Historic District Commission
Minutes
Auditorium
June 2, 2015
Members present: Acting Chair Ken Fowler, KF; Elaine Steinert, ES; Lucy Kennedy, LK; Mark Smith, MS
Staff present: Gwen Miller, Land Use Director/Town Planner, GM; Peggy Ammendola, Land Use Clerk, PA
Also present was Town Manager Chris Ketchen.
Kathleen Connolly, 27 A Housatonic St., Map 43 Parcel 176, new signage.
Presenting the application was James Callahan of Callahan Sign. The proposal is for a six square foot oval double sided sign and will hang from a curved bracket. It will be secured so that it will not swing.
LK made a motion to approve the sign and MS seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 4-0.
Anthony Chojnowski, 50 Church St., Map 43 Parcel 120, new construction and demolition. Continued from May 19, 2015; Site Visit was on May 26, 2015.
Present were John Ineson, an architect with EDM; Jeromy Richardson of EDM; Tony Chojnowski, the property and business owner (Casablanca); and Evelyn Pascal.
KF informed those present that Mr. Chojnowski had filed for a Certificates of Appropriateness and Hardship to demolish the structure with a replication, ensuring that the details of the architecture will be the same and that as much of the existing material that can be used will be used. The proposal is to make the first and second floors suitable for retail and the basement suitable for storage.
Mr. Ineson reviewed the project for the benefit of those who had not been at the previous hearing and provided elevations, site and floor plans. He said that the existing structure, built as a residence and currently has three apartments, has significant structural issues and in disrepair. Mr. Chojnowski wants to move his existing retail establishment, Casablanca, from Housatonic St., but such a change of use involves specific building code requirements. Also there are accessibility requirements including the installation of an elevator. Other issues included floor to ceiling heights and floor loading, etc. Mr. Chojnowski has received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for his project.
There were approximately 65 people in the audience, which included the proponents.
Letters read into the record:
Jim Biancolo-Support
George Jordan-Oppose and claimed that this meeting is an illegal meeting under the Open Meeting Law. Ms. Miller responded to KF’s question as to if there was any legal substance to the writer’s claim and stated that this hearing has been duly noticed as required by the bylaw and was not in violation of the Open Meeting Law. He also claimed that the informal meeting of November 18, 2014 was not posted or advertised. This allegation was incorrect. It was posted and advertising was not required.
Olga Weiss, Chair of the Historical Commission-Oppostion was the unanimous consensus of the HC and proposed there be an alternative to demolition.
Jan Chague-Opposed and read her letter into the record.
Rita Foley-Support, as stated in an email received and read into the record by LK.
KF asked that Don Fitzgerald, Building Inspector, who was at the site visit on May 26th, to comment on his observations. Mr. Fitzgerald, referring to George Jordan’s letter, said that Mr. Jordan misquoted him. He said that he told Mr. Jordan that this building was “more than out of plumb”, disputing Mr. Jordan’s claim that “The only comment Don Fitzgerald, building inspector, said was that the building was out of plumb.”
Mr. Fitzgerald described what would be expected of the applicant if the applicant were to do what he wants to do while keeping the existing structure.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the proposal is a change of use, from residence to retail. Doing so requires that there be complete handicap access from the sidewalk into the building and handicap access throughout all spaces in the building, which includes the second floor. Mr. Fitzgerald said that the applicant has the potential to get a variance for access to the second floor, but this would put the owner in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is a civil rights violation. This is governed by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Fitzgerald said that another issue in converting from residential use to commercial use is that the applicant must deal with structural loads. The floor is half-timber logs, and the structural capacity of the first floor is required to be 100 pounds per square foot and Mr. Fitzgerald believes the current capacity is less than 30 pounds per square foot. The second floor, probably constructed the same way as the first, is required to be 75 pounds a square foot. This is a huge increase of structural capacity.
The third issue, Mr. Fitzgerald noted, is the wood frame building which is combustible is too close to the property line which abuts Zinc. All of the siding would have to be removed and replaced with a protected non- combustible wall one hour fire rated exterior so that Zinc does not burn into the building and this structure does not burn out toward Zinc. If the applicant were to keep any window on that side of the building, he would have to have inside and outside sprinklers and fire shutters or no windows at all.
To clarify the change of use, Mr. Fitzgerald explained that while the apartments are considered commercial, that use is not open to the public. It is currently a residential-commercial use. Any use that is open to the public triggers the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He said that most of the buildings along Church Street are not handicap accessible and anyone could file a civil rights violation against the owners whose buildings are not in compliance with the ADA.
LK said that in her opinion, the placement of handicap access should be put in the rear or side of a structure and that access should not deface any existing architectural features. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that this would be handled on a case by case basis and referred to the Massachusetts Accessibility Building Code. Access is required in a public building, and in a historically significant building there can be some relief given as to access location, but it can be problematic as it could be viewed as treating the handicapped as second class citizens.
Tjasa Sprague asked if an addition could be added to the existing building. Mr. Fitzgerald said that anything is possible, but emphasized that change of use is the real trigger. KF reminded all that the Commission was reviewing the application as presented and that if an addition were requested, and it can be seen from a public way, it would have to be reviewed by the HDC.
MS asked Mr. Richardson to give his opinion of what would be necessary to use the existing structure. Mr. Richardson responded that he agreed with Mr. Fitzgerald’s assessment, but added that the floor is log framing and to meet the proper loading requirements, the floor would have to be raised several feet. This would result in losing headroom in the second floor.
Public Comment:
Stuart Hirshfield-Supports and does not think the building is that significant and to him it appears to be falling down. This project is taking history and replicating.
Junior Vickers-Supports and believes that we should have an open mind about the future and not dwell on the past.
Ann Connolly-Supports and wanted to make it clear that many stores in Lenox draw customers in and contribute to the success of Lenox.
Gige Darey-Opposes and believes that restoration can be accomplished and the structure should be preserved.
Name inaudible-Nedra Fowler or Fallon?? Supports and believes that this project is a vibrant model of history and that it should be noted and taken into consideration that people are putting their hearts and effort into the District.
Frank Newton-Opposes, and suggested that an elevator be installed outside of the building or use the barn in the rear for the commercial use.
Marcia Gold-Supports and stated that this project is a respectful effort to try to bridge the commercial and historic interests.
Mary McGurn-Supports, and said that the applicant, an anchor in the District for 30 years who has 3 vibrant retail establishments, is willing to invest a great deal of money and take a risk to recreate the historic look of this structure.
Ed Karger-Supports, and said that when renovating a structure in this shape and converting it into a commercial use, so much has to be removed that there isn’t anything original left, therefore it is not preservation. He said that there is great effort to keep the historic look and the request should be approved to allow the demolition and re-creation.
Amy Lafave-She asked if a precedent would be set for other businesses to tear their buildings down and that if the District is to be a center of commerce and not have historical value perhaps Lenox should rethink if there should be a historic district.
Pam Kueber-Supports and is a fan of preservation and works in this field, but the Historic District is not a pristine 1850’s place as it is a mix of the old and the new. She feels that this is an extraordinary opportunity to allow the reconstruction and revitalization of a highly visible parcel that will be a dramatic improvement for this parcel.
Paula Kurman-Supports and said that the structure is not a preserved original as it is decaying and the plan is to respect the tradition of preserving the character of Lenox. She added that we can’t hold the structure in its original form.
Peter Alverez-Supports and suggests that if the decaying building is that historic perhaps it should be relocated. It is important to realize that it is vital to keep business people in Lenox to keep it growing.
Suzannah Van Schaick-Supports and said that it is amazing that the merchant is willing and able to put money to restore a building that is falling down so that it is usable. She suggests selling it to the town and relocating it.
KF said that he had been asked if this application could be voted on by the attendees. He explained that the decision would be made by the four Commissioners based on the Historic District Bylaws and Guidelines and that in order to pass 3 of the 4 would have to vote in favor. If the application was not approved the applicant could appeal to the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. The applicant was asked if he wanted to proceed. Ms. Pascal, noting that Mr. Chojnowski has not taken this project lightly and the concept has always been to preserve the look of the building, asked if he withdrew could he reapply. The answer was yes and if the HDC denied the application, he could come back with the same concept. Mr. Chojnowski said that he wanted to proceed.
LK clarified that if she made a motion to accept the applicant’s request, it would not prejudice her vote one way or another. LK made a motion to accept the application as presented. KF seconded the vote.
LK said that she is a member of the Historical Commission as well as on the HDC. She said her vote to oppose the application was based solely on the administration of the bylaw and guidelines of the Historic District and not a judgement on historic preservation, Casablanca or the future of the District’s commercial community. She suggested future public discussion on the issues of demolition and replacing and having to bring everything up to code, e.g. heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, handicap access and deciding if there should be a Historic
District. There could be a warrant article at a town meeting and if there is a 2/3 vote, the District could be abolished.
MS said that in his design practice he has worked on many old buildings and designed new ones, dealing in all matters of restoration, renovation and historical replication. With all that must be done in dealing with a structure such as this to the extent necessary, it is no longer preservation. He agrees that Lenox would be missing an opportunity to anchor this location with a new building that is historically accurate. He voted in favor of the application as he believes that the existing building is an eyesore and this project will be a tremendous improvement.
KF said that he saw this as a model project working with the Historical Commission to create a building that has the essence of the former building but bringing into compliance with the strict building codes. He feels that the condition of the existing structure is dangerous. KF voted in favor of the application.
ES said that she is worried that granting this application would set a precedent for people who let their buildings deteriorate, e.g., Matt Merritt’s building at the corner of Church and Franklin Streets and the old tavern that had been at the corner of Housatonic and Church Streets. She does not support replication and voted in opposition to the application.
LK stated that the owner purchased the property knowing that it was in the District and has owned it for 8 years; many stores have been successful in their historic buildings; and there are many alternatives to demolition. She added that with modern building codes and the modern materials, the existing building cannot be replicated. She also feels that the replacement suggested is not a true replacement, and listed some examples such as the roof line is different, chimney is eliminated etc. She doesn’t understand why there is a Historic District if old buildings are going to be replaced for the sake of heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) and handicap accessibility and suggested that maybe there should just be a height limit in the commercial district.
KF told the audience that the motion was made to allow the applicant to proceed with his proposal to demo and replication with the granting of Certificates of Appropriateness and Hardship. The vote was two in favor by KF and MS and two in opposition by LK and ES. This means the applicant is not allowed to go forward, but he can bring the project back to the HDC for review with no time limit. The applicant can also appeal to Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, and if BRPC supports the HDC’s decision to deny, he can move on to a court appeal.
Approve Minutes: May 19, 2015 -LK made a motion to approve the minutes as written and KF seconded the motion. The Commission voted to approve 4-0.
LK made a motion to adjourn and KF seconded the motion. The Commission voted to adjourn 4-0 at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Peggy Ammendola
| 
