Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-20-HC-min Lexington Historical Commission Meeting Minutes September 20, 2023 Meeting Conducted by Remote Participation Commissioners Present: Robert Rotberg, Chair, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendall Kalsow, Diane Pursley, Susan Bennett. Commissioner Absent: Associate Commissioners Present: David Kelland. Associate Commissioner Absent: Staff Present: James Kelly, Building Commissioner, Siqing Pan, Department Assistant th Chair Robert Rotberg called the September 20 Historical Commission meeting to order at 7:00 pm. AGENDA ITEM #1: Approval of meeting minutes th Ms. Fenollosa made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on August 16, 2023 as written. Mr. Kelland seconded. Motion carried with Ms. Bennett and Ms. Pursley abstention. All in favor. AGENDA ITEM #2: Lex. Farm Chimney Historical Commission will officially include Lexington Farm Chimney in the Form B for 48-52 Lowell Street because it is historically and architecturally significant. AGENDA ITEM #3: Hosmer House The Historical Commission reviewed the relocation construction of Hosmer House. Mr. Kelly, Building Commissioner, stated that he removed the stop work order because they complied with the stop work order requirements, providing adequate plans to ensure that they were going to get the necessary details to replicate the building. Mr. Kalsow asked: did Mr. Kelly agree that the Board of Appeals decision required a Massachusetts Historical Commission preservation restriction before a Certificate of occupancy can be issued. Mr. Kelly responded that he agreed with it. Mr. Kalsow stated that having that assurance was helpful. Because it was unclear that whether the Massachusetts Historical Commission will accept a preservation restriction because so much of the fabric has been destroyed on the Hosmer House and the developer has not given an appropriate consideration to the historic fabric of the house. Mr. Kalsow stated that he will defer it to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Ms. Bennett followed up with Mr. Kalsow’s question. She stated that if the MHC refuses to issue the preservation restriction, then what will be the Town’s plan? Mr. Kelly responded that he did not know 1 / 5 Town’s plan, but according to their attorney William Dailey, the owner’s plan was to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals because the MHC has indicated that the preservation restriction will not be approved. Ms. Fenollosa asked that given that the special permit specifically referred to the Preservation Restriction and attached statement of the Historical Commission saying that the relocation and new construction of Hosmer House was approved based on the expectation that a preservation would be filed, could the ZBA waive it without coming back to the Historical Commission? Mr. Kelly stated that it is likely that ZBA would not do that. Ms. Fenollosa inquired: will the Certificate of Occupancy be issued by Building Department? Mr. Kelly stated that yes. If they cannot meet the conditions, the certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. Mr. Kalsow stated that his understanding was that the original RFP, which led to the disposition of the house, also required a Massachusetts Historical Commission preservation restriction, so if a preservation restriction is not issued, they will be in violation of RFP. Ms. Fenollosa echoed that point and stated that if responses to the RFP were conditioned on an agreement to put a preservation restriction in place, her concern was the fairness of the whole process. If that preservation restriction condition gets waived later, there may have been other developers who would have bid on the house if it did not have a restriction/requirement. Ms. Bennett stated that she was disturbed by the blatant disregard that the RFP has been violated by the homeowner, who agreed and signed that RFP for the relocation approval. Mr. Rotberg asked: was this house for sale? What were the revised plans on which the stop work order was released? Mr. Kelly stated that he had to approve the plans when he received the requested letter. Ms. Bennett reiterated that someone with historic preservation expertise should have been consulted before the stop work order had been lifted. Mr. Kelly stated that he has that expertise. Mr. Kalsow inquired about that did Mr. Kelly understand concerning what the Massachusetts Historical Commission requires? Mr. Kelly stated that it looks like it will be very difficult for MHC to support a preservation restriction on the completed house and the preservation restriction was still required to issue the Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Bennett and Mr. Kalsow stated that the action of the developers has made it difficult for the MHC to approve the preservation restriction. Mr. Rotberg inquired about that whether the color of the house was matching the historic nature of original Hosmer House? Mr. Rotberg summarized that based on the current situation, the expectations on all parties was that the Massachusetts Historical Commission will refuse to approve this historical Preservation order. Mr. Kalsow stated that one thing we should not ignore was that ZBA can look at its own decision, but the ZBA cannot change the contract that was signed between the Town and the owner. Mr. Rotberg stated that from the Town’s point of review, the original decision could conceivably be revised. 2 / 5 Mr. Kalsow also inquired about the title transfer of this house and whether it included certain conditions. Mr. Rotberg stated he will find out from Town Counsel. Mr. Rotberg stated if the CO has never been granted, would it result in a house standing on a lot without anything further happening? Ms. Bennett suggested that the HC should appeal the violations of the special permit to ZBA. Ms. Pursley suggested to appeal the fact that Building Commissioner made the decision to lift the stop work order without historical preservation review. Mr. Rotberg stated that it was originally agreed that Massachusetts Historical Commission would be likely to accept the reconstruction of the Hosmer House as of 2010, and the house would be properly reconstructed. Ms. Bennett also suggested an appeal to the ZBA to make the Building Commissioner put the stop work order back on the House and make him issue levy fines and punitive measures against the homeowner for violation of the bylaws. Mr. Kalsow stated that his primary concern was that the Zoning Board of Appeals will retain their special permit requirements and not change them. Ms. Fenollosa stated that she would consult with Town Counsel because he has a responsibility to uphold all bylaws. AGENDA ITEM #4: Property (formerly Land Acquisition) Working Group Policy Proposal Betsey Weiss, Vice Chair of Housing Partnership Board, briefly introduced the Housing Partnership Board “Property (formerly Land Acquisition) Working Group Policy Proposal”. Motion: Ms. Pursley made a motion that Historical Commission supports the concept of “Property (formerly Land Acquisition) Working Group Policy Proposal” and to be a member of this working group. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Kelland – Yes, Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Abstain, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Abstain. Motion carried with Ms. Bennett and Ms. Fenollosa abstention. The majority in favor. AGENDA ITEM #5: Public Hearing regarding the partial building demolition (residing) at 20 Highland Avenue APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Enqiang Lin, Homeowner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): Homeowner Letter: dated August 1, 2023 3 / 5 Proposed plans: dated August 1, 2023 Legal Advertisement Authorization Form: August 1, 2023 Signed Contract: dated August 1, 2023 SUMMARY: Enqiang Lin, homeowner, explained the proposed plans for 20 Highland Avenue. The Commission reviewed the proposed plans at 20 Highland Avenue. No Public Comments. HC COMMENTS: The Commission agreed to continue this hearing to next meeting with a new plan. The Commission suggested that the applicant comes back to the Commission with a detailed plan to replace the existing clapboards, corner boards, windowing casing, and columns with original materials matching the existing original profiles exactly and to demonstrate what those profiles are and provide that information for review by the Commission. AGENDA ITEM #6: Public Hearing regarding the partial building demolition (window and doors replacement, front porch removal) at 5 Lake Street APPLICANT (S) PRESENT: Matthew Steele, Homeowner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: DOCUMENT(S): Historical Information: August 14, 2023 Individual Building form from Lexington Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey: dated September 6, 2023 Photos of existing structure: dated August 14, 2023 Legal Advertisement Authorization Form: August 14, 2023 Homeowner exemption Letter: dated September 6, 2023 SUMMARY: Matthew Steele, Homeowner, explained the proposed front porch removal and window and door replacement plans at 5 Lake Street. The Commission reviewed and approved the proposed plans at 5 Lake Street. No Public Comments. HC COMMENTS: The Commission approved the proposed front porch removal and window and door replacement plans at 5 Lake Street. MOTION: 4 / 5 Mr. Kalsow made a motion to find that 5 Lake Street preferably preserved, and that proposed front porch, porch railings, porch stairs and deck removal and window and door replacement plans th presented on the September 20, 2023 HC meeting was appropriate and consistent with the historic value of the house. Historical Commission will give the applicant the option of either retaining the overhead addition or to remove the overhead addition. Ms. Bennett seconded. Roll Call Vote: Ms. Pursley – Yes, Ms. Fenollosa – Yes, Mr. Kelland – Yes, Mr. Kalsow – Yes, Ms. Bennett – Yes, Mr. Rotberg – Yes, Motion carried 6 to 0. AGENDA ITEM #7: Adjourn Ms. Bennett made a motion to adjourn at 9:25pm. Mr. Kalsow seconded. Motion carried. All in favor. 5 / 5