The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-12-17-HC-min (DRAFT) HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 17, 2014 Call to Order: A public meeting of the Historical Commission was held in Learning Center, Cary Memorial Library at 1874 Massachusetts Avenue, Lexington, MA on December 17, 2014 The meeting convened at 6:35 PM. Historical Commission Members in Attendance: Ms. Marilyn Fenollosa (6:46PM), Mr. Wendall Kalsow, Ms. Sally Zimmerman and Mr. David Kelland, Chair. AGENDA ITEM #1 (Time: 6:35pm) Continues public hearing on roofline change of the home located at 94 Gleason Road APPLICANT(S) PRESENT: John Clarke ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: None present SUMMARY: John Clarke is here for a minor roofline change to the rear roof area of the house. The proposed change is to reduce the exposed exterior wall surface area and to eliminate the area where snow can build against the back wall of the house and create ice dams. The proposed change does not affect the height of the rooflines or significantly change the architecture. HC COMMENTS: Ms. Zimmerman explained that the board members reviewed the plans the previous month but could not make a motion to vote due to the fact that there was no applicant present. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None MOTION: moved by Ms. Zimmerman and seconded to find the minor modification proposed at 94 Gleason Road does not constitute substantial demolition and approved as designed. VOTE: 3-0 in favor. AGENDA ITEM # 2 (6:41 PM) Public hearing on full building demolition of the home located at 71 Adams Street APPLICANT(S) PRESENT: Homeowner ABUTTER(S) PRESENT: Duncan Todd- 4 Frost Road 1 SUMMARY: Homeowner wants to move ahead with the selling of the property. They currently have a contingency with a buyer. She would like to address a couple of things: she doesn’t want to necessarily go through with the sale and she understands there is a story behind every house in Lexington. She states the longer they wait to sell the home, the price will be lowered. There is more strain each month and they have lost some equity. She does see the changes in the neighborhood and there is a lot of smaller older homes that will have the same fate. There are people that don’t agree but as newer people are coming, they are perceiving these houses in a different way. She states that Doug Orr would be interested in preserving the look of the lot and keep with the same landscaping for privacy reasons. He is asking the board to consider her personal situation and grant the demolition. HC COMMENTS: Mr. Kalsow asks if they have made an effort in the last month to put the house on the market to the general public. The homeowner states the realtor was trying to contact people that would be potentially interested, such as builders, in buying the property but the home was not put on the market for the public. Mr. Kelland states that on occasion they have demanded written evidence showing efforts to market the house. He also explains at last month’s meeting they told her what she needed to do in order to receive the full building demolition. The problem is that they demanded this of others and they need to be consistent with everyone comes before them. The homeowner states they have listed the house before with the same negative results. Ms. Zimmerman wonders if there is a way the homeowner could ask the relator to put her experience in writing to show the efforts. They do need something more than just the homeowner’s statements and they have any accepted any less from others. Marketing the house in the last month between Thanksgiving and Christmas is not a good period. Homeowner explains that listing this house is a hardship and will cost her money. She restates the effort has been made but it is just not in writing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Duncan Todd- 4 Frost Road- wishes to correct the statement made by the homeowner last month. He wanted to tell the board he is within 40 feet of the property and has view of her backyard. He states he is sympathetic to the owner however his personal preference is to see the house preserved and points out the homeowner has not done the board’s recommendation of listing the house, etc. MOTION: Last month the board voted to find the house preferably preserved and to impose the one year delay. There is no motion to change that decision at this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDA ITEM # 3 (6:53 PM) Update on project 15-41, Inventory Forms for Listed Buildings Survey SUMMARY: Ms. Zimmerman requested proposals from three qualified consultants to complete the CPC project to eliminate the priority list by taking things off that shouldn’t be there or completing more research to the buildings. Two of the three have submitted proposals with one writing in to say they have accepted another project. Ms. Zimmerman will set up interviews after the proposals were reviewed by the board. Interviews thth will be held a week before the next meeting. Dates will either be January 7 or 14 of 2015 with a backup th date of Jan 13. A determination will be made at the interview. 2 AGENDA ITEM # 4 (7:00 PM) Communications from the public SUMMARY: Dianne Pursley and Tina McBride are here to discuss some ways to prevent the demolitions that are happening in Lexington and also discussing the town wide set back regulations which is ruining the character of the neighborhood. They are coming to the board for help and advice to prevent this issue. Their whole neighborhood is on board and feels the same way. They really want to preserve the character. They mention that because they have no control over the architectural style of the houses that are being put up they want to see if they can impose a more stringent demolition delay by-law or impose greater setbacks, specifically in their neighborhood, which is Turning Mill. Tina McBride has spoken to Aaron Henry from planning and he suggested the idea of trying to extend the demolition delay. HC COMMENTS: Mr. Kelland reviews the current demolition delay by-law of surrounding towns. He states that a two year demolition delay by-law will not go through in this town. The original demolition delay was unending and that would not hold up in any court. There needs to be a set time frame. Many of the towns in Massachusetts had to alter their bylaw. Lexington went forward to try to get 18 months but that didn’t work. Twelve months was the delay imposed which they were happy with because it could have ended with six. He states they have no control over zoning and the current bylaw has been marginally effective. A lot of contractors have figured the 12 months into their plan. Ms. Zimmerman thinks a straight forward way is with a strict zoning overlay. They should talk to the planning board and get their thoughts. Another way is to adopt the same practices that Moonhill Road and Peacock Farm neighborhoods which is the thirty year deed restriction that went with the original sale of the property. This may be harder because every single property owner would need to be on board. Mr. Kalsow points out Newton and that when a house is found preferably preserved and torn down, that same house needs to go before design review. It is not in place in Lexington but it would be a second avenue to consider. Ms. Zimmerman states that Newton is a city therefore has more power to impose these restrictions. Since the demolition delay by-law is imposed on a local level they can tailor it how they want. It would be difficult to impose in the Turning Mill neighborhood but it would be a good idea town wide. Ms. Zimmerman also suggest looking into Ipswich and their idea of the neighborhood conservation district. It is much less restrictive than a historic district and something you can’t enforce. AGENDA ITEM # 5 (7:50 PM) 19 Maple Street- changes in procedures SUMMARY: Mr. Kelland reviews the work being done at 19 Maple Street. He states that the amount of work being done was not approved by the board and that the homeowners should be coming back to the commission so they can review the work. The severe gutting done to the house was not approved. The board members are in agreement that they would have to be more specific when reviewing and approving plans. There also needs to be more effort on part of the building commissioner and building inspectors to make sure the contractor is keeping with the plan submitted. 3 AGENDA ITEM: Adjourn MOTION: moved by Mr. Kelland, and seconded, to adjourn meeting. VOTE: 4-0 in favor Meeting adjourned: (Time) 8:42 PM (EST) 4