Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-30-HC-min Lexington Historical Commission Meeting Minutes March 30, 2023 Meeting Conducted by Remote Participation Commissioners Present: Susan Bennett, Chair, Wendall Kalsow, Marilyn Fenollosa, David Kelland. Commissioner Absent: Diane Pursley. Associate Commissioners Present: Robert Rotberg. Associate Commissioner Absent: HDC Liaison: Lee Noel Chase Staff Present: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, Siqing Pan, Department Assistant th Chair Susan Bennett called the March 30 2023 Historical Commission meeting to order at 3:59 pm. AGENDA ITEM: Hosmer House Reconstruction DOCUMENT(S): Hosmer House Letter from MHC dated March 23, 2023 SUMMARY: The Commission discussed the Hosmer House and the demolition of the historic elements of the Hosmer House. Members agreed it violated the RFP and violated the Zoning Code Ch 135-6.0 Special Regulations – Historic Preservation Initiatives. Mr. Colin Smith, architect, briefly introduced his preservation work on the Hosmer House back in 2011 and 2017. HC COMMENTS: Ms. Fenollosa stated that the reconstruction of Hosmer House was not only in violation of RFP but also in violation of the Zoning Code Ch. 135-6.0 Special Regulations. Mr. Kalsow stated that it was clear that the actions of the developer had significantly destroyed the remaining fabric of the house. The house no longer qualifies for an MHC – approved perpetual preservation restriction. In addition, the house no longer meets the zoning requirements for the creation of a new lot and the requirements of the RFP. Ms. Fenollosa stated that it is a matter of enforcing the zoning laws. Mr. Kelland stated that it was not a historic house anymore. There was an agreement made with the Town which has been violated. He stated that if this process is allowed to stand, of making an agreement to preserve a historic house and then demolishing it, a dangerous precedent will have been established for historic houses in Lexington. 1 / 4 Mr. Kelly stated that he would like to see the replica of Hosmer House as planned, with an addition on the side, a porch on the front, and an addition in the back. He favored replicating with new clapboards, siding, and trim. He did not think any precedents were being set yet, because it is the first time this bylaw has been used in 22 years. Ms. Bennett asked Mr. Kelly if he believed that the applicant/owner was, in fact, in violation of the special permit? Mr. Kelly responded no and stated it was items 7&8 of the Special Permit, which would require compliance with the Mass Historical Commission – approved Preservation Restriction Agreement. Ms. Bennett stated that there were historic elements of the building, such as the clapboards, siding in the main block, windows and trim, which needed to be retained. Mr. Kelly responded that the builder can retain those elements with the replication. Mr. Kalsow stated there is a clear differentiation between retaining and replicating. Ms. Chase stated that it was clear that when we say replacing in kind, replicate, restore, conserve, or retain, the words are defined by the Association for Preservation Technology. Ms. Krakauer Moore requested to see the list of those terms and the definitions. She also inquired about what should be changed in the zoning bylaw going forward at the next town meeting. Ms. Fenollosa stated that the owners had totally violated the historical preservation restriction agreement, which requires the owner to maintain the exterior building in at least the same structural condition as existing on the date of agreement. Ms. Bennett also stated the preservation restriction did require any changes to be approved by the Town in advance, and the owners clearly had not done that. Ms. Bennett stated that she did not think the problem is with the bylaw as written. She reiterated and Mr. Kalsow echoed that the problem is that the bylaw has been violated. Mr. Kelland stated there is a document called the Secretary of Interiors Guidelines for Historic Preservation providing clear information about how to preserve and restore historic buildings, and it should govern in this case. Mr. Kelly explained it is the one that allowed a special permit to be issued to move the house into another location and create that lot. It allowed the Zoning Board of Appeals to reduce or waive dimensional requirements that otherwise would not be acceptable. Ms. Fenollosa stated this bylaw was passed in response to the original RFP. Mr. Rotberg stated that because of the current state of the Hosmer House, there was no need to discuss any preservation work to be done on the Hosmer House, and the only issue is the remedy which is to effectively stop work on the house and demolish it as a violation of the permit and of everything else. Mr. Kalsow stated that the 2011 preservation report clearly showing that the windows were very much intact and original. Ms. Bennett asked that given it was clear that the owner violated the preservation restriction agreement, the RFP, the special permit, and the zoning bylaw, what recommendation the Historical Commission would like to make in terms of any relief from the stop work order, and what the appropriate remedies would be. Mr. Kelland stated that the HC opinion was clear that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals and other involved Boards should be notified that the agreements with the Town have been violated. 2 / 4 Ms. Chase asked Mr. Kelly what will happen next? She stated this project should be shut down. She recommended giving a stringent set of requirements for the rehabilitation of the structure. Ms. Fenollosa inquired whether the whole HC, or alternatively the commissioners acting as six Lexington residents, could request that the zoning administrator enforce the zoning bylaw. Ms. Bennett stated her understanding is that the HC can ask Mr. Kelly and Ms. Krakauer Moore to find the owner in violation and to seek appropriate relief which is broadly stated in the bylaw. If this action were to be declined by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Krakauer Moore, it should be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the HC or as individuals. Ms. Fenollosa asked what “the appropriate relief” would be under the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Krakauer Moore clarified the appeal process of the ZBA. Mr. Kalsow stated it was clear that the owner/developer was required to follow preservation restrictions in perpetuity accepted by MHC. Ms. Krakauer Moore stated it needed to be clarified with Town Counsel in a situation when a historic preservation restriction cannot be issued and then what will happen. Mr. Kalsow stated it was clear that the building qualified for the restriction until there was substantial demolition of historic fabric. Mr. Rotberg recommended that no further construction should happen on the House. MOTION: Ms. Fenollosa made a motion that Historical Commission find that the owners of 39-43 Blossomcrest Road (current address: 790 Waltham Street) have violated the terms of the RFP that the owners submitted in connection with their application to the Town, the terms of the Historical Commission’s demolition delay bylaw, the terms of the special permit that was issued pursuant to Ch. 135.6.2 of the Zoning Code, and indeed the provisions of the zoning bylaw itself by not complying with requirements that a preservation restrictions acceptable to the Massachusetts Historical Commission be provided, and that the original fabric of the existing house be retained in the condition on the date that the preservation restriction was accepted. Further, The Commission requests that the Zoning Administrator and Building Commissioner find that serious violations have occurred, and therefore the stop work order should not be removed, and that other remedies should be applied including the removal of the house that has been constructed on the site, and a requirement that no further construction happen on the site for an appropriate period of years. Mr. Kelland seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes. 3 / 4 Motion carried 5 to 0. Mr. Rotberg asked two questions to the Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator: 1. Were there other remedies other than stopping construction? Were fines available? Mr. Kelly stated that he would stop the construction before starting to issue fines. The fines will be issued if the construction continues after a stop work order. The fines would be up to $300 per day per violation. 2. After the adopted motion were forwarded officially to the Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator, whether the owner should be informed, and whether he would likely then sue the Town. Mr. Kelly stated it is a process that either party can appeal any decision which made in an unfavorable way. Those appeals will go to Zoning Board of Appeals and then after that the owners could go to the Land Court. Ms. Krakauer Moore reiterated that the purpose of the special meeting was seeking advice to move forward and how to guide homeowners to replicate the house. Mr. Kalsow stated since it was clear that there were significant violations of the terms of the acquisition and the special permit because the house had been destroyed and the historic structure no longer exists, these issued should be addressed first. Ms. Krakauer Moore pointed out that since the historic structure no longer exists, preserving a historic structure will not be an issue, once the stop work order is lifted. Ms. Bennett stated there was an appeal mechanism if the stop work order is lifted. Ms. Fenollosa stated that if the stop work order is lifted, the Commission will likely have to go into litigation to put it back. Ms. Bennett stated she would appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the Planning Board. Ms. Fenollosa asked that while the appeal is pending, would the stop work order be in place or be lifted? Mr. Kelly clarified the construction will continue while the appeal is in process for any lifted stop work order. AGENDA ITEM: Adjourn Mr. Kalsow made a motion to adjourn at 5:12pm. Mr. Kelland seconded. Motion carried. All in favor. 4 / 4