2024-02-08-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Clifford emphasized that the one area open for discussion is in regards to what is meant by “Town” and who in the Town the responsibility of making decisions that pertain to future changes at the Hosmer House falls on. Town Counsel, Mina Makarious, clarified that if the Massachusetts Historical Commission did approve the Historical Preservation Restriction of the Hosmer House, that would not have meant that the State was responsible for handling decisions regarding revisions to the home. This responsibility would fall on the Grantee, which in this case would be the Town, and would fall on the Select Board under a provision within the preservation restrictions. The Select Board would have the ability and purview to obtain advice and guidance from another entity they deem necessary, such as the Historical Commission. Mr. Makarious additionally spoke to what is effectively gained or lost in a condition written this way versus a preservation restriction. He outlined that until recently many Towns believed that restrictions, such as preservation restrictions, were required due to the belief that Town would absent the state approval due to statutorily lapsing with 30 years under statue. Doubt was recently placed on this belief and understanding in due to a Land Court decision. The decision suggested that the restriction in the case held an inappropriate condition in requiring a third party, i.e. the State, to act prior to the permit taking effect which was outside of the Applicants and the Board’s control. It also suggested that the Land Court believed that any restriction would be perpetual so long as the Zoning Relief in question was needed. Mr. Makarious summarized this new understanding in the Land Court regarding restrictions has led many towns to take more comfort in issuing conditions similar to the ones being proposed in this meeting. Mr. Clifford stated that the condition on the previously granted Special Permit is not a restrictive covenant. He reiterated the basic proposal is to take the language of the agreement the Carrols signed with the Town and attach it to the Special Permit as Conditions 7 and 8. He shared the proposed language that was drafted to replace conditions 7 and 8 in the Special Permit. Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, asked to clarify the exhibit letter written in the proposed language would match the Preservation Restriction. Mr. Clifford clarified that whatever the executed copy is of the Preservation Restriction, is what will be written in the Conditions. He stated that it is his belief that the Board has achieved what they wanted in this new iteration of the conditions. Mr. Makarious shared that is his only suggestion is that the Board vote and provide, with flexibility, that the exhibit can be changed to match what is in the RFP. He stated the Board has as-built plans and plans that show was exists after the RFP was issued and so what is being preserved needs to reflect today’s conditions of the house and that should be in the final exhibit listed in the conditions. Mr. Clifford stated that all decisions by the Board include that any proposal must be in substantial compliance with the plans and proposals that were submitted with the application. substantial compliance to with what was submitted. He stated that the Board also has power to approve or deny minor modifications and that they can do so for this case in the future if it is needed. Applicant, William Dailey Jr., 114 Marrett Road, Lexington, shared he and his client’s appreciation for the Chair, the Town Staff and Town Counsel and their tremendous work and