Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-29 Historic District Commission Minutesoe R Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �4� t�Et✓F:I�f_U 639,Imlo 91PT TOWN CLtRK P A „ Bov,o ard - Committee - Commission - Council: REAO{hG, M SS. Historic District Commission `- "U ` A Date: 2015 -04 -29 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: Public Hearing continuation - Session: General Session Certficiate of Appropriateness for 186 -190 Summer Avenue Attendees: Members - Present: Everett Blodgett, Chairman; Virginia Adams, Ilene Bornstein, Greg Maganzini, Priscilla Poehler Members - Not Present: Others Present: Virginia Blodgett Theresa & Russell Jeffrey, 181 Summer Avenue Gina Snyder, 11 Jadem Terrace Joe Lupi, 167 Summer Avenue Barry Berman, 54 Longview Road Cynda Rohmer, 176 Summer Avenue Bob Drake, 176 Summer Avenue Robert Corwin, 199 Summer Avenue Anne Godwin, 189 Summer Avenue Sally Monagle, 7 King Street Kathy & David Greenfield, 192 Woburn Street Jerry & Nancy Lamb, 194 Summer Avenue Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Frank Coccolutto, 195 Summer Avenue Nancy Ziemlak, 15 Orchard Park Drive Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Virginia Blodgett Topics of Discussion: Meeting called to order at 7:04PM *Ms. Poehler certified she listened to the meeting /Public Hearing of 04/02/2015 therefore she is eligible to participate in the continued Public Hearing under the Mullin Rule. Mr. Blodgett introduced the Commission members and stated that 11 letters had been received and that they would be entered into the minutes. He then asked if anyone wanted to read their letters of if there were any public comments. Ms. Binda read her letter. Ms. Greenfield spoke: • She asked whether the latest changes to the plan were minimal enough — and she said no • The proposal violates the historic character of the district Page 1 1 • She read excerpts from her letter Mr. Margolin introduced Mr. Maxwell who discussed the new rendering: • The landscaping is shown as it would be at approximately two years in • The grade has been adjusted to the entrance into the connector to remove the rise • The corner boards have been reduced from 9" to 5%:" - 6" • The rendering is as accurate as can be • The mass and bulk are very similar to the house to the north • The lot is very large — 71,000 sq. ft. • One third of the new addition is replacing the portions to be removed Mr. Margolin commented: • That before the district was formed the co -chair of the neighborhood group had said publicly that if a Historic District could be enacted then maybe we could make the project too expensive or too inconvenient for them and maybe they will go away • We ask you to be fair and impartial to the applicant • He spoke about an article about preserving barns and cautioned that the barn and even the house may be lost if this project does not go forward • We have come a long way from demolition and are now working to save the house and barn • The Dept. of the Interior guidelines are not legally binding, are not meant to be all inclusive and in fact cover some things that are not included in 40C or in the Town's Bylaw • The Town Bylaw is not meant to freeze history and it does not have any language about maximum size • We have tried to bring objectivity to this project: • We looked at lot coverage — we were #10 of 24 • Mr. Miyares did a floor ratio analysis and we fared even better • The Church is commercial and is significantly larger • And the house next door is larger and longer • The house will be saved, restored and refurbished and the architectural features will be visible from a public way Mr. Miyares commented: • This commission, the Town Meeting and the Town should not be so cavalierly addressed • Mr. Margolin used the same comments when he requested that the Attorney General block the creation of the District • He read his response to Mr. Margolin's objection which he submitted at the time • He wished to register his exception that there is somehow an improper motive behind the creation of the bylaw or this commission Mr. Margolin stated that Mr. Littleton has said that he is willing to rehab the barn immediately Mr. Blodgett commented that the Commission has worked tirelessly to create the District and now to interpret the Bylaw. Mr. Blodgett discussed: • National Parks, National Register properties and Historic Districts • He showed the map of the District • The Bylaw specifically states 4 times "mass ", "scale ", "bulk ", "proportion" not on their own but in relationship to the setting and the other properties • The addition is 1.34 times the size of the portion of the historic house being saved • The openness of the property presents part of the problem — the addition will be open from both the north and the south • If this project happens what is to prevent other projects from happening • He commented on the Town Hall connector and the addition to the parking lot side of the M. F. Charles building — they join in a discrete way that does not violate or take away from the properties • The removal of 640 sq. ft footprint of the breezeway and shed will leave a gap that will be overfilled by a 2137 sq foot addition — 3 times larger than what was being removed Page 1 2 • He took objection to a statement made earlier in the process that the addition will be subservient to the house • He wants the commission to look at it, to look strongly at it, and to make a decision that is right for Reading Ms. Shontz Stackpole commented: • The addition is not that big when you consider the size of the section that is currently there • The present additions are in bad shape • She began to speak about the 01867 group Ms. Adams interrupted and said that this Commission has kept its distance from that group and that she felt that comments regarding them were not appropriate for this hearing Ms. Shontz Stackpole further commented that she is concerned to Mr. Blodgett continues to talk about the bulk when "it is not all that bulk" Mr. Blodgett responded that he is fully aware that 690 sq. ft. of addition are being removed and 2137 are being added. It is the Commission's responsibility to consider that. Mr. Margolin made comments about the fact that a precedent could be set and that only residential uses can be put in unless the Dover Amendment applies. Ms. Bornstein says that "bulk ", "mass" etc. are certainly within what the Bylaw allows the Commission to consider Ms. Adams asked Town Counsel about the advisability of introducing Preservation Restrictions with Mass Historical and the Historical Commission which could protect certain elements of the structure for the structure. Certain maintenance could be overseen. She feels that might be an appropriate thing for us to consider as a means of helping to protect the historic structure. Mr. Miyares responded that he would be interested in hearing whether the applicant would agree to execute such a restriction as a requirement. It has the advantage that it is in effect into perpetuity. Mr. Margolin said that he is told by his client that the concept would be acceptable. Mr. Shields asked about the other letters mentioned. He felt that hearing those might help. Mr. Blodgett stated that the Commission has read them. Mr. O'Neill said that she felt that the Commission also can consider setting. She said that she felt the new rendering is disingenuous in that it does not show the parking and signage that would be in place. And she asks that the Commission consider this in its deliberations. Dr. Littleton thanked the Commission for its time and effort. He hopes that they sense our sincerity to try to accommodate the reasonable requests within the limitations of our mission and the need to serve the thousands of families that they have served. I would be more than happy to accept a deed restriction. Mr. Blodgett said that he would like the Commission to deliberate amongst themselves. Ms. Adams noted that they have received draft material from the applicant for a Certificate of Appropriateness. And that Town Counsel also has provided information. Ms. Lupi said that several homeowners are concerned about property values. She also asked how Mr. Margolin would feel to live near such a business. Dr. Littleton responded that he would be proud to live there. Mr. Margolin also responded in the affirmative. Ms. Adams would like to review the possible scenarios. • We can vote for a Certificate of Appropriateness • We can deny a Certificate of Appropriateness • The applicant can then apply for a Certificate of Hardship • If that is denied, the applicant has the right to go before an arbitrator appointed by MAPC • That sole person makes the decision for the community. "Is that what we want to happen ?" • If they are still aggrieved, they can go to the courts We need to think about whether we want Reading to make the decision, the arbitrator to make the decision, or the courts to make the decision. Mr. Blodgett questioned how the decision is made by the arbitrator. Mr. Miyares stated that the arbitrator would look at the decision. He can not choose to recommend another design. He would be bounded by the application. But that the applicant would be able to go back and seek the bigger building from the original application. Page 1 3 Ms. Bornstein questioned the stabilization of the barn. Mr. Margolin stated that Criterion would agree to stabilize the barn now — not in 15 years, Ms. Bornstein questioned the phrase "substantially ". Mr. Miyares explained that such language is commonly accepted to prevent having to come back to the board for any deviation arising from problems encountered. If there are substantial changes, they would have to come back to the Commission. Mr. Blodgett made it clear that Option A of the revised plans are what are being considered here. Ms. Adams moved "that the Certificate of Appropriateness application submitted by Criterion for the property at 186 -190 Summer Avenue be denied ". Mr. Maganizi seconded. Ms. Adams stated that there has been much discussion of the size and bulk and that is the primary reason for the denial. She appreciates that there has been much effort for historic preservation and that she hopes that will continue. We have to make a strong statement that his in inappropriate for the district. Ms. Bornstein stated that for all the reasons stated in the Bylaw that denial is order. Mr. Maganzini also agreed that the setting and the mass do not preserve the district. Ms. Poehler stated that is just not appropriate for the district. Mr. Blodgett stated that "I do not feel that the district meets your needs, and that's the problem. Changing the district to meet your needs makes the incompatibility. It makes the violations much more flagrant. Historic Districts can not change to meet the needs of the applicant." Dr. Littleton responded the "Life does not change easily. Summer Street is no longer a cart path. It does not reflect the nature and character grandeur of the days gone by." "To suggest that the time and effort that will be put into preserving this with historically appropriate materials are not up to the standards of the neighborhood, I don't believe to be accurate." "I think there is an element of discrimination going on." "I am sorry that it hasn't worked out the way people would like." "I am not going to stop here and condone that and ignore the discrepancies in the fair treatment of this property relative to a church or a school or other protected properties." Mr. Miyares stated that the agreement that was made if the Certificate of Appropriateness was denied, was that you won't file a decision, and that there will be a new notice and a public hearing. Mr. Margolin reminded Mr. Blodgett that if the Cert. of Appropriateness is denied, it would be a hearing on our application for a Certificate of Hardship and our request for reasonable accommodation under the Americans Disabilities Act. Ms. Shontz Stackpole stated that the district is relatively new. Ms. O'Neill asked if there would be specific reasons given for the vote. Mr. Blodgett handed out the draft that goes with the motion. Ms. Adams requested that they go through some of the points starting with Finding of Fact: • #4 — correction that the word "no" be changed to "little" historical significance • #19 —the tense of the verb should be "had" • #23 — add that there is an additional hearing tonight • #28 — states correctly that we are considering Option A • #29 — stays • #31— needs to be recalculated so that the comparisons are correct — one has the barn included and one does not Mr. Margolin stated that if the request for hardship is denied, and they go before the arbitrator, the original proposal is not null and void, and neither is the request to demolish null and void on appeal. • #38 and #39 — Reading's Bylaw does not reference color • #42 —very relevant — that the applicant's proposal is unusual • #47 and #48 — are "star worthy" • #49 — mentions public street — discussion of public way vs public street. Mr. Miyares stated that Public way means accepted by the Town at a Town Meeting. Public street is not the same. It is reasonable to say that the roadway into Parker is more like a public street than a public way. The only real reason for concern is the HVAC equipment. He would advise not to disapprove on that issue alone. Page 1 4 Ms. O'Neill questioned #45. It was determined to be a drafting error and will be deleted. Ms. Adams stated the motion again. Ms. Poehler seconded. Voted 5 -0 -0. Discussion followed about setting a date for the Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Margolin asked that the largest venue the Town could supply for the hearing. Ms. Binda asked if use could be part of the discussion. Mr. Miyares said it could, and added that "with respect to a Certificate of Hardship, the applicant is entitled to present whatever evidence is relevant to demonstrate that a ruling of disapproval would cause a hardship ". Mr. Blodgett asked Town Counsel if they should close the hearing. Mr. Miyares responded that it could be closed with respect to the Certificate of Appropriateness. So we are not closing the hearing entirely. Mr. Margolin reminded that this vote will not be filed with the Town Clerk. And he asked that the notice specifically mention the accommodation request as well as the hardship. June 17 was decided to be the next hearing, location to be determined. The hearing was closed with respect to the Certificate of Appropriateness. Voted 5 -0 -0. Mr. Blodgett informed the Commission of two Certificates of Non - Applicability • 178 West Street — Brian and Susan Bowe • 237 West Street — Paul Trucamo and Susan Orcillo The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM Page 1 5