2023-03-30-HC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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