By Dan Murphy
The city has reached a settlement agreement regarding an appeal of the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission’s determination on Dec. 21, 2023, to deny a design review application for a proposed garage entry door at the rear of the Eben Jordan Mansion at 46 Beacon St.
In accordance with the judgment entered in connection with this matter, a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued to the applicant to approve the proposed garage entry door with the following specifications: that the doors shall be constructed of solid wood and shall incorporate a ‘wishbone pattern’ design consistent with the provided rendering and a black, semi-gloss paint finish; that the configuration shall consist of two vertically oriented, swing-in doors; that no hardware shall be visible from any location within the purview of the BHAC (i.e. visible from a public way within the Historic Beacon Hill District), including but not limited to keypads, cameras, key fob access devices, intercoms, or LED light sensors; that a simple, stone header matching the color and style of the other headers seen on the rear elevation shall be constructed over the aforementioned doors; and that shop drawings for all proposed changes shall be submitted to staff (Nicholas Armata) for the record for final approval, according to a statement released by the Boston Landmarks Commission.
Moreover, the applicant is also required to inform the BHAC of any project changes, and any additional future work at this property is subject to the prior review and approval of the commission.
At its virtual public hearing on Dec. 21, 2023, the BHAC voted unanimously to deny the installation of any garage door on the rear façade of 46 Beacon St. while approving as submitted the repaving of the front brick sidewalk.
The proposed approximately 13-foot-wide, steel-frame garage door would have faced Spruce Court – a small private way, according to Guy Grassi, the project architect, and its entrance would have been created by enlarging and combining two existing penetrations in the building’s rear (north) façade facing Spruce Court while removing a brick pier between the two openings – one of which was originally a window that has been infilled to create a door.
Many asserted at this time that creating the proposed door via enlarging and combining two existing penetrations would in effect create a new opening in a building façade, which is at odds with BHAC guidelines.
In its recent ruling, Suffolk Superior Court declined to grant Summary Judgment to the plaintiffs (i.e. the applicant) in a Motion for Summary Judgment requested by them.
The court did conclude, however, that there was evidence some commissioners might have taken into consideration factors outside of the commission’s legal purview, specifically issues like traffic and safety impacts.
“To be sure, the record contains a substantial amount of evidence that multiple members of the [c]omission (no fewer than three and as many as five of the eight) rested their individual votes in support of this decision in at least some material measure on impermissible considerations falling outside of the BHAC’s statutory purview,” the Memorandum of Decision and Order relating to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement issued by Suffolk Superior Court states in part.
But the court determined that the commission might still be able to demonstrate that its decision was made correctly; and/or that the commission would have likely still come to the same decision, despite the fact that some commissioners might have considerate factors outside of the commission’s purview in making their Dec. 21 determination on the application.
The court subsequently gave the parties three alternatives: the commission could review the application again, with stringent restrictions and under the condition that the vity pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees incurred through July of this year; the two parties could go to trial to determine whether the plaintiff should receive the Certificate of Appropriateness; or both parties could mutually agree to a settlement and dismiss the case without the imposition of any costs or fees.
Ultimately, the city opted for a mutual settlement.
Regarding the city’s recent settlement with the applicant, Mark Kiefer, chair of the BHAC, said in a statement: “We will of course respect the court’s decision. Personally, I stand by our commission’s original determination, continuing to believe that the proposed garage door is inconsistent with our enabling legislation, inconsistent with our guidelines, and inconsistent with our prior record of decision concerning garage doors in the Historic District. I would have welcomed the court’s offer to let us rehear the proponent’s application, and I’m confident we could have done so in a manner that fully addressed the concerns raised in the court’s ruling. I’m very disappointed that the city would not commit the resources to afford us that opportunity.”
Mainsail Management purchased the five-story, Italian Renaissance Revival townhouse at 46 Beacon St. in 2023 from the Unification Church for $20.5 million. The 50,000 square-foot building, which has undergone numerous transformations and been modified via an array of additions over the years, is poised to be redeveloped into eight, large dwelling units.