"The Integrity of Our Historic District"

On Friday, the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposal to build an addition to the house at 105 Union Street and an accessory building, which together would result in structures covering close to 90 percent of the lot. 

Prior to hearing public comment, the owners of 105 Union Street explained why the house they had just purchased was insufficiently large for their needs. They explained that being able to build additional structures was a prerequisite for making an offer on the house. They said they had done their due diligence--talking with local realtors, code enforcement officer Craig Haigh, and the neighbor at 107 Union Street, as well as walking on Partition Street and seeing accessory buildings behind other houses--and had come away with a "positive vibe" about what they were planning to do. 

Although the folks at 107 Union seemed to have had no problem with what was being proposed, other neighbors did. The owner of 109 Union Street--the third house in the block of three--expressed grave concern about the massive scale of what was being proposed. She spoke of how it would compromise the architectural integrity of the trio of matching houses and also talked about personal issues: obstruction of the view of the river and loss of light.

Other neighbors expressed similar concerns. The neighbor at 101 Union Street said what was proposed would "completely change the experience of our house and our yard" and expressed concern about the neighborhood "if anyone can get a variance to completely fill the lot with structures." Similar concerns were expressed by the neighbor at 113 Union Street, who asserted that what is being proposed would "change the character of the street and of the neighborhood." He also talked about light and privacy issues.

After the public had been heard, Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, told the applicants, "Public input is critical, but it is not the last word." Still, when the HPC began its deliberation about the project, it became clear that no one on the HPC, not even Forman who said, "I have a bias usually toward the homeowner," was inclined to grant the project a certificate of appropriateness. The discussion began with John Schobel saying, "Our jewel is the integrity of our historic district." Schobel went on to describe the project as "massive and inappropriate to the surrounding area." Massing and height were mentioned by other members of the HPC, as well as loss of light and air. Hugh Biber suggested there might be "other possible directions to address the neighbors' concerns about light and air" while meeting the applicants' need for more space. 

In the end, it was decided the HPC would give the applicants a chance to revise the proposal and come back. The project is also before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the extensive area variances needed to essentially eliminate the backyard and fill it with structures. The project has not appeared yet on the agenda for the ZBA, but it may be on the agenda for the ZBA's next meeting, which is currently scheduled to take place on Wednesday, March 19, at 6:00 p.m.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK