The Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) on March 8 voted to impose a 90-day demolition delay on the house at 44 Robeson St.
After postponing the hearing last month because it was determined the community meeting requirements were not met, the applicant returned this month after holding a community meeting.
Rosanne Foley, Executive Director of the BLC, said that a virtual community meeting was held on March 3 and “flyers were distributed to everyone within 500 feet” of 44 Robeson St.
The BLC determined that the community meeting requirements had been met, so the next step in the demo delay hearing was to determine the significance of the building in question and possible invocation of the 90-day delay.
Foley said that BLC staff has determined that the building is “significant,” based on two different criteria: “the Landmarks Commission staff finds that the building is historically or architecturally significant because of period, style, method of building construction, or important association with a famous architect or builder” and “the Landmarks Commission staff finds that the building is one whose loss would have a significant negative impact on the historical or architectural integrity or urban design character of the neighborhood.”
The home was constructed in 1892 and is a saltbox building with a gambrel roof line, Foley said, and includes a large yard and “large Roxbury puddingstone outcropping.”
Foley added that the home was built “as part of a new residential community abutting Franklin Park,” within close proximity to the train. She said that this is still the function of the home today.
Applicant Joshua Brandt spoke about the history and condition of the building, saying that the “house is on an extremely large lot,” and the saltbox gambrel roof can be seen from the front of the building.
He said that there is “evidence of water damage throughout the home, as well as mold.”
Additionally, regarding the history of the building, “we’ve not in our research found anything particularly historical about this property,” Brandt said. “It’s our general understanding that it was oriented the way it was because of some farmhouses down the hill which have since been demolished. Our research has not indicated anything specifically historical about it rather than it just being an old house.”
Members of the public were also permitted to weigh in on the history and/or condition of the building.
Jean Musiker, who said she lives next door to 44 Robeson, said that the building’s architect has two homes on the national historic register and 40 on the Massachusetts historic register.
She said that when the house was still on the market, she went inside, and said that while the house “wasn’t in great shape,” it “didn’t look that bad.” She said she has photos of the interior that had been posted on redfin.com before Brandt had purchased it.
Another neighbor said that the “roof was repaired fairly recently,” and some painting has been done. “It has been taken care of to a certain extent, she said. “There have been some windows left open that would make the water damage appear worse.”
Others spoke up saying that they believe the home is significant in the neighborhood and fits in well.
BLC Chair Lynn Smiledge said that “I think it’s very handsome and definitely architecturally distinguished.”
Commissioner John Amodeo agreed, saying he would like to see the 90-day demo delay imposed.
Commissioner Richard Henderson, who said he is also a Jamaica Plain resident, concurred. “I would absolutely recommend demolition delay on this. It’s a beautiful house on a beautiful street. Its demolition would severely erode the character of a very handsome street.”
At this point, the BLC voted to impose the demo delay, and the applicant was instructed to present alternatives to demolition for the Commission to decide whether or not any of them are “feasible.” The applicant also presented his proposal should the building be demolished.
Brandt proposed two alternatives that keep the original building. The first was to build two new single family homes on the lot, separate from the existing single family which would remain. There is no parking proposed, but there is an existing curb cut with space for one car in the front yard. The height would be about 1.5 stories, similar to the existing building.
The second alternative would also keep the existing home as a single family, but create two more units as an addition onto it. The height would also be 1.5 stories and no parking would be provided, per guidance from the BLC.
Brandt then proposed a design that includes the demolition of the existing house. He said that once the house is demolished, the lot would be subdivided “more or less down the middle” to erect “two conforming three family lots” that would consist of a three unit townhouse on each lot for a total of six units. Each unit would have three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms.
“It would technically be two separate three family buildings with a firewall along the property line,” Brandt said. There are a total of seven parking spots proposed, one for each unit and one unit would have two.
He said no variances would be required to build this, as it’s all as of right.
The style of the building is “not intended to look like a building from 1892,” he said, but rather a “modern take on a salt box” and would use board and batten siding with “yellow cedar accent cladding.”
Commissioner David Berarducci said he prefers the first alternative, and the Commission got into a discussion about different ways the applicant might approach this by asking for variances. The Commission said they would support him in his ask in order to preserve the existing house.
Brandt said that “in order to get more than three units,” the “lot needs to be subdivided down the middle, necessitating demolition, or variances need to be applied for.” He said that “pursuing variances is fraught with not only cost and time, but a huge amount of risk.”
Commissioner John Freeman said he was in favor of keeping the demo delay in place.
During public comment, Foley clarified the demo delay process. “After the three month delay, the house will be demolished and the project will be built,” she said. “So there’s no alternative that will save the house without something compromised so that they can build on the lot. And I think people don’t understand that demo delay is not permanent denial of demolition. The Commission cannot deny demolition.”
After hearing from everyone who wanted to speak on this, Smiledge said that the 90-day delay remains in place, and that she “strongly encourages” Brandt to consider comments heard at this hearing and think of “creative ways this house can be retained. Otherwise, I think you’re doing a huge disservice to the integrity of the neighborhood.” She said that a “project based on avoidance of variances is not a quality project.”
Because of the delay, the applicant is not permitted to receive a demolition permit until June 6.