Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0075 JOHN MAKI ROAD S M EA D No.53LOR UPC 12543 emeadoom • Made in USA e gg PID�R6'iRIf�E NRWNE ' Cert�edibrYatretnY � ' 5 hac Ion- b� �r����— � l o���` OLD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION P.O.Box 140,Barnstable,Massachusetts 02630-0140 Tel:508-744-7586 RY�r;C . Paul R. Childs and Kimberly Catalano,Appellants _ �`' Vs. Decision for Appeal No 2018-1 Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Committee for the Town of Barnstable On Tuesday,February 13,2018 at 1:30 P.M.,the Commission held a,hearing at the West Barnstable Fire Station Meeting Room,2.160 Meetinghouse Way(Route#149),West Barnstable,Massachusetts 02668, on Regional.Commission Appeal No.2018-1 filed by Paul R. Childs and Kimberly Catalano seeking reversal of the Barnstable Town Committee's decision to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Christian Congregation In The United States,Inc.for a revised landscape plan,removing and reconstructing a retaining wall, constructing an exterior staircase, installing 4'&6'cedar fencing, installing 4'chain link fencing coated with black or green vinyl and safety fences to be maintained during construction located at 49 John Maki Road, West Barnstable, Massachusetts. Said property being shown on Town Map 217 as Parcel 20/004. Present for the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission were Vice Chairman,Richard Gegenwarth of Yarmouth;Paul G.Richard of Barnstable;William Collins of Sandwich;William Bohlin of Dennis;James TrabulsiIe of Brewster;Ronald Mgrdichian of Orleans; and James R. Wilson,Commission Administrative Counsel. Attorney John W.Kenney of 1550 Falmouth Road,Centerville,Massachusetts was present for the Applicant,The Christian Congregation In The United States,Inc. The Appellants;Paul'R.CChilds and'Kirnberley Catalano,,of 75 John,Maki Way, West Barnstable,Massachusetfs`were present`foi their appea. Background Information: At the commencement of the public hearing,Vice Chairman Richard Gegenwarth,who presided throughout the meeting,announced the following: (1.)The Commissioners have reviewed the approved minutes and video of the January 10,2018 Barnstable Town Committee hearing; reviewed.a copy of the Barnstable Town Committee's file with chronology from May 20, 2015 thru January 11,2018,that includes the series of:filings, submissions, correspondence,multiple applications and withdrawals,modified landscape plans,pictures,exhibits,record of complaints and enforcement action taken by the Building Commissioner,and other material contained within said Town Committee's file. 1 (2.)The Commissioners have reviewed the Appellants'submitted appeal petition and visited the site of the proposed modified landscaping plans,that includes removing and reconstructing a retaining wall, constructing an exterior staircase,installing 4' &6'cedar fencing,installing 4'chain link fencing coated with black or green'vinyl and have noted the safety fences that are to be maintained during construction that are to be located at 49 John Maki Road,West Barnstable,Massachusetts. Applicant's Presentation: Attorney John W. Kenney addressed the Regional Commission on behalf of the Applicant.He reviewed the background of the application-process that had taken place since May of2015 and highlighted the chronology of events that were reflected in the Town of Barnstable's file. He indicated that the building had previously been a dance studio and that his client had incurred significant expenses in renovating the interior of the building. He suggested that the 2016 request for an extension of time to implement the 2015 landscaping Certificate of Appropriateness plan had been caused by financial needs and delays related to the extensive interior building modifications. He acknowledged that deviations from the original approved landscape plans had occurred during construction.He attributed these changes in part to the use of unskilled volunteers who failed to understand the need to strictly adhere.to the approved site plans. He indicated.this process resulted in walls and structures be placed in the wrong location and the need for new filings with the local Town Committee.Additionally,he noted that the building department required the addition of a second access and egress for the use of the basement which resulted.in"a stop work order" for the project. He stated that the.public hearings for the new filings brought many requests for modifications that included changes to the drainage,paving,retaining walls,screening and fencing. He pointed out the children safety concerns expressed by a rear abutting neighbor. He reported that this concern resulted in the addition of the extensive wooden and chain link fencing that was subsequently added to the revised plans,:reviewed,discussed and modified during the public hearing process. He stated that the final approved plans were the result of anew filing in December 2011 that incorporated many of the neighbor and Committee earlier requested changes. He claimed that the Barnstable Town Committee did not exceed its authority or exercise poor judgment. He asserted that the extensive review of the project was not arbitrary or.capricious and that the Barnstable Town Committee's unanimous approval was not erroneous but adhered to the proper application of the standards for determining appropriateness under the Old King's Highway-Regional Historic District Act. i 2 i i i Appecant's Presentation: Kimberly Catalano addressed the Commissioners on behalf of the appeal. She claimed that the Barnstable Town Committee was arbitrary and capricious and exercised poor judgment by not adhering the purposes of the Regional Historic District Act which she stated was"...to promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the applicable region...through the protection of buildings,.settings and places within the boundaries of the regional district...so as to preserve and maintain the district as a contemporary landmark compatible with the historic,cultural, literary and aesthetic tradition of Barnstable County,as it existed in the early days of Cape Cod,and through the promotion of its heritage." She expressed the opinion that the Barnstable Town Committee failed to take into consideration the impact of the proposed revised plans on the appearance of the neighborhood and the affect on the neighbors.As stated.in the appeal petition, she claimed that the approved plans do not respect the aesthetic appropriateness of the historic district and the setting. She asserted that there is an excessive repetition of style; texture and material of anon-historic nature and too much fencing of a four(4)feet and six(6)feet height being placed around the perimeter of the property. She suggested that the rural nature of the setting has been destroyed and the area has been urbanized. She expressed frustration with an apparent failure by the Building Commissioner and Barnstable Town Committee to issue violation orders that would have forced the Applicant to adhere to the features of the June 10,2015 earlier approved plans. She stated that they were personally aggrieved by a claimed unapproved encroachment of asphalt paving that has been placed on their property which is located on the adjoining northern sideline of the Applicant's property. She suggested that the Applicant had manipulated the process in a"bait and switch manner"to render the violations of the earlier approved plans inconsequential at the expense of the setting and the neighborhood. She asserted that the clear cutting and paving ruined the beauty of the neighborhood and stated that the appeal was brought to force the Applicant to follow the earlier 2015 plans. Acting Chairman Gegenwarth suggested that the review has to focus more on the appropriateness of the revised plans that were approved on January 10,2018 and not on the violations or lack of enforcement generated by the older plans. He suggested that many of the revisions in the latest plans appeared to address expressed concerns by the neighbors and seek to address and protect the appearance of the neighborhood. Kimberly Catalano stated that that she understood that you may not be able to go back and fix everything that happened in the past. She expressed the opinion that the neighbors followed the Bulletin's enforcement section and attempted to work with the Applicant, 3 Building Commissioner and Town Committee without obtaining a better medium that sufficiently reflected the neighbor's concerns and interests in the revised landscaping project. j Barnstable Town Committee's Presentation: Paul G.Richard of the Barnstable Town Committee stated that chronology and presentation by the Applicant's Attorney appeared to accurately address the time-line of the many actions taken by the parties. He reported that the January 10,2018 application contained a revised landscape plan,site plan and details for the stairway to the basement.'He stated that the Committee heard public comment;reviewed and discussed the location of the retention walls,materials and appearance;vegetation and plantings;and the safety considerations for the added 6' natural cedar and 4'chain link fencing. He indicated that the Committee determined that.the changes in.the revised submitted application were close enough to the original approved plans and found that they would be appropriate for the site. He acknowledged that the construction site was in a deplorable condition with the"stop work order" and suggested that implementing the approved revised landscape plans would begin to address the property's existing negative appearance. Acting Chairman Gegenwarth asked if the property had been surveyed and the boundaries marked. Mr.Richard and Attorney Kenney indicated that the boundaries had been well marked during the extensive review process. Mr.Bohlin of Dennis asked for a clarification of the style of the rear wooden cedar fencing. Mr. Richard clarified the style as being natural flat cedar board with caps and not the less attractive traditional stockade fencing style. Public Comment: Acting Chairman Gegenwarth asked for public comment on the appeal and there was none. Applicant's Rebuttal& Conclusion: Attorney Kenney pointed out that the flat cedar board fencing was added as a safety issue to address concerns raised during the public hearing process and was added at additional expense to the Applicant. 4 He suggested that the approved:revised.plans represented,a significant impzovemenf for the neighbors over-the earlier submissions..He acknowledged that it would take time for the plantings and vegetation to grow:in;but.claimed that with time,the approved plans would beofbenefit to the appearance:of theneighborhood. He indicated that the drainage had been'improperly installed and that revised plans had been engineered to address the problem: He asserted that there is nothing to indicate that the Barnstable.Town Committee .exceeded their authority,exercised.poor judgment,was arbitrary;capricious or erroneous in its action of approving.the revised submitted;plans.He requested that the Regional Commission affirm the$arnstable Town Committee's issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the.project: E Appellant's Rebuttal& Conclusion:* Kimberly Catalano disputed the claim.thatthe revised plans would.improvethe appearance of the:neighborhood. She expressed the.opinionthat the extensive.fencing, clear cutting,walls and other changes to the:area destroyed the natural beauty of the neighborhood and.have given it an urban character. She ended her presentation by suggesting that the..proposed,changes will not be better for the area.or the historic district. } Barnstable Town CommitteeRebuttal& Conclusion:, Mr..Richard concluded by indicating-that.he had nothing:more to.offer to the review process: Closure of Public Hearing; Acting Chairman.Gegenwarth declared the.public hearing..closed.and announced thatthe Commissioners would attempt to make a decision on the.appeal.He announced that the public could remain to observe the deliberations. i Commission.Discussion:. Acting Chairman Gegenwarth began the discussion by notingahe large.size of the project and.expressing an opiiion.that:the January 1.0,:2018`::meeting might have included more in depth discussion.of the fencing and other:features`of the project.. Commissioner Mgrdichian.of Orleans pointed.outthat the.loss of the natural wooded. character of parts of the historic.district is an.on:going consequence of development.and . change.He noted that iri 1974 the:area where his home is,located was surrounded by woods and had a beautiful natural vegetated character He indicated fiat.over the years 5 nearly 40 to 50 dwellings have been built in the area and that much of the natural wooded character has changed. He suggested that the purpose of the Historic District Act is not to freeze or prevent the safe and reasonable development of land or property. He suggested that the review process had been very detailed and that it appeared that the Barnstable Town Committee had fully examined and considered the relevant aspects of the proposed changes to the Applicant's property. Dr. Gegenwarth noted the specification of the proposed plantings listed on the revised landscape plan and acknowledge that it was very detailed and well presented. Mr. Trabulsie of Brewster pointed out the current adverse appearance of the construction site and expressed an opinion that the proposed plantings and implementation of the other features shown on the revised landscaping plans would improve the appearance of the area. He stated that the role of the Commission is to determine if the Barnstable Town Committee acted correctly. He stated that he did not see where the Committee was capricious or arbitrary in their action.He indicated.that he could not fault the Committee for their action in approving the revised landscaping plans.He expressed.agreement with the observation of Mr.Mgrdichian that development and change within the historic district is inevitable. Commissioner Collins of Sandwich addressed in reverse order the four(4)issues set forth in the Appellants appeal petition. First,he stated that the charge that the Applicant did "a bait and switch" in the process had no relevancy to the determination of the appropriateness of the subsequently revised and later approved plans. Second,he suggested that claim of the encroachment of asphalt paving on their property is a matter of property.ownership that should be acted upon by other authorities outside the Old Kings.Highway Regional Historic District's review process. Third,he pointed out that the Barnstable Town Committee had to focus on what was before them and in this matter the December 2018 filing with the revised landscaping plans and related submissions became the proper subject matter of the Committee's review process. Fourth,he stated that the main item raised by the appeal is about aesthetics and is set forth in the opening paragraph where in it is alleged that"the revised plans.do not respect the aesthetic appropriateness of the district." This charge reflects a difference of opinion about the judgment call of the Barnstable Town Committee. He stated that in reviewing the actions of the Committee,he observed a lot of discussion and consideration in making the judgment call. He indicated that he did not see..any way that the Committee was acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 6 i Commission Bohlin of Dennis expressed.agreement with Mr.Collin's analysis of the appeal and the opinions expressed by the other Commissioners.He.agreed that the-area. would look much better after the proposed plantings grew in and the other proposed modifications were implemented. Acting Chairman Gegenwarth noted the apparent consensus among the Commissioners and asked the Attorney Wilson to distribute a draft set of possible findings for i consideration by the Commissioners. The Commissioners reviewed the possible findings.Dr. Gegenwarth asked if there were any additions, deletions or changes to the prepared draft findings. There being none offered,he asked for a motion to adopt the draft findings. Mr.Bohlin moved,seconded by Mr. Collins,that the following findings be adopted and incorporated.into the Commission's decision.The motion was adopted by a vote of 5-0-1. (Bohlin,Trabulsie, Gegenwarth,Mgrdichian and Collins in favor;None, opposed; Richard, abstaining) The Commission findings: 1.)The proposed revised landscaping plan with modifications to the retaining wall, construction of an exterior staircase,installation of a 4'and 6'cedar fencing and 4'chain link fencing with green or black vinyl coating as indicated on.the plans is not obviously incongruous to the purposes of the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Act. 2.)The proposed revised landscaping plan with the proposed modifications to the site will be compatible with the existing building and its setting. 3.)The Regional Commission finds that the Barnstable Town Committee did not exceed its authority or exercise poor judgment in granting the Certificate of Appropriateness for the particular location. 4.)The Commission finds that the Barnstable Town Committee had a reasonable basis for its decision and was not arbitrary,capricious or erroneous in its action. 5.)The Barnstable Town Committee decision should be affirmed. Commission's Determination:. Mr. Bohlin moved, seconded by Mr. Collins,that That the Regional Commission vote to uphold the decision granting a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Christian Congregation In.The United States,Inc. for a revised landscape plan,removing and reconstructing a retaining wall, constructing an exterior staircase, installing 4'&6'cedar fencing,installing 4'chain link fencing coated with black or green vinyl and safety fences to be maintained during construction located at 49 John Maki Road,West Barnstable, 7 Massachusetts. Said property being shown on Town Map 217 as Parcel 20/004.It is hereby noted that we find that the Barnstable Town Committee:did not exceed its authority or exercise poor judgment and was not arbitrary;capricious or erroneous in its action and that the decision was within the:authority and guidelines of the Act and, specific to the setting under consideration. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-1 (Bohlin,Trabulsie,Collins, Gegenwarth& Mgrdichian in,favor: none opposed; and Richard:abstaining) As to Appeal No.2018-1,the appeal is denied and the decision.of the Barnstable Town Committee to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Christian Congregation In The United States,Inc. is affirmed. (5-0-1). Any person aggrieved by this decision has a right to appeal to.the District Court. Department,Barnstable Division,within 20 days of the filing of this decision with the Barnstable Town Clerk. Dated: February 23,2018 Richard Gegenwarth,Acting Chairperson 8