HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-15-HC-min
Lexington Historical Commission
Meeting minutes
December 15, 2011
Members present: Marilyn Fenollosa, acting chair; Wendall Kalsow; Sally Zimmerman
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
1. Reconsideration of Demolition Application on 26 Butler Avenue
John Farrington, Esq., made a presentation on behalf of Bergland Associates, the potential buyer
in this matter. He acknowledged that the information concerning the structure previously
submitted to the Commission described primarily cosmetic defects that could be readily
corrected. In support of his application for reconsideration, he presented a report by Sami E.
Kassis, P.E., dated December 14, 2011, describing the structural condition of the house. Mr.
Farrington especially pointed out that because of foundation problems, the rear portion of the
house had separated from the main block; in other places, stones have separated and collapsed.
He also noted that the main carrying floor beam is sagging and cracked; one of the posts
supporting this beam has fallen to the ground causing additional settling of the floors above.
Finally, he pointed out evidence of termite damage.
Mr. Farrington then presented two letters from realtors attempting to market the house: from
Barbra Weisman, Barrett & Company, describing the deteriorated condition of the home and her
belief that as a result no lending institution would loan money to a buyer of the property; and
from Stephen Stratford, of Hammond Residential Real Estate, similarly detailing the extensive
work that would be required to rehabilitate the property.
The Commission also received testimony from Jackie Holmes, the daughter of the deceased
owner, representing the estate; and Jack Dooley, an abutter. Both were in favor of the
demolition.
Based on this evidence, Mr. Kalsow moved to permit the demolition based on the structural
report detailing the poor condition of the house, and the letters from the realtors describing the
compromised marketability of the home. Ms. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote
was unanimous in favor of permitting the demolition. Because Mr. Farrington did not have the
demolition permission form with him, it was requested that he leave it in the Commission’s
inbox in the Building Department for signature.
2. Preliminary Discussion of Time Limits on Commission Decisions
Ms. Fenollosa described conversations she had had with David Kelland concerning the continued
effectiveness of Commission approvals after significant periods of time had elapsed. Mr.
Kelland had spoken with Kevin Batt, Esq., town counsel, who informed him that the
Commission could set expiration dates after which permissions that were granted but not acted
1
upon would become void and of no further force or effect. Mr. Kelland will be meeting with Mr.
Batt and Garry Rhodes, Building Commissioner, in January to further discuss this issue but
wanted the sense of the Commission as to what would constitute an appropriate time period.
Ms. Zimmerman pointed out that because our process is tied to the Building Department process,
one year should be sufficient time for an owner to act on a demolition permit. Mr. Kalsow
suggested that three to six months would be ample time for an owner to act, because any
application presented to the Building Commissioner must be approved within 30 days, and
building permits (and presumably demolition permits) must be acted on within a year of
issuance.
Mr. Kalsow outlined three scenarios:
-the Commission approves an applicant’s request, but the applicant does not apply for
the actual demolition permit within six months;
-the Commission approves an applicant’s request, the applicant applies and receives a
demolition permit from the Building Department, but does not demolish the property
within a year of the permit date; or
-the Commission denies the applicant’s request, causing the one-year delay period to
take effect, and after the year has elapsed, the applicant does not apply for a
demolition permit and demolish the property within six months.
In all cases, the Commission’s permission would no longer be effective and the applicant would
have to return to the Commission for a subsequent determination.
The Commission members agreed that these time periods seemed reasonable. It was noted,
however, that it would be difficult to track subsequent actions or inactions by the applicant and
that some sort of monitoring system would have to be established to ensure compliance with the
time periods.
* * *
There being no other business before the Commission, it was moved and seconded that the
meeting be adjourned. The meeting was accordingly adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
2