Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-15-HC-minMEETING MINUTES June 15th 2022 Call to Order: A public hearing of the Historical Commission was held remotely through Zoom. The meeting convened at 7:00PM. Historical Commission Members in Attendance: Susan Bennett, Chair, Diane Pursley, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendall Kalsow, David Kelland and Robert Rotberg AGENDA ITEM #1 (7:06): Public hearing regarding the partial building demolition and roof line change at 40 Fern Street. APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: David Torrey, Architect ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: None DOCUMENT(S): Existing and proposed elevations dated 4/20/2022 Site plan Photos of existing house SUMMARY: (Applicant Speech) Mr. Torrey described the lot and the existing house. He stated there is a slopping hill and in the 60’s there was an addition made and a sloped roof connection to the old barn. They proposed to remove the roof materials, which are asphalt shingles and replacing it with a standing seem metal roof. They also propose to alter the roof line by removing the 1960’s flat roof and replacing it with a sloped roof to echo and extend the historic roof and they are removing some moldings and trim in order to extend the roof. He showed the proposed plans. The main house remains and they are not removing anything from the 1852 building. HC COMMENTS: Mr. Kalsow has no reservations, the addition is setback from the structure. Ms. Fenollosa confirmed the location of the new door. She felt that roof does not fit with this building. Mr. Torrey stated it’s a durable roof, it evokes farm house, snow slides off it and its adaptable to solar panels. Mr. Rotberg said he is for a metal roof but an aluminum roof surprises him. Mr. Kelland said they should put the addition going the opposite direction. He felt the modern addition is inappropriate. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None MOTION: Moved by Mr. Kalsow to find the structure at 40 Fern Street preferably preserved and approve the selected demolition and addition to the structure because it is significantly setback from the gable and front of the building and is very respectful of the historic house. Seconded by Ms. Pursley. VOTE: 4-0 in favor of the selected demolition and addition to the structure: Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Kelland, Ms. Fenollosa, and Ms. Pursley. Mr. Rotberg abstained. AGENDA ITEM #2 (7:25 PM) Public hearing regarding the partial building demolition and roofline change at 69 Pleasant Street. APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Thomas Cataldo ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): Existing and proposed elevations dated 4/20/2022 Site plan Photos of existing house SUMMARY: (Applicant Speech) Mr. Cataldo stated he is here at the request of the Planning Board. He has applied for a site sensitive development and in his plan, he has agreed to preserve the house. He reviewed the existing house and the proposed plan. He explained the two types of subdivisions and what they would look like. He stated they can discuss the restriction, there will be some sort of restriction but not the one he had put in front of him. He is happy to put a deed restriction that the house cannot be demolished and a condition on the Special Permit that any exterior change has to be approved by the Historical Commission. The preservation restriction is a scary document for people and makes it hard to sell the house. He read from the restriction and stated what makes it hard to sell. This restriction should not even apply. Mr. Cataldo reviewed the site plan. At the right of way there is talk about putting a roundabout, they reviewed it with Engineering and they told them this is where they would like the access point. They do not expect a lot of changes on the exterior of the house, they will come back for that. He showed the as-of-right plan. He explained what a site sensitive plan is and how it works. HC COMMENTS: Mr. Kalsow stated the concern that people may not be able to see this house from Pleasant Street when the project is done. Ms. Fenollosa staid she has a problem with replacing all of the siding and windows on the house. She does not believe the modern replacement windows or siding will have the same appearance as the existing. She also has a problem with the use of Aztek on a 1980’s structure. Mr. Cataldo stated the Historic District Commission allows the use of these materials. Mr. Rotberg agreed with Ms. Fenollosa and stated his concern for the roundabout. Mr. Kelland agreed with Ms. Fenollosa. He added that they cannot add something to the inventory or even study it. They can do it but it will have no effect if it is after the fact. Ms. Pursley questioned the massing/sizing of the new houses. Mr. Cataldo said they have not been designed yet. Ms. Pursley questioned what the style of the new homes would be. Mr. Cataldo stated across the street there are some contemporary style homes. They plan do to some more modern structures like that, they will not be big colonials. Ms. Bennett stated she is in favor of preserving the historic elements but there are times when synthetic material can be a wonderful solution. Mr. Kalsow agreed with Ms. Fenollosa. He stated they need to see plans as they are more developed. He has reservation about this type of project when the historic house and its context is degraded. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None MOTION: None VOTE: None AGENDA ITEM #3 (8:13 PM) Public hearing regarding the full building demolition at 118 Reed Street. APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Dana Tower ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: None DOCUMENT(S): Existing and proposed elevations dated 4/20/2022 Site plan Photos of existing house SUMMARY: (Applicant Speech) Mr. Tower stated the original structure was built in 1902. The intention is to demolish the house and waive the demolition delay. He showed pictures of the home. There are three additions on the rear of the house and a garage addition. They cannot figure out a way to do anything with this. There is not a lot of historical character left on the house. HC COMMENTS: Ms. Bennett felt the photos did not represent a story of structural problems or decay on the structure. The additions are not eloquently done, they could be reinitialized in greater harmony with the original structure. Mr. Kelland agreed with Ms. Bennett. He wouldn’t object to tearing down all the additions. Ms. Pursley agreed with Ms. Bennett and Mr. Kelland. She feels this house preserves the feel of this neighborhood, they should look at trying to preserve it. Mr. Kalsow said he has no problems with the demolition with the additions but the structure qualifies to be on inventory. Mr. Rotberg suggested they leave the front porch addition if they were to remove some of the additions. Ms. Fenollosa felt the additions are as much a part of the history as the original structure, there may be cause to celebrate those additions. Mr. Tower stated if it was going to be preserved they would have to remove the additions and they have looked at that but it is not feasible. It is also not feasible to keep the additions or the existing house and to an addition. The intent is to demolish the property, they would like a demolition delay. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None MOTION: Moved by Mr. Kalsow to find the structure at 118 Reed Street preferably preserved and to impose a 12 month demolish delay. Seconded by Mr. Kelland. VOTE:5-0 in favor of preferably preserved and to impose a 12month demolition delay: Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Kelland, Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Rotberg and Ms. Pursley AGENDA ITEM #4 (8:40 PM) Communications from the public None AGENDA ITEM #5 (8:41 PM) Discussion on Hosmer House -Ms. Bennett stated the Historic District Commission are going to taking up this issue on July 14, 2022. They are the deciding body. If it were to be moved it would then fall under Historic Commission jurisdiction and they would be approving changes and working with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Jim Malloy reiterated the Town’s interest in moving the structure and he mentioned the Town feels there might be some restrictions impeding the movement of the house on the public land surrounding it because its status of park land. Mr. Kalsow said park land becomes an issue that needs to be dealt with. They need to see where the border of the park land is. What is frequently done is you can exchange an equal value piece to the park land that by itself is not a reason to move it from the site. Mr. Kelland agreed with Mr. Kalsow and pointed out the house has been in that location for 180 years, suddenly making part of its location would out weigh that. The moving of the house to another location would constitute demolition. That is under the definition of demolition. The Commission discussed how and if the house was previously moved. Ms. Bennett stated her support for moving the Hosmer House. She has not heard of any useful purpose to which the house would be put. If it is moved it could serve as useful housing. She would rather see it moved and be put to a purpose. Mr. Kalsow, Ms. Pursley, Mr. Kelland, and Mr. Rotberg agreed the Hosmer House is the last remaining iconic piece of history as you enter the center of Lexington before you get to the green and should remain in Lexington Center or near it. Ms. Bennett stated the structure in its current form is not iconic or a significant historic structure of the Town. Buildings in Lexington have been moved constantly to new locations, its an old New England tradition. AGENDA ITEM #6 (9:05 PM) Updates -75 Outlook Dr: Ms. Bennett said that is in the hands of MHC. They will get back to us soon. We are hoping this preservation restriction will serve as a model in other cases. -35 Hayes Ave: Ms. Bennett stated this house is not on the inventory. The homeowner is doing the subdivision to build two small houses for their daughters to be able to live in Lexington. The house has been completely transformed since the years that they owned it. They will not be doing a preservation restriction and they won’t be looking at putting it on the inventory. -Stone Building: Ms. Fenollosa stated the Ad Hoc Study Committee for the stone building released its report to the Select Board. They have not taken a position one way or the other yet. The report is at the Ad Hoc Study Committees webpage. The recommendation is that it be rehabilitated and sold to a private non-profit who will use it for one of the purposes that are described the original grant to the Town. -Mr. Rotberg stated in February the Historical Commission voted to send a letter to the Town Manager requesting a committee on welcome signs. The Town Manager replied “Yes, I will take it to the Select Board and get it done”. The Town Manager then stated the Select Board was not interested. Mr. Rotberg had a conversation with the Town Manager after that and then sent him and email again and was told the Select Board was not interested. He wrote a letter to Jill Hai and is waiting to hear back. Ms. Fenollosa stated the red signs that say “Welcome to Historic Lexington” are illegible. AGENDA ITEM #7 (9:14 PM) Vote to accept meeting minutes dated April 20th 2022, May 12, 2022 and May 18, 2022. Motion made by Ms. Fenollosa to approve minutes dated April 20th, 2022. Seconded by Mr. Kalsow. 3-0 in favor of approving minutes: Ms. Fenollosa, Ms. Bennett, and Mr. Kalsow Motion made by Mr. Rotberg to approve minutes dated May 12th, 2022. Seconded by Ms. Fenollosa. 5-0 in favor of approving minutes: Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Rotberg Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Kelland. Motion made by Mr. Rotberg to approve minutes dated May 18th, 2022. Seconded by Mr. Kelland. 5-0 in favor of approving minutes: Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Rotberg, Mr. Kelland. And Ms. Pursley AGENDA ITEM #9 (9:24PM) Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Kelland. Seconded by Mr. Kalsow. 5-0 favor to adjourn Mr. Kalsow, Mr. Kelland, Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Rotberg Ms. Bennett and Ms. Pursley