[MassHistPres] LHD commission refuses proposed new construction?

[slater at alum.rpi.edu]

In Springfield, we are not against new development, but from time to
time we have imposed conditions which effectively resulted in new
development being blocked. 

We once had a large house burn down and a developer wanted to replace it
with a smaller, more contemporary house on the lot. We denied the
application because the new house would have been incongruous with the
rest of the street, which were all much larger houses (like 3x the
size). The real estate values do not support construction of a larger
house which would have been appropriately in scale. 

The developer wanted to do a cookie-cutter house, with at-best, some
cosmetic enhancements to try to make the house not stick out, but there
were some major basic problems with the design, such as an exterior
appearance that favored interior layout, resulting in a mish-mash of
windows, and one side of the house with no windows at all.

I think that the developer could have suggested other options which
would have been palatable - perhaps a design that looked more like a
carriage house, or maybe a design more like an earlier period house.
However, he was really just looking to drop a cookie-cutter design in.

It sounds like the hypothetical is bit of a different situation. I think
there are a few ways to handle this:

1) Under strict appropriateness interpretation, you could say that the
setback on the new development is not consistent with the setback of the
neighborhood - regardless of what zoning allows. I would say such a
thing for any new development regardless of what it was in front of,
given that the neighborhood is very consistently developed. Or you could
also just state that building a house that obscures another LHD house is
not appropriate just like building a fence or garage which obscures a
LHD house is not appropriate.

2) You could potentially hear this under hardship, with the hardship
being that the lot in question is legally in front of another LHD
property. At that point you can start trying to balance the detriment to
the district against the hardship to the property owner, looking at
things like the prominence and importance of the property being
obscured, and how much it is being blocked. You could explore options
such as reducing the size of the front structure so that less is
blocked, or situating it differently on the lot. I would put a lot of
emphasis on the hardship being self-imposed, and would not give them
credit for this.

I think that you would probably lose a legal challenge if you simply say
"no" without solid justification. For example, how unbroken are the
park-like lawns? If there are just a couple, then you may not be able to
make that argument. I think that your stronger argument would be that it
is never appropriate to built a structure in front of a LHD house. You
can then listen to their argument under hardship, since they may well
have one, and you may be able to arrive at a compromise.

I have been told that the judges tend to look more favorably on HCs when
the HC has shown some amount of willingness to accommodate the property
owner. 

Ralph Slate
Springfield Historical Commission

<-----Original Message----->Is no change at all allowed in Camelot?
Vonnegut's
>bugs in amber? In Amherst, we see change as inevitable. 
>
>
>Tom Ehrgood
>Chair, Dickinson Local Historic District Commission
>
>On Jul 29, 2014, at 15:58, "David Feigenbaum"
<david.feigenbaum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Folks--
>
>
>I would be grateful for help with the following scenario:
>
>A small local historic district (let's call it Camelot LHD) has a
picturesque
>street with a few houses on both sides that are significant to the
district
>architecturally and historically. The street was part of a late 19th
century
>planned community.
>
>One house owned by a guy named (for reasons that will become apparent)
Reardon
>rests at the back of the lot with its historic front facade facing the
>picturesque street across a long front lawn.
>
>
>Reardon sells his house and lot to a guy named (for reasons that will
also
>become apparent--I think you know where I am going with this)
Frontenac, a
>developer.
>
>Frontenac decides to split the lot in two along a dividing line that
runs across
>the front lawn parallel to the street and then to build a second house
on the
>newly created front lot. Assume that under the relevant zoning bylaw
there is no
>question that Frontenac has the legal right to create the new lot and
to build
>the proposed new house on the lot (setbacks are met, etc.) Assume also
that the
>proposed house is (considered in a vacuum) architecturally appropriate
for the
>district.
>
>But here's the rub. The new house will obscure a good portion of the
facade of
>the original house from view from the street and will disrupt the
uninterrupted
>sweep of the historic park-like lawns that run in front of several
houses along
>the street.
>
>In other words, taking all circumstances into account, permitting ANY
house to
>be built on the front lot will likely significantly hurt the
architectural and
>historic character of the district.
>
>My questions:
>
>1. Are there any examples of LHD commissions in Massachusetts refusing
to give a
>certificate of appropriateness for the building of ANY house of any
kind or size
>on a lot in such circumstances? Or in any other circumstances for that
matter?
>If so, were they able to make the refusal "stick?"
>
>2. Is there any case law on either side of the issue?
>
>
>
>Thank you for your help.
>
>
>David Feigenbaum
>unaffiliated citizen
>
>
>******************************
>For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly. PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE
WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>******************************** 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20140730/da86cc21/attachment.htm>