As one of Connecticut’s first settlements, Old Saybrook has a secure place in Colonial history. Still standing are hundreds of historic homes constructed between the late 1600s and the late 1800s. Other important and historic structures date from the early 20th century. Each home has a story to tell, about its architectural design, features, and/or the people who called it home. With an eye toward passing on those stories to future generations, the Planning Commission is now weighing a draft ordinance that if adopted, would delay demolition of historic buildings for up to six months.

Last week’s workshop focused on hearing from staff and the commission’s attorney, Mark Branse, and then discussing regulatory techniques the Planning Commission could consider for preserving and restoring historic structures.

As Town Planner Christine Nelson explained, the town’s existing zoning regulations, enforced by the Zoning Commission, refers to protection of historic resources in two places. In the site plan review section, one criteria by which applications would be judged is whether they preserve historic and architectural features. In the special exception permit provisions, there also is a specific criteria for judging whether a proposal is consistent with neighborhood patterns and design.

The Planning Commission, however, was interested in exploring tools it could tap. One of the regulatory options, proposed to the Planning Commission by the Old Saybrook Historic Commission, would be a demolition delay ordinance. If adopted, it would apply to structures deemed historic.

Last week Historical Society and Historic Commission representative Tedd Levy told the Planning Commission that more than 50 Connecticut towns already have adopted demolition delay ordinances for historic structures.

Branse said that he based the draft ordinance sent to the commissioners for review on the model ordinance developed by the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation that was sent to the Planning Commission on July 21. Some of the model ordinance provisions were internally inconsistent, including time-lines, so he did make some modifications to the model’s language and provisions.

Branse explained the draft ordinance starting with the Definitions section.

“Demolition is not just knocking down—it can also be demolition by neglect, such as by not maintaining it. Demolition is defined as big changes to roof pitch, removal of an outside wall, gutting an interior to the extent that the outside is impacted, and [work] impacting 25 percent or more” of the building, Branse said. “The purpose of the delay is to have a disincentive to demolition. Hopefully, you encourage an owner to incorporate the [historic] structure into the project.”

Branse said the state statute gives municipalities the authority to delay demolition up to 180 days.

Town Building Official Don Lucas said one potential issue for him is that state building rules require the town building official to act to approve or deny a request for demolition within 30 days.

Branse responded that the state statutes, which are state laws, would supersede the state building rules, which are regulations, so there would be no conflict if the ordinance’s Historic Review Committee, a new body, imposed an up to 180-day demolition delay.

Two topics generated significant discussion during the commission’s ordinance review: 1) how to define a “significant building” whose requested demolition permit could be delayed if the ordinance were adopted; and 2) the optimum membership for the proposed Historic Review Committee that would implement the ordinance.

Branse said that some towns define “significant building” simply by its age, that is, that any building more than 50 years old is deemed significant.

This threshold troubled some Planning Commission members and ex officio participants who suggested it would capture too many homes, many without historic value. One option proposed was to choose an alternate age threshold such as 75 years.

Another approach discussed was to define as “significant” those buildings and structures maintained on a vetted list of historic homes and structures. One list of 226 historic homes already documented is in a historic resources inventory a town contractor completed last year.

Questions arose about how and by whom such a list would be maintained.

Town staff Nelson and Lucas cautioned that the town’s experience with managing a seasonal properties list had shown that management of such a list was time-consuming and keeping it up to date, difficult.

“The seasonal list was an administrative nightmare. It’s still a lot of work to keep it up to date,” said Nelson, explaining that responsibility for properties on that list spans several different town departments: health, building, land use, and town clerk, among others.

The next issue discussed was how to constitute the Historic Review Committee the draft ordinance rely on for implementation.

After much back and forth about whether the Architectural Review Board should also be named the Historic Review Committee or whether a new committee with membership from the Planning and Zoning commissions should be organized, a compromise seemed by most to be preferred: that the Board of Selectmen be given the authority to appoint a Historic Review Committee.

Branse said at the end of the meeting that he would revise the draft and return to the Planning Commission’s next workshop meeting in October to continue deliberations on this proposed ordinance.

If the Planning Commission were to adopt a demolition delay ordinance, it would submit it to the Board of Selectmen for referral to town meeting. All ordinances must be approved by town meeting.