HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-03-HC-min
Lexington Historical Commission
Meeting Minutes
January 3. 2024
Meeting Conducted by Remote Participation
Commissioners Present: Robert Rotberg, Chair, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendall Kalsow, Susan Bennett,
Commissioner Absent: Diane Pursley,
Associate Commissioners Present: David Kelland.
Associate Commissioner Absent:
Chair Robert Rotberg called the January 3, 2024 Historical Commission meeting to order at 7:01
pm.
AGENDA ITEM: Hosmer House
The Historical Commission reviewed the below letter during the meeting. It will be sent to ZBA as a
statement to oppose the request by the Carrolls to modify the original ZBA special permit pertaining to
the relocation of the Hosmer House.
“To the Zoning Board of Appeals:
The Historical Commission, at its January 3 meeting, voted 5 to 0 to oppose the request by the
Carrolls to modify the original ZBA special permit pertaining to the relocation of the Hosmer
House.
The ZBA, HDC, PB, and HC approval for the transfer of the historical Hosmer House from
Fletcher Park to an unusual site on Blossomcrest/Waltham St was conveyed with the explicit
understanding and assurances in writing that the Hosmer House’s fundamental character (at least
as of 2010) would be maintained, and an MHC-approved Preservation Restriction would be placed
on the Hosmer House. These conditions were also part of the original RFP that governed the sale
of the house from the Town to the Carrolls.
None of the original requirements on which the move from Fletcher to Blossomcrest was
predicated have been fulfilled. In May, the HC asked the Town Manager and the Building
Commissioner to follow preservation architecturally sound principles before lifting a stop order
on construction. Without consulting the HC (as was explicitly requested) the Building
Commissioner, in receipt of a lawyer’s letter and building plans from the owners, on his own
(consulting no one) permitted the owners to complete construction on what we might now call the
ex-Hosmer House.
The Town Manager and the Building Commissioner (as recently as Sept. 20) agreed that no
certificate of occupancy for the ex-Hosmer House could be delivered without the granting of a
Preservation Restriction approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. An exception
from the ZBA would violate these legal requirements.
Historical Commission 1
Because the character of the Hosmer House has been altered so fundamentally, and because
the Massachusetts Historical Commission has not approved a Preservation Restriction to the ex-
Hosmer House, we strongly oppose any revision of the original special permit.
The modification requested by the Carrolls and Mr. Dailey would remove the requirement that
the Carrolls obtain a Preservation Restriction approved by the Massachusetts Historical
Commission prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. This requirement was clearly stated at
every stage of the original permitting process.
In his application for modification, Mr. Dailey asserts that the Hosmer House would not have
been eligible for a Preservation Restriction prior to the move. He states:
It is not possible to obtain the Historic Preservation Agreement due to the condition of the
house prior to the move, including alterations which had been made on prior occasions.
This is incorrect. It contradicts correspondence from the Massachusetts Historical Commission
(attached) that states:
In the opinion of the staff \[of the MHC\]…the remaining main block of the Hosmer House still
retained a high degree of architectural integrity , and would have qualified for the perpetual
preservation restriction at a relocated site, contingent upon the development of approved plans
that meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties under
which the building would be rehabilitated at its new location.
This means that the Hosmer House could have qualified for the Preservation Restriction if the
existing historical condition of the House before the move had been sustained during restoration
and rehabilitation of the structure.
If Mr. Dailey has communications from the Massachusetts Historical Commission that revises
this opinion, it should be made available to the ZBA and the Historical Commission.
The Hosmer House was meticulously restored in 2012 with the guidance of preservation
professionals. If it had been maintained intact during the move it is highly likely that a preservation
restriction could have been obtained, as is stated clearly in the letter from the MHC.
The original special permit approved by the ZBA specifically stated that after the move “…the
existing house will remain” and further that its historic elements will be retained. Clearly, the
special permit contemplated that the house would be moved in its then current state. The Carrolls
ignored these restrictions by essentially discarding the second floor of the house rather than
moving it and stripping all of the cladding and trim elements from the first floor. Despite knowing
that a permanent MHC-approved Preservation Restriction was required, they destroyed the
"Hosmer House” without any consultation with a recognized historic preservation expert or written
approval from the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
The Carrolls should not be allowed to benefit from the sale of the new lot and the former
Hosmer House, which is now an essentially completely new house, given that they have ignored
the restrictions of the special permit and the intent of the Town to preserve this historic structure
for the benefit of the citizens of the Town of Lexington.”
Motion:
Historical Commission 2
Ms. Bennett made a motion to adopt this letter and to oppose the request by the Carrolls to modify
the original ZBA special permit pertaining to the relocation of the Hosmer House. Mr. Kelland
seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Kelland – Yes,
Mr. Kalsow – Yes,
Ms. Fenollosa – Yes,
Ms. Bennett – Yes,
Mr. Rotberg – Yes,
Motion carried 5 to 0.
AGENDA ITEM #2: Adjourn
The Commission made a motion to adjourn at 8:21pm. Motion carried. All in favor.
Historical Commission 3