Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bedford Historic District Commission reviews draft design guidelines, seeks public input
Summary
The commission reviewed a draft of locally tailored historic district design guidelines intended to clarify review criteria and speed routine approvals; the public raised concerns about landscaping, the tone of national-standard wording, and requests for clearer implementation steps. Comments are open through Jan. 16.
Kelly Tope, chair of the Bedford Historic District Commission, opened the Jan. 6 meeting by introducing a presentation of draft design guidelines by consultant Chris Skelly.
The draft, Skelly said, is intended to help applicants and commissioners ‘‘get everyone on the same page’’ about what the commission is likely to approve and what would require additional review. He described the document as a first draft that organizes guidance by topic, explains ‘‘character‑defining features’’ of the district, and includes a flowchart showing which projects may qualify for administrative approval versus full commission review. ‘‘Design guidelines are really trying to get everyone on the same page,’’ Skelly said, describing the structure and how the guidelines will be iterated with public feedback.
The commission and staff emphasized the guidelines interpret the ordinance rather than change it. Kelly Tope said the guidelines are meant to ‘‘provide clarity on what we’re looking for and how we’re applying the ordinance’’ and noted that the ordinance itself remains in effect.
Commissioners and residents focused several times on landscaping and trees, a section Skelly said was intentionally left thin because landscaping (live plant material) is often treated differently from structural features in many ordinances. Skelly told the group that some towns regulate ‘‘heritage trees’’ by trunk caliper, and that other communities have chosen to regulate or to limit review to structural features like fences and stone walls. Commissioners asked the consultant to add clearer guidance about when replacement plantings or removal require review.
Several speakers urged the commission to soften the document’s tone and explain the practical meaning of strong words borrowed from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Skelly and commissioners said the national standards often use ‘‘shall’’ language because those standards have historically tied to tax credits and grant eligibility; he noted the National Park Service expects reasonable application ‘‘taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.’’ Commissioners proposed adding explanatory text and a brief paragraph clarifying how ‘‘shall’’ should be read in local application.
Staff said the town will accept written comments on the draft through Jan. 16 (a deadline that can be extended if needed) and that the trees section will be circulated separately. The draft and submission instructions are posted on the town website. Commissioners also discussed expanded administrative approvals and a transition to electronic permitting that staff said will allow permit forms to be tailored to the guidelines.
Public commenters recommended practical additions — a routine‑maintenance section, a vendor/resource list for homeowners seeking preservation work, and public education events such as a workshop and walking tour. Chris Skelly and staff welcomed written suggestions and said they will incorporate meeting feedback into the next draft.
The commission closed public comment on the guidelines and moved on to consider ordinance amendments and a separate citizens’ petition.
The next procedural steps: the commission is accepting comments through Jan. 16, the trees section will be circulated as a separate draft, and the regulations that will specify what requires commission review are expected to be published for public review in a future meeting.
