The Planning Board is split 3/3 on whether to approve attaching an annex to the historic Telephone Building. (One member was absent at the Sept. meeting.) Their meeting in October will likely decide its fate.

The building is officially designated by the City as a historic structure and therefore subject to protections under the code. We ask that the Planning  Board deny the applicant based on OUR VIEW of its failure to comply with the following elements of the zoning code:
______

CODE: Where possible, an addition to an historic structure should be placed towards the rear, or at least recessed, so that the historic structure remains more prominent than the subsidiary addition.

FAILURE 1: No plan was submitted that attempted to place the structure towards the rear, instead, the proposed annex is slightly recessed. In our view, the recess is not adequate to mitigate the negative impact on the historic building.

______

CODE: Any alteration or addition to an historic structure shall not damage or obscure the character-defining features of the architecture or site to the maximum extent possible.

FAILURE 2: The cornice of the Telephone Building is one of it's defining features. The proposed addition will block most of the West facing cornice. They only way to mitigate this is to move the new structure to the rear. That was not ever proposed (see above.) The applicant claimed that it was possible to see the obscured cornice through a skylight in its retail space as a preserving the view. In our view, that is absurd. 

FAILURE 3: The Telephone building is entirely symmetrical and stands-proud with space on either side (and has done so since its construction.) The proposed addition destroys this landmark's symmetry and its singular presence in the streetscape. 

_____

CODE: Construction shall build on the historic context with applications required to demonstrate aspects of inspiration from or similarities to adjacent HDLO structures or historic buildings in the surrounding area.

FAILURE 4: The applicant cited architectural details of a neighboring CAR WASH as inspiration for the design.

___________

CODE: Compatibility does not imply historic reproduction, but new architecture shall also not arbitrarily impose contrasting materials, scales, colors, or design features.

FAILURE 5: In our opinion, the proposed architectural design of the addition is mediocre, it neither contrasts in a way that brings attention to the historic structure, nor uses inspiration from the historic structure to create an annex that is a neutral or positive addition.  Instead, it distracts, obscures, and diminishes the integrity and community value of the Telephone Building.

Overall, the building, as proposed, will damage one of the most important historic buildings in Beacon. Again, we ask that the three planning board members that have signaled their potential approval to reconsider and for the three that are against to stay strongly opposed. We also ask the absent Board member to vote no.

Respectfully,  
People who value the preservation of a historic Beacon.