Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-19-HC-min Lexington Historical Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2023 Meeting Conducted by Remote Participation Commissioners Present: Robert Rotberg, Chair, Susan Bennett (Left at 8:57pm), Diane Pursley, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendall Kalsow. Commissioner Absent: Associate Commissioners Present: David Kelland Associate Commissioner Absent: Staff Present: Siqing Pan, Department Assistant th Chair Susan Bennett called the April 19 Historical Commission meeting to order at 7:01 pm. AGENDA ITEM #1: Approval of meeting minutes th Mr. Rotberg made a motion to postpone approval of the minutes of the meeting held on March 15, 2023 until May. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Motion carried. All in favor. th Mr. Rotberg made a motion to postpone approval of the minutes of the meeting held on March 30, 2023 until May. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Motion carried. All in favor. AGENDA ITEM #2: Discussion on HC Guidelines (per Town Counsel’s suggestion) The Commissioners reviewed the proposed revised definition of “substantial” for purposes of applying the concept of “substantial demolition” contained in the Demolition Delay Bylaw. MOTION: Ms. Bennett made a motion to table this revised Definition of Substantial Demolition. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Mr. Kelland – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 6 to 0. AGENDA ITEM #3: Discussion on MHC preservation plan 2023-2031 The Commissioners will provide feedback on the MHC preservation plan 2023-2031 individually. 1 / 8 AGENDA ITEM #4: Hosmer House Update (Report of Meetings) Mr. Rotberg and Ms. Fenollosa shared information of their meeting with Town Staff and Town Counsel th held the previous week on April 12, 2023. Mr. Rotberg stated that the Hosmer House had been built and roofed, despite the fact that there was an existing stop work order and a HC decision. Town Counsel stated that they would work with the MHC to see if there was a way that the MHC could accept a preservation restriction on the building that was essentially new construction, if it could be done to exact standards that the HC agreed on ahead of time. Mr. Kalsow stated that the preservation restriction by the MHC was integral to the whole process, so that the plans will be need to be submitted and approved by the MHC and HC prior to any work being started. Ms. Bennett reiterated that the whole premise on which the special permit was violated flagrantly. It violated all the protections around historic preservation in Lexington. The HC did have the opportunity to appeal whatever the Building Commissioner does to the Board of Appeals. The special permit should be invalidated because it was built on a framework that had been totally disregarded. MOTION: Given that the Historical Commission believed that the owners of 39-43 Blossomcrest Rd, AKA the Hosmer House, have violated (i) the terms of the RFP to which they and the Historical Commission agreed, (ii) the terms of the special permit that was issued pursuant to Ch. 135.6.2 of the Lexington Zoning Code, and (iii) the provisions of the zoning bylaw itself, the Commission asserts that appropriate remedies are required. Furthermore, the owners have failed to comply with the requirement that a preservation restriction acceptable to the Lexington Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission be executed and that the historic fabric of the Hosmer House should be fully retained as of the date of the preservation restriction. In view of these several outright violations of law and regulations, the Lexington Historical th Commission on April 19, 2023 requested that the stop work order issued by the Building Commissioner be continued until such time as the owners of the former Hosmer House agree in writing to the reconstruction of the Hosmer House fully to its exact condition before its removal from Fletcher Park in 2022. It should be understood, and also agreed in writing, that such reconstruction will be done to the satisfaction of the Lexington Historical Commission, as represented by a qualified preservation architect on behalf of the Commission. The Historical Commission further recommends that the owners of the (now former) Hosmer House themselves hire a separate qualified preservation architect to advise them on how to comply with the reconstruction requirements. The Historical Commission further urges that all punitive measures, including maximum fines, that are applicable to the violation of the above-mentioned bylaws and permits be applied to the owners. 2 / 8 Ms. Fenollosa made a motion to adopt this statement. Ms. Pursley seconded. strd Ms. Bennett moved to amend the 1 sentence of the 3 paragraph to “as represented by a qualified preservation architect on behalf of the Lexington Historical Commission at the owner’s expense”. Ms. Pursley seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – No, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 5 to 1. st Ms. Bennett move to amend the 1 paragraph to “Given that the owners of 39-43 Blossomcrest Rd, AKA the Hosmer House, have violated (i) the terms of the RFP to which they and the Historical Commission agreed, (ii) the terms of the special permit that was issued pursuant to Ch. 135.6.2 of the Lexington Zoning Code, and (iii) the provisions of the law itself, the Commission asserts that appropriate remedies are required. Furthermore, the owners have failed to comply with the requirement that a preservation restriction acceptable to the Lexington Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission be agreed and that the historic fabric of the Hosmer House be fully retained as of the date of the preservation restriction.”. Ms. Pursley seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes. Motion carried 6 to 0. Mr. Kalsow added a last sentence to the fourth paragraph: “Lexington Historical Commission recommends that the fines be used to support historic preservation in Lexington”. Ms. Bennett seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, 3 / 8 Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 6 to 0. st Ms. Fenollosa proposed that the work “Urges” to be replaced with the word “requests” of the 1 th sentence of 4 paragraph. Ms. Bennett seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 6 to 0. The Historical Commission adopted the final amended motion and approved (1) that the stop order on the House should continue (and be administered strictly) until such time as the owners agree in writing to reconstruct the Hosmer House as of the day on which it was moved from Fletcher Park; (2) that before any work is completed, the Historical Commission approve plans and specifications for the reconstruction and that a qualified preservation architect be employed (at the expense of the Hosmer House owners) to supervise the reconstruction on behalf of the Historical Commission. An independent supervisor, not anyone employed by the Town of Lexington, should be required to ensure a reconstruction satisfactory to the Historical Commission and, conceivably, to the Massachusetts Historical Commission as well; (3) that appropriate fines be assessed on the owners of the Hosmer House. At the meeting with Town Staff and Town Counsel last week, Town Counsel suggested that fines per day could accumulate from the date of the move in 2022 until the date the owners agree to the above stipulation. The Historical Commission also requests that revenue from such fines be devoted to historical preservation in Lexington, and not be deposited in “free cash.". Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bennett – No, Ms. Pursley – Abstain, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 4 to 1 with 1 abstention. Ms. Bennett stated she preferred a firmer approach that would allow the Historical Commission to proceed through the legal process, so she voted no to the motion. 4 / 8 AGENDA ITEM #5: Demolition Delay Bylaw (Brief Report) Mr. Rotberg introduced that the Article 25 – Amend the General Bylaws – Demolition Delay with 21 months demolition delay, except affordable housing, which has been approved by Town Meeting 2023. It will be effective when approved by the MA State Attorney General. AGENDA ITEM #6: Hanscom ESPR 2022 Input Request Jill Miller from PAL attended the meeting to request the Hanscom ESPR 2022 Input feedback on the historic resources and cultural resources update. The Commission will provide a written memo report on how the management of historic resources has changed in the last five years in the Town of Lexington. AGENDA ITEM #7: Public hearing regarding removal 11 Wachusett Drive from the Historical Commission Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey (the “Inventory”) APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Peter Shapiro, Owner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): Photos of existing structure in 1975 & 2023 Letter to HC: dated September 15, 2007 SUMMARY: Peter Shapiro, homeowner, requested removal of the house at 11 Wachusett Drive from the HC Inventory. The Commission reviewed the request and agreed to remove the house at 11 Wachusett Drive from HC Inventory. No Public Comments. HC COMMENTS: The Commission agreed that this property has lost its architectural integrity and therefore may be removed from HC Inventory. MOTION: Mr. Kalsow made a motion that the Commission find that the structure at 11 Wachusett Drive has lost its architectural and cultural integrity, and therefore it be removed from the HC Inventory. Ms. Pursley seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, 5 / 8 Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 5 to 0. AGENDA ITEM #8: Public hearing regarding the full building demolition at 9 Utica Street APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Jeannie Redmond, Owner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): None SUMMARY: Jeannie Redmond, homeowner, explained the proposed full demolition plans at 9 Utica Street. The Commission agreed to continue this hearing to May with detailed drawings to be presented to the Commission prior to the meeting. No Public Comments. HC COMMENTS: The Commission agreed to continue this hearing to May with fully detailed plans. AGENDA ITEM #9: Public hearing regarding the full building demolition at 342 Bedford Street APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Jennifer Calabro, Owner Colin Moriarty, Applicant ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): Historical Information: dated March 14, 2023 Photos of existing structure: dated March 14, 2023 Photos of original structure: dated March 14, 2023 SUMMARY: Jennifer Calabro and Colin Moriarty, homeowner and applicant, explained the proposed full demolition plans to build a new single-family house at 342 Bedford Street. The Commission reviewed the proposed plans and agreed to impose a one-year demolition delay to the demolition of this property. No Public Comments. HC COMMENTS: 6 / 8 The Commission agreed that this property is historically significant and the proposed full demolition plans were inappropriate. MOTION: Mr. Kalsow made a motion to find that the house at 342 Bedford Street is preferably preserved and to impose a 12-month demolition delay. Ms. Pursley seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Mr. Kelland – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 5 to 0. AGENDA ITEM #10: Public hearing regarding the full building demolition at 7 Ames Ave APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Xiaowei Chen, Owner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: Marie Ludwig, 30 Carville Avenue DOCUMENT(S): Photos of existing structure: dated February 17, 2023 Plot Plan: dated March 8, 2023 SUMMARY: Xiaowei Chen, homeowner, explained the proposed full demolition plans to build a new single-family house at 7 Ames Ave. The Commission reviewed the proposed full demolition plans and agreed to impose a one-year demolition delay to the demolition of this property. Marie Ludwig from 30 Carville Avenue expressed her opposition to the full demolition of 7 Ames Ave. HC COMMENTS: The Commission agreed that this property is historically significant and the proposed full demolition plans were inappropriate. MOTION: Ms. Pursley made a motion to find that the house at 7 Ames Avenue was preferably preserved and to impose a 12-month demolition delay. Mr. Kelland seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, 7 / 8 Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Mr. Kelland – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 5 to 0. AGENDA ITEM #11: Adjourn Ms. Pursley made a motion to adjourn at 9:43pm. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Motion carried. All in favor. 8 / 8