The Hancock Historic District Commission public hearing Tuesday evening on proposed design changes to the Hancock Inn centered primarily on an enlargement to the inn’s patio and the walls around it — and whether those walls should be brick veneer or full bricks — as well as the fences and steps proposed to go around the patio.
After more than two hours, commission members said they need more information before approvals are granted. The one item that was approved was the removal of two arbor vitae on the property.
Kerri Landry, 33 Main Street LLC spokesperson, said the group purchased the inn from Marcia and Jarvis Coffin for $1.15 million, and that at least $2 million will be spent on improvements. The inn is scheduled to reopen in the summer of 2023.
Tuesday’s meeting was a continuance of previous discussions about changes proposed to the inn, some of which were addressed in meetings in August and September. The focus of Tuesday’s discussion was intended to be the removal of the two arbor vitae, as well as enlargements to the bluestone patio, a railing and the addition of walls around the patio, as well as fences, steps, the addition of a brick wall, a trellis and a koi pond.
After approving the removal of the arbor vitae, which raised minimal discussion, the commission spent the remainder of the meeting discussing the proposed patio — which would be twice the size of the current one — without getting to the other items. The issue at the heart of the discussion was whether to address the patio enlargement separately or to include the other elements, such as the patio’s seating wall, a brick facade wall and the railings that have been proposed to surround it.
“It’s hard for me to understand, I teach design and I could never tell my students we’re only going to talk about the patio,” said landscape architect Stephen Plunkard, one of the designers on the project, explaining that all of the elements, including the seating wall and railings, fit together. “At what point, if we were analyzing a car design, do you say, ‘You need a transmission’? At what point does someone on this commission say what is the value of the entire project, or do you just look at pieces?”
Board Chair Nancy Macalaster explained that the Hancock District Historic Commission is charged by the citizens of the town to follow ordinances they created and voted on to maintain the historical and cultural integrity of the town.
“What we were presented with was a binder with tabs, and what we are trying to to do is to hold each tab up against the ordinances for consideration,” she said. “I agree there is an interconnectedness and moving ahead. This is more complicated, and what we’re trying to decide on is the best way to proceed. I am not ready to put forth a motion and to vote on anything because if we vote nay on the patio, that takes you back to planning stages. If we say yes to it, we still have to come back and look at the other aspects. Or we take time to look at it as a whole.”
Board member Sarah Bauhan expressed concern that the project “seems to be overreach for the town and the district.”
“It seems over the top for what Hancock and our town are used to. We’re tasked with trying to fit this into our town and we’re trying to help you guys get through this,” Bauhan said. “We have the townspeople pushing us to do exactly the right thing here. We’re volunteers here, and it’s confusing.”
Resident Tom Shevenell of Main Street asked whether a conditional use permit was required for a larger patio space. According to Mark Fernald, attorney for 33 Main St., a conditional use permit is “on our radar, but I don’t think the fact that we need to deal with the Planning Board means we don’t get a decision from [the commission].”
Fernald said he thinks it makes more sense for them to consider the patio and its pieces together. He also emphasized that part of the reason for increasing the size of the patio is to accommodate people with disabilities.
“There’s the footprint, the height, and what surrounds it. Those are the three aspects of the patio,” he said, adding that his suggestion would be to at least consider the height and size together. “People like to eat outside, and I’m sure that’s why the Coffins added the patio. Another part of this is that some people are handicapped in our society and should be able to enjoy sitting outside. There could also be elderly parents who want to enjoy the culture of outdoor eating. What we’re addressing is not tables and chairs. The overall number of people will not increase. Thirty to 40 percent of patio is for accessibility. ADA compliance is driving so much of this.”
Before the next meeting, commission members agreed they would want to see the types of bricks that will surround he patio as well as the railing. The discussion of the patio, as well as the other outstanding proposals, will be Oct. 25.