Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-26-2024 - Lt Mike Princi to HHDC Appeals CommitteePage 1 of 3 Princi Mills Law PC 300 Barnstable Road, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 Telephone: (508) 775-1160 Fax: (774) 810-7122 www.princimills.com Robert F. Mills Gerald S. Garnick (Of Counsel) rmills@princimills.com ggarnick@princimills.com Michael J. Princi Harrison T. Barrow, III (Of Counsel) mprinci@princimills.com hbarrow@princimills.com March 26, 2024 Hyannis main Street Waterfront Historic District Appeals Committee 367 Main Street Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 RE: Appeal from Decision Dated February 21, 2024 Shoestring Properties LLC – 110 & 115 School Street Dear Committee Members: On behalf of the Applicant, Shoestring Properties LLC, thank you for your time and attention to the matter before you. An abutter, who has opposed every development proposed by the Applicant, appealed your decision dated February 21, 2024, purportedly based upon massing and other considerations not within the enabling legislation and the local by-law. The Hyannis Main Street Waterfront Historic District Commission HMSWHDC is an historic commission established under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 40C. “The Historic Districts Act permits cities and towns to preserve distinctive characteristics of buildings and places, or their architecture. Within a historic district, buildings or structures may not be constructed or altered in a manner that affects exterior architectural features without first submitting the proposed construction or alteration for review by the historic district commission.” (emphasis added) Historic Preservation, 18A Mass. Prac., Municipal Law and Practice § 16.36 (5th ed.) “In passing upon matters before it the commission shall consider, among other things, the historic and architectural value and significance of the site, building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features involved, and the relation of such features to similar features of buildings and structures in the surrounding area. In the case of new construction or additions to existing buildings or structures the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the size and shape of the building or structure both in relation to the land area upon which the building or structure is situated and to buildings and structures in the vicinity...” Page 2 of 3 Mass. Gen. Laws c. 40C, sec. 7. The approved project conforms in all respect to applicable zoning and was vetted and approved by the Barnstable Site Plan Review process. This abutter was represented at the hearing on January 17, 2024 and presented arguments regarding traffic, density, trash pickup, dogs, children, and vehicle parking, among other things. (See minutes of meeting). All matters raised were properly considered by the Commission and the project was approved unanimously. While not required to, the Applicant agreed to make accommodations outside the scope of the historical review to improve the project. The Commission properly applied the criteria set forth in the By-law and enabling statute. If a party with standing and aggrieved appeals an approval or the granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the grounds must be authorized by statute. In the case of Gumley v. Board of Selectmen of Nantucket ( 371 Mass. 718, 722, 358 N.E.2d 1011, 1014–15 (1977)), the Nantucket Historic District Commission was found to have exceeded its authority by denying certificates of appropriateness for a large residential development on grounds not authorized by statute, including the "open space" aspect of the area. Similarly, in Warner v. Lexington Historic Districts Com'n (831 N.E.2d 380, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 78 (2005)) the Historic District Commission's decision to deny a homeowner's application for a certificate of appropriateness for improvements to her driveway and yard was deemed deficient because it relied on criteria not found in the enabling act or in the by-law. Here, an abutter argues “massing” in the context of insufficient open space and dense lot coverage. This criterion is not an appropriate objection under Grumley and Warner, especially where the project conforms to Barnstable zoning regulations and is consistent with the surrounding properties. A recently approved and built affordable apartment project was built around the corner with very little open space. On submission of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the HMSWHDC must determine whether the "size" and "features" of the proposed structure "will be appropriate for the purposes of this Historic Act. In making that determination, the Commission is to consider "the historical value and significance of the building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features... and the relation of such factors to similar factors of buildings and structures in the immediate surroundings," along with the "settings" and "relative size of buildings and structures".1 The Commission did just that here. 1 "…within the historic district, no building or structure can be erected without a certificate of appropriateness issued by the t own historic committee, and the building inspector may not issue a building permit unless the applicant submits the requisite certi ficate of appropriateness. . . . . the town historic committee must determine whether the "size" and "features" of the proposed structure "will be appropriate for the purposes of this (Historic Act)." Historic Act, S 10. In making that determination, the town historic committee is to consid er "the historical value and significance of the building or structure, the general design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features . and the relation of such factors to similar factors of buildings and structures in the immediate surround ings," along with the "settings" and "relative size of buildings and structures." The historic commission may reverse the town historic committee's decision if the committee "exceeded its authority or exerci sed poor judgment, (or) was arbitrary, capricious or erroneous in its action." Persons aggrieved by the historic commissio n's decision may seek judicial review in the District Court having jurisdiction over that town.…" Dennis Housing Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Dennis, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, (2003) 439 Mass. 71, 785 N.E.2d 682. Page 3 of 3 Concerns with trash pick-up and traffic are not appropriate or specifically mentioned as authorized grounds to object to the development on historical grounds. Only factors such as the length of buildings and the compatibility of proposed developments with the historic aspects of the surroundings should be and were considered. After a previous review and consideration by the HMSWHDC, the Applicant modified his plans to conform to the zoning by-law thus removing any objection on those grounds. For all the reasons stated above, appeal should be denied, and the decision of the Commission upheld. Princi Mills Law PC Michael J. Princi Michael J. Princi, Esq.