2023-03-02-HC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Kalsow stated the Hosmer House was carefully restored and renovated in 2011. Mr. Kalsow and Ms. Bennett emphasized that no permission was given to alter its appearance. Ms. Fenollosa inquired if the Demolition Delay Bylaw be set aside by a special permit. Mr. Makarious stated the application of the demolition delay bylaw in this case is ambiguous, because of the relocation of the house to a new address. Mr. Kalsow suggested and Ms. Bennett agreed to recommend the issuance of a stop work order, to allow time to assess the violations of the Special Permit conditions and the Preservation Restriction. Ms. Pursley inquired what is left of the Hosmer House. She stated it looks like the house is completely rebuilt. Ms. Carroll replied that the first floor is still intact. Mr. Kalsow clarified only the structure of first floor was there, and exterior historic fabric was all gone. Mr. Kelland, Mr. Kalsow, and Ms. Bennett all stated the building was renovated and restored with a well- qualified historical architectural firm in 2011 for preservation and rehabilitation of historical structure, so there is substantial information on the condition of the building at that time. The historic materials of that building may not be the elements of 1840s, but they are the exact replicas of 1840s elements that were put on under the supervision of qualified experts. Mr. Kelland also stated given this information, taking the historic materials off was in violation of the principle of the restoration of the house. The fabric of the house should have been retained. Mr. Rotberg asked to clarify the use of the word “retain” and pointed out that the movers and builders, seemed to have interpreted in ways that are clear violations of what was intended. He also inquired what are real remedies at this point. Mr. Makarious stated the Preservation Restriction must be in place before any certificate of occupancy issues, and the historic elements of the building should be restored. Mr. Kalsow recommended that the applicants should come back to the Commission to demonstrate how they propose to replicate the lost historic fabric of the building as it existed prior to the move. Ms. Bennett stated her understanding is if the Building Commissioner declines to take action on the Historical Commission recommendation, the Commission can appeal to the ZBA. Mr. Makarious replied that is correct. She also stated her opinion that the demolition delay bylaw should apply as there was substantial demolition of the building after it was moved to the Waltham Street site. Public Comments: No public comments MOTION I: Mr. Rotberg made a motion that the Historical Commission urges the Building commissioner to issue a stop work order for the property until such a time as the applicant returns to the Historical Commission with a plan for restoration of the project in accordance with the Special Permit and Historic Preservation Restriction and that the Building Commissioner and Town staff consider other enforcement remedies including but not limited to penalties under the zoning bylaw. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Roll Call Vote: 2 / 3