subcommittee meeting on the matter Monday, February 24. “It’s starting to drag our neighborhoods down. The intent is not to prohibit you from developing an area, but to pause the ability to tear a structure down. It often forces a developer to see a better alternative for development of a parcel.”

As currently worded the demolition delay would apply to buildings from 1940 or older or buildings of historic significance. “I don’t know if people in the community recognize there are a number of historic structures in Everett,” Van Campen said.” This would also protect historic buildings so they are not indiscriminately torn down by a profit-seeking developer.”

An application for demolition would trigger reviews by the Building Department and, possibly Historical Commission, to determine the historic status of a building. “The process doesn’t mean you can’t demolish a structure, but will determine it to be of a certain age or deemed historically significant,” Van Campen explained. It might be applicable in homes of former Mayors or other dignitaries. A delay might allow authorities to take photographs and/or remove particular items from a building, including furniture, papers and chandeliers among other things before demolition.

There are 18,000 structures in the City and Van Campen’s proposal designates 6,800 as possibly eligible. “I’d like to make it harder to tear down historic structures, but I recognize that is an eye-popping number,” he confessed.

In discussion, City Clerk and informal advisor to the Historical Commission Sergio Cornelio said 180-190 properties are registered with the State as historic and that requires preservation. None are registered at the federal level. Subcommittee member and Councillor At-Large Katy Rogers suggested some median number between 180 and 6,800 be determined.

Not every old building is significant. Cornelio said his parents’ home is 100 years old and “has no historic value, but we don’t want to tear down buildings everywhere. We want to keep historic properties.”

Among them are a church at 460 Broadway that served as the City’s First Meeting House where plans were made to separate Everett from Malden, the old Police Station on Broadway about halfway between City Hall and Sweetser Circle, the Leonard House on Pleasant Street, the interior of which is currently being remodeled and the Jonathan Green House on Ferry Street near the Malden line, considered to be the oldest house in the City and nicknamed the Sideways House because of its orientation toward the street.

In further discussion, Subcommittee member and Councillor At-Large Stephanie Smith asked the process be timed so as not to require duplication of reviews, like Site Plan Reviews by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.

She also feels a “piggyback ordinance” needs to be added about preservation of historic structures.

After the meeting, Historical Commission member Lawrence Arinello said he was “all for” Van Campen’s idea. ”We need a procedure that will allow the Historical Commission to look at things,” he feels.

In the full Council meeting that followed the members accepted a $24,200 grant from the Urban Areas Security for the Police Dept. to add new street cameras and replace old cameras.

The Council also approved a request from Ward 1 member Wayne Matewsky for representatives from the Davis Development Corporation to appear at the second meeting in March to discuss their future plans on the 98-acre site facility in the commercial/industrial area off Revere Beach Parkway and Lower Broadway in his ward.

In recent weeks there have been discussions and votes about proposals for an animal testing facility and a lithium battery storage facility in the area. The Council voted down having an animal testing lab there and expressed concerns about how a fire in a battery storage facility would be handled. “I want to ask them if we can do better,” he said.” I looked at gas tanks there my entire life and thought something decent would go there. I want to see something positive. Anything that happens down there, I’ll keep my eye on. If they think we’re pushovers, we’re not.”