Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic District Boundaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic district commission recommends that planning board not support ballot petition to remove two parcels
Summary
After neighbor testimony and an extended discussion, the Historic District Commission voted to recommend the planning board not support a citizens’ petition to remove two parcels on Wallace Road from the district; the motion passed with four voting to recommend non-support and one abstention.
The Bedford Historic District Commission voted Jan. 6 to recommend that the planning board not support a citizens’ petition to remove 320 and 324 Wallace Road from the town’s historic district.
Kathleen Bemis, the town council representative present, read the petition language during the meeting; the petition seeks to exclude two newer homes at the outer edge of the district. Commissioners and neighbors debated whether removing the parcels — which petitioners described as having ‘‘zero historical significance’’ — would set an undesirable precedent that could erode the district’s boundaries, or whether the parcels are geographically peripheral and therefore appropriate to exclude.
Residents on both sides of the question spoke at the meeting. Supporters of keeping the parcels in the district noted the historic pattern and survival rate of older buildings in the district and warned that piecemeal removals could damage the district’s character. Neighbors who favor removal said the parcels are remote fringe lots, newer in construction, and argued the change would not create a gap in the district’s core.
After discussion the commission considered a motion "that the historic district commission recommend to the planning board that they not support the citizen's petition to amend the boundary." The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote: four commissioners voted in favor of recommending non‑support and one commissioner abstained (Chair Kelly Tope said she would remain silent on the recommendation). The record shows the commission declined to take no action and instead provided the planning board with the formal recommendation. The petition will appear on the ballot as submitted; the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the planning board as part of the public record.
Commissioners were explicit that the ballot wording of a citizen’s petition cannot be altered by the commission and that voters, not the commission, will decide the final outcome. Staff reminded attendees that the planning board will hold its second public hearing on the zoning amendments on Monday at 6:30 p.m. in the same space.
The commission did not change the district map during the meeting; it instead chose to submit the not‑support recommendation to the planning board for consideration.
