Historic District Commission
Minutes
Land Use Meeting Room
May 19, 2015
Members present: Acting Chair Ken Fowler, Elaine Steinert, Lucy Kennedy, Mark Smith
Staff present: Gwen Miller, Land Use Director/Town Planner, GM; Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
KF was nominated as Acting Chair by LK and seconded by ES. They vote was 4-0.
Also in attendance were: Chris Ketchen, Town Manager; Ed Lane, Selectman; Kameron Spaulding, Chair of Planning Board; Suzanne Pelton, Frank Newton, Drew Davis, Olga Weiss, and Jan Chague.
Town of Lenox Police Department, 6 Walker Street, Map 43 Parcel 10, replace the entrance door.
MS disclosed that he has used EDM on an ongoing basis and felt that he does not have a conflict of interest with this. No one objected to his participation.
PA advised the Board that Fire Chief Dan Clifford advised her that the applicant, Chris O’Brien, of the FD, had a conflict and was unable to make the meeting. She added that Chief Clifford said that the new door, which is replacing the existing, rusted door, looks less industrial. LK said that she has examined this application and agrees.
LK made a motion to accept as presented. MS seconded the motion and the Commission voted 4-0 to approve.
Anthony Chojnowski, 50 Church St., Map 43 Parcel 120, new construction and demolition.
Present were John Ineson, an architect with EDM; Tony Chojnowski, the property and business owner (Casablanca); and Evelyn Pascal.
MS disclosed that he has used EDM on an ongoing basis and felt that he could be impartial. No one objected to his participation.
Two letters were presented at the meeting and read into the record. They were:
George Jordan, dated May 9, 2015, said that he was opposed to any demolition, and that he had gone to the Town Clerk’s office on May 8th & the application could not be found. He did not inquire of the Town Clerk or the Land Use Clerk. KF asked Mr. Jordan how many times he checked and his response was only once. KF said that wasn’t sufficient. PA asked why Mr. Jordan didn’t ask her and he said that she wasn’t in the Town Clerk’s office.
Olga Weiss, dated May 19, 2015 said she contacted Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) for a review of the proposal and according to her account the MHC suggested as an alternative to a demolition would be to jack the house up raise (and or lower) the foundation and then lower the first into a portion of the raised foundation to achieve the minimum allowable height or to remove the interior second floor.
Mr. Ineson made the presentation which included elevations, site plan, and architectural details. He said that representatives of EDM and Mr. Chojnowski came before the HDC informally on November 18, 2014 to present the original concept which would be the relocation of Casablanca from Housatonic to this site and the demolition and recreation of the house at 50 Church St. Because the Commission was supportive in general, the proponents continued with the process by doing more due diligence and investigating how the store would lay out, how much space would be needed, etc.
The structure was built as a house and is currently being used as a three family residence. It is not compliant as it is in the commercial zone. In order to convert to a mercantile store, which is a compliant use, a major issue is the floor to ceiling height which he believes is less than the 7’ 5” reported at the informal meeting in November. There are issues with the building as the porch is settling due to the rubble stone foundation. Space is needed to make the business functional therefore the space on the second floor is necessary as well as the basement. The basement must be dry and conditioned as it would be used for storage for clothes. In order to meet access requirements, an elevator must be installed.
In addressing the suggestion of jacking up the house mentioned by Ms. Weiss in her letter, Mr. Ineson said the second floor is needed to make it function as a retail space. When changing the floor to ceiling height, a problem with the windows is created, i.e., the windows could be cut off.
In order to meet accessibility requirements (ADA), an elevator must be installed. This is very difficult with an existing structure.
The applicant is proposing to recreate the structure, keeping the same shingle style and reusing elements as they can, and maintaining the same overall heights which will be below the maximum allowed of 35’. There would be some manipulation of the roof line in order to achieve that. If replication of color is an issue, Mr. Ineson said that they have other options. Dentil molding, knee brackets, window trim, accent band with the clipped corners of the cedar shingles as well is proposed. There are 9 parking spaces available on site currently and part of the site plan development is to get as much parking as possible. Accessibility, which would be from the street and parking area, would be ADA compliant. There are no plans utilize the space in the other building at this time. Mr. Ineson reviewed
the floor plans for the three levels. The existing front door would not be functioning.
Mr. Ineson discussed the proposed landscaping and lighting plan.
Mr. Chojnowski said that he has been in business at his current location on Housatonic St. for 30 years and with the visibility afforded at this location he feels his business would help fellow merchants as more people would come to town.
Mr. Ineson said that his company has had experience in replication and listed several projects.
LK wanted to know if there were plans for the building in the rear and suggested if more space was needed that building could suffice. Mr. Chojnowski said that work would need to be done and at present it was used for storage.
ES asked why the applicant chose this measure as opposed to renovation. Mr. Ineson responded that they weren’t sure it could be done and further stated that there are issues in converting and jacking up and putting a foundation under the structure and converting a residence to commercial. The end result would be a façade. The windows are not original and the shingles would have to be replicated because of the deteriorated condition.
Drew Davis, owner of 67-69 Church Street, recently renovated his property. (Identified as where the retailer McKimmie is located as well as the former location of Mary Stuart.) He told of the problems with this structure citing water in the basement and the offensive smell and said it could have been replicated.
MS questioned the reasoning for keeping the front door which faces the street if it is not going to be functional. Mr. Ineson responded that is because their commitment is to replicate the existing historic structure. MS said that he would prefer that there be a window there. He also said he doesn’t believe that the existing colors are historic. Mr. Ineson said that they would need to do more research to determine the original color and would come back to the Commission with regard to paint choices.
MS stated that he understood why Mr. Chojnowski would want to demolish and replicate because of the deteriorated condition, and asked the other Commissioners how they felt about replication over having a building in the District that is in a compromised condition.
LK responded that razing such a structure is at odds of the major purpose of being in a historic district and every building by definition since 1923 or earlier has a lot of deterioration because of its age. She said that one is not supposed to demolish a structure even though it may be seriously dilapidated. She added that the HDC has no say on the interior or paint color, but they do have jurisdiction on the exterior only if it is visible from a public way. She did say that the HDC preferred white.
KF read from the Historic District Guidelines:
B. New Additions to Historic Buildings
The District has evolved over more than 150 years. The purpose of creating the District is not to stop all future changes within the District, but to manage those changes so that new structures will be in harmony with existing historic buildings, and their settings preserved.
Comments from the audience:
Drew Davis - Mr. Davis wanted to know what a property owner in the District is to do when their structure deteriorates e.g., shingles fall off, foundation caves in, windows are broken etc. LK and ES responded that the owner should keep repairing piece by piece. He questioned if there really was a difference in what was being proposed and in doing “piece by piece”.
Olga Weiss-Ms. Weiss said that if someone was in business, it would probably be better economically to do what Mr. Chojnowski proposed, but she argued that replication is not historic. She said that grants are available to assist in restoration of historic buildings.
Suzanne Pelton- Ms. Pelton said that the District was formed in the 1970s in reaction to some historic houses being lost and this house is protected by being in the District. She said that Café Lucia is unrecognizable from the farmhouse it once was and that there have been cases where two structures were combined.
Evelyn Pascal- Ms. Pascal said that she is well versed in historic structures as she lives in a 327 year old home on Main Street in Stockbridge, and she has a vested interest in this project as she owns the brick building at the corner of Church and Housatonic. She feels that Mr. Chojnowski is being penalized by those opposed to his proposal as others before him have been permitted to change the facades so that those structures are no longer recognizable as the historic structures they had been. His proposal is to take a derelict building and rebuild to look as it was originally. Ms. Pascal pointed out that there are 13 empty businesses and Mr. Chojnowski owns three operating businesses in the District.
Frank Newton-Main St. Mr. Newton believes that this building is probably the best remaining example of what we have in the District and believes that what is being proposed is commendable, but it is a historic district.
George Jordan- Your job is preservation and asked what was the purpose of demolishing and where does it say one can demolish a building.
KF read from the Guidelines:
GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. In the District, the Commission shall determine whether the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of an exterior architectural feature will be appropriate to preserve the character and appearance of that resource and the District.
Suzanne Pelton-The Historical Commission has a plaque program that can go on the building and that will draw people into the District.
MS said that he wants a site visit to see the condition of the building. Ms. Pelton expressed surprise and asked why should there be a site visit. She argued that the Commission is charged with the duty of preserving the historic stock within the District. KF referred to the paragraph he read from the General Guidelines above and said that preservation was not included. He added that site visits are not out of the ordinary for the HDC.
Mr. Ketchen supported the call for a site visit and stated: “I think a site visit is a brilliant idea. You (the HDC) left the November meeting having given guidance to an applicant who subsequently went out and spent a good deal of resources on developing plans based on that guidance that you offered. I think the taxpayers have invested not an insubstantial amount of staff time in reviewing the proposal and walking the applicant through the process. I think that before you take a vote, if you are going to make a pivot from your November meeting, I think it is appropriate for you to do a site visit and have all of your curiosities satisfied to honor the effort that has been put into this proposal.”
KF suggested that this hearing be continued and the Commission conduct a site visit.
LK, referring to Mr. Ketchen’s comment about the pivot, said that following the preliminary discussion at the November HDC meeting, she did a great deal of research and consulted some of her constituents and had new information which changed her opinion. She suggested that this be conveyed to Mr. Chojnowski, but for whatever reason this was discouraged. KF commented that such a discussion outside of the meeting would not be appropriate.
LK made a motion to continue this hearing pending the site visit. ES seconded the motion and the Commission voted to agree 4-0.
It was agreed that there will be a site visit on May 26, 2015 at 1:00 PM and the hearing would be continued to June 2, 2015 at 5:45 PM.
Bagel and Brew 18 Franklin St., Map 43 Parcel 190, new signage.
Presenting the application were Phil Cohen and Sam Canfield. The current sign is blocked by a tree and they wish to place two signs on the roof. Each would be 1X6 feet with one saying “Bagel” and the other “Brew”. These are two separate businesses. Gooseneck lighting will shine downward on the signage.
LK made a motion to accept the application as presented, but noted that the lighting not be too high above the sign. MS seconded the motion and the Commission approved 4-0.
LK noted that this establishment has an illuminated “open” sign that should be removed. She advised that they can make an application but that it would probably be turned down. The owners understood.
Approve Minutes:
February 17, 2015-Because Linda Messana (LM) resigned from the Commission, the Rule of Necessity was invoked. LK made a motion to approve the minutes and ES seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 3-0.
March 17, 2015-LK made a motion to approve the minutes and KF seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 3-0.
April 21, 2015-LK made a motion to approve the minutes and ES seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 3-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
