Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20230207 - Historical Commission - Meeting Minutes1 Hopkinton Historical Commission Meeting February 7, 2023 7:00 PM Lower Level, Town Hall, 18 Main St. Hopkinton MA Meeting Minutes Present: Mike Roughan, Eric Sonnett, Nanda Barker-Hook, Khwaja Ehsan, Nancy Stevenson, John Pavlov, Stacy Spies Absent: James Haskins Ken Driscoll (87 Hayden Rowe owner), Scott Richardson (87 Hayden Rowe architect), Janice Brown (18 Cedar owner), Carl Odenburg (18 Cedar architect), Lauren Pagani and Ian Haan (owners of 2 A Street), Dave Cote (resident, A Street). 87 Hayden Rowe Street: Mike: Gave explanation of demo delay process. Committee determines if a property is historically significant. Second determination after public hearing is whether it is preferably preserved. We look at the condition of the facility and anything else presented by applicant. Eric made motion to open the hearing. Nanda seconded. All voted in favor. Ken Driscoll: Owns 89 Hayden Rowe (school admin building) and has now purchased 87 Hayden Rowe, next door. Tenants have moved out. Goal is to update 89 and 87 Hayden Rowe to have a similar look. Wants to demolish existing structure at 87 Hayden Rowe and replace with two story office building with parking. Building is on northern edge of property line, 5 or 6’. They want to move building over a little to open up Colonial Ave, make it a more defined corner. Current building is in disrepair. Mike: do you have any documentation of disrepair. Ken: It’s very abused inside. I’m happy to tour the commission through it. Our goal is to bring that corner into the 21st century. Front part of 89 Hayden will change too (school admin building). Parmenter building is separate and will not change. 87 Hayden is on an acre lot. Existing building is nonconforming because it’s too close to left side of lot. Goal: Replace with two-story office building. Parking behind building. Maybe add another office building in the back. Zoned for business. Plans presented show what looks like two buildings (same size as existing) with a connecting building in the middle. Nancy: are you concerned about the traffic? Scott: In total, new building would be 7K – 9K sq ft of office space. Not concerned about traffic, won’t be a problem. Eric: What’s the difference in frontage between 87 and 89 Hayden (how wide the buildings are)? Scott: 87 will be about 20’ wider. Mike: A precedent has been set by Chesmore Funeral Home and 83 East Main, we allowed demo but required plans and elevations first (not full set of construction docs). Mike’s preference is to see a document that could be submitted to the building inspector first. Those docs are used to obtain a building permit. Scott: Street elevation would be useful. Mike: yes, agreed. John: The existing house is out of place. The proposed usage seems more in line with neighborhood. MOTION: Eric made a motion that the building at 87 Hayden Rowe Street is not preferably preserved. John: seconds. Discussion: Nanda: Not much of a streetscape to save. Existing building seems out of place. It is similar to school building across the road that has recently been updated. Mike: I’m concerned about the scale of the new building. Seems big. I’m looking for scale consistency with 87 Hayden Rowe. The plans in front of us are not enough to say it’s okay to demolish the building. Nanda: I agree. Nancy: I agree. Ken: 2 Scale is very important to me too. Want to match 89 Hayden. I’d like a porch (not shown on plans). Mike: As a commission, we are trying to not lose the character of the town. There are certain features of the town that are part of the fabric of Hopkinton and we want to maintain that. VOTE: Nanda No. Mike No. Eric No. Khwaja Ehsan No. John Pavlov Yes. (Stacy not present at time of vote). Mike: I will issue a letter to the building dept that we voted it to be preferably preserved and encourage the applicant to submit further documentation so that we may consider rescinding. 18 Cedar Street: Nanda: Read minutes from Dec 5, 2017 (first discussion of this property) and Dec 27, 2017 (public hearing where Commission voted in favor of a six month demo delay that expired in June 2018). The proposed new property will be 6 apartments. Carl Oldenburg, architect, read printed narrative. Goal is to help meet need for smaller homes near center of Hopkinton. Residential building will fit with streetscape more than a business (even though its zoned for business). New building will be 2 stories and will take up 23% of the land, 40’ back from Cedar Street, L shaped building. Applicant displayed a rendering of the new building. Fence around parking and planting, so you don’t see parking from the street. Mike: Why are you setting it back? Carl: Due to zoning requirements. Carl: Ceiling height on first floor of existing building is 6’. Roofs are splaying out. Very difficult to fix existing building. Will apply for a special permit for residential use within a business zoned area. Also, will need a special permit to put parking between building and A street (Hopkinton zoning prefers parking behind). Tall plantings would screen parking lot from house at 3 A street. Grade would be lower in parking lots than neighbor’s, so no headlights shining into windows. Mike: I’m disappointed that the house is so set back, I’d prefer it to be closer to the road like existing historic homes. Janice Brown: Existing home was built cheaply. 15’ x 28’ original. Then there were ad-ons. Backdoor goes right into the bathroom. It wasn’t part of the original house. I want something that serves Hopkinton. All of MA needs small housing for people, to attract new people, schoolteachers, policemen, firepeople. This will be 6 one-bedroom units. Seven hundred sq ft each. It will be consistent with 10 and 12 Cedar. Nancy: I don’t think it will fit the streetscape. The rendering looks like an enormous, modern home. It’s not enough to add gables, shutters, make it an L. That doesn’t make it fit in. I think the current house is beautiful and perfect for Hopkinton. Why not recreate what’s there in front and extend it out backwards? Brown: I can’t do that. Mike: Current house matches the streetscape. Mike: Thinks relief on setback might be easier because current house is close to road. We have a separate bylaw amendment that if you work with us to preserve existing building, we can provide provisions for new development behind it. The last demo delay ruling had a 2-year expiration. Mike: I have no problem with the structure, but I do not like the sighting on the property. It’s changing the character of the neighborhood. Mike pulled up Google maps and we “walked” Cedar Street to see neighboring housings. Other houses are close to the road. Mike: The last demo delay that we imposed expired in June 2018. Owner could have demolished the property at that time. So, the previous decision became null and void, so the process begins again. So, the Commission needs to determine if the property is preferably preserved. Mike: I think it’s probably not preservable, but I need to see documentation that is more consistent with the street scape for the new building. Mike’s opinion is the scale or the look of the building is okay, it’s the placement. Lauren Pagani and Ian Haan: 2 A Street residents, purchased in 2019. Liked the historic feel, charm, single family home neighborhood. They want to see a similar home built that fits the neighborhood. Lauren says she’s spoken to owners of 14 Cedar, 2A, 3A, 4A (Dave Cote, owner, joined the meeting 3 virtually) all have concerns that this proposal because it doesn’t fit the street scape. The form of the proposed building doesn’t fit. Mike: Explained the process. If we vote it is preferably preserved, we often ask applicants to come back with adjusted plans and then we consider rescinding the demo delay. Nancy: It gives the HHC an opportunity to work with the applicant. Note the town bylaws have an 18 month demo delay, this was updated since the last time Janice presented to the commission in 2017. Nancy: There are several ways to fit into the street scape, for example: fit in with the architectural style, match the height of existing buildings, similar proximity to the road, there are a lot of things that go into the commission’s decision. Dave Cote, A Street resident: Supports preserving the look and feel of the neighborhood, even the multi-families on Cedar, having it set back in the corner makes it looks more commercial, less of a historic feel. Mike: Read bylaw #2010-118 that says she can build the new building closer to the road, similar to the neighbors on Cedar. Nanda: I agree that we need more affordable housing, small housing, walkable to the center of town. But, I’d like to see a building that is in keeping with the historic neighborhood, along with those goals, and I think it can be done. MOTION: Eric made a motion that the property is not preferably preserved. Yes vote means applicant can demo. No vote means a demo delay will be instituted. VOTE: Nanda, Nancy, Mike, John, Khwaja: No. Eric: Yes. (Stacy joined hearing late, abstained). Mike will write a letter to the building inspector that says we have instituted an 18 month demo delay. Carl, architect: Bylaw 210-18 refers to the adjoining side lots. The property to the north is much farther back, more than 40 feet. Across A street is closer, is that adjacent (not sure)? If you take the average between the two, we are in the 40’ range. He believes that a variance would be needed to be as close to the street as the existing building. Mike: We’ve worked with many applicants who have built structures that are consistent with our historic objectives. If the applicant was more respectful of the form and placement we wouldn’t be in this position. Carl: We tried to be respectful of structure, and we’ve placed it based on zoning laws. Janice: I can’t redesign the property now. Center School Redevelopment: Stacy: knows a similar building that’s the same size in another town that is being preserves and converted into 8 condos. Mike: we need examples of similar historic building being preserved. John: There’s an example in Southborough. Eric will tell Norman Khumalo that the Commission wants to be part of the process of discussing the future of Center School. Eric made motion to approve minutes from 11/1/22. Nancy seconded. Passed unanimously. Eric made motion to adjourn. John seconded. Passed unanimously.