2014-04-16-HC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

VOTE: 4-0 in favor. Town of Lexington Historical Commission Public Hearing Date: April 16, 2014 AGENDA ITEM # 2 (7:49PM) Informal discussion on the draft of the Preservation Restriction for the Town-owned property at 33 Marrett Road SUMMARY: Mr. Kelland explained that the Town Manager has asked the Historical Commission for their suggestions on the proposed preservation restriction of 33 Marrett Road, the former Masonic headquarters. Mr. Kalsow began by suggesting they review page three at the top of the paragraph. Mr. Kalsow stated that reconstruction was not appropriate to preserving and if kept would be restrictive to potential use. He continued by suggesting that the Historical Commission choose either two of the standards, to rehab or restore. Mr. Kalsow went on to say if preserving is used the other three standards must be crossed off. Mr. Kelland asked why remove any part? Mr. Kalsow explained that it is because it is not compatible with the four standards. Mr. Kalsow added that preserving would be a more stringent standard than rehab. He asked the Commission which of the four Standards is most appropriate. Ms. Fenollosa expressed that she is concerned that the building was financed with CP funds and the Masons have done an amazing job keeping it in pristine condition. She continued that we must hold this building to the same standard, the highest standard of care. Ms. Fenollosa went on to say that reconstruction is out and the explained that the other three Standards involve a certain level of stewardship. She stated that preserving is most often the most appropriate Standard with parks and national landmarks. Ms. Fenollosa continued that rehabilitation involves too much flexibility and that restoration would be the Standard we opt for. Mr. Kalsow included that one document with four separate Standards should be used as we can do things under rehab that are prohibited under restoration. He further explained that we should take out rehabilitation as there are options for mutually agreeable restrictions and one out of four should be selected. Mr. Kelland added that the HC would let the Town Manager know they will look into this issue a bit more. Ms. Fenollosa commented that she will check the wording and look at the content of four different guidelines as to what is appropriate for the building. Ms. Fenollosa and Mr. Kalsow said they would discuss further with an eye to advising Mr. Valente on their deliberations. Ms. Fenollosa added that it is not so much what is in the agreement but what is not. She commented that this restoration could be financed under CPC property of whole being considered a historic landscape. They have excluded the land from protected covenant and Ms. Fenollosa added that it must say maintain grounds and must have Standard of Care imposed on grounds. Ms. Fenollosa continued that in the section on alterations it doesn’t speak of demo, moving, subdivision, buildings built on ground. She added the section must go beyond what language is there. Mr. Kalsow asked if there is an exception for a free standing shed and commented that the HC should look at individual preservation standards. Ms. Fenollosa said the document doesn’t speak of condemnation and asked if the Town were willing to assume the risk. Ms. Fenollosa reminded the Commission if a function room or gym were added a road would need to be built parallel to the property and the Fire Department would insist on two egresses. Mr.Kelland questioned if the road would be a cut through. Ms. Fenollosa replied that there is a property line there and Mr. Kalsow added that these are permitted without review. Mr. Kalsow summarized that eliminating or modify Secretary of Standards for Rehabilitation gives a certain level of appropriate flexibility under Section 10 it is tempting to have a time period of every two years to have an inspection by a historical architect. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the inspection should be done once a year instead. Mr. Kalsow added that a detailed report along with photographs on the condition of the house should be provided. 2