Emerge Spa & Salon at 275 Newbury St. in Boston was required to remove a security camera because it wasn’t compatible with Back Bay Architectural Commission guidelines.
When hooligans vandalized Joyce Hampers’ Newbury Street shop, the owner of Emerge Spa & Salon knew exactly what to do: install a security camera to catch the culprits.
But within days, her architect received a call from the Back Bay Architectural Commission (BBAC) demanding that she remove the camera from 275 Newbury St. or face the panel’s wrath, she said.
“There’s a conflict between those who want to keep Newbury Street residential and those trying to do business, which we have every right to do,” said Hampers, a former Massachusetts Department of Revenue commissioner.
Although Hampers quickly removed the camera, others have been not so willing to bow to the commission’s wishes. Many applicants who have appeared before the panel declined to discuss their case with Banker & Tradesman for fear of retribution. But at least two people have filed lawsuits to fight the city’s historic-district panels, the Back Bay Architectural Commission and its counterpart, the South End Landmark District Commission.
In addition to Back Bay and the South End, the city has six other commissions that govern the Aberdeen, Beacon Hill, Bay State Road/Back Bay West, Bay Village, Mission Hill Triangle and St. Botolph neighborhoods.
The local historic-district commissions, empowered by an act of the Legislature, review and approve proposed exterior design changes to properties within their boundaries. Commissioners are volunteers nominated by neighborhoods, organizations or the Boston Landmarks Commission and appointed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino. Each district commission has its own guidelines for design review, deadlines for application submittals and meeting dates for the review of applications.
Donald L. Saunders, owner of Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel, has been in court since 1999 over windows he installed at his Newbury Street property. The hotelier filed suit against the BBAC because the board denied his request to install aluminum windows, according to court documents. Guidelines insist that the window frames must be wood.
Through the lawsuit, Saunders is demanding that the BBAC issue a Certificate of Appropriateness – a letter that grants permission for the change – but city attorneys have argued that the windows are inappropriate for the district. The case has not been settled, according to documents, and no court date has been scheduled.
Neither Saunders nor his attorney returned repeated calls seeking comment. The city of Boston has a policy of not commenting on litigation.
Mechanical engineer Gary Multer spent nearly a decade in and out of court and faced a fine of up to $1.4 million for failure to remove a vinyl window. The disagreement commenced in 1997. The city alleged that Multer sought a permit to replace a window and some bricks at 413 Massachusetts Ave. The South End Landmark District Commission, which regulates the Victorian neighborhood, rejected the request, in part because of a ban on vinyl windows.
Court documents say that Multer made the changes anyway and ignored a commission order to replace the vinyl window with a wooden one. Multer also was asked to replace some of the bricks with masonry matching the original brickwork, the complaint said. Multer refused and filed a countersuit challenging the commission’s authority. His attorney argued that the commission lacks the power to order him to make changes to the building.
Multer has maintained that he did not replace the window or the bricks, that he simply removed plywood – installed by a previous owner – which had covered the window. He insists that he painted the white vinyl window frame brown to match the trim on the other windows.
In 2000, former Suffolk Superior Court Judge Maria Lopez sided with Multer and concluded that the commission was not properly created under a 1975 state law. But a state Appeals Court reversed her ruling and the suit was returned to Superior Court.
Last week, Multer said that he and the city have an unwritten agreement to walk away without any further litigation. The vinyl window and the brickwork are staying but Multer is still seething.
“Sometimes I wonder whose name is on the deed,” Multer said. “The only way to fight the commission is to ignore their phone calls. They try to scare people and often succeed. But you can’t be intimidated without your consent.”
‘This Is Not New’
Bryan Glascock, director of Boston’s Environment Department – the umbrella agency for the city’s architectural commissions – said the rules for the historic district have been in place for years and most property owners are not only familiar with them but comply with the ordinances.
“It’s simple,” he said. “If you want to make exterior changes in the district, at a minimum you need to talk to us. Our staff may or may not require an application or an approval process. This is not new.”
When asked about Hampers’ installation of a security camera on the heels of a number of smash-and-grab incidents on Newbury Street last year, Glascock said there may be a way to have them installed and still be in compliance with he law.
“Just because they were ordered removed doesn’t mean it is impossible to put them up,” Glascock said. “Is there a way to do it that is compatible with the BBAC guidelines? Perhaps. A conversation with the architect and commission staff should have happened in the first place.”
That said, Glascock insisted that the rules are very straightforward. “Changes such as new windows, signs, railings or digging out the front yard require permission,” he said. “People get into trouble when they do something without a permit.”
Still, Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president and executive director of the Back Bay Association, a trade group for merchants, said even for retailers who apply for a change to their building, it is very difficult to understand what the commission wants.
“It’s very arbitrary,” she said. “The Back Bay is getting is a reputation for being extraordinarily difficult place to do business. I hear time and time again from merchants who go in with an application that they would never buy another building on Newbury Street again.”
