Historic Main Street home demolition on hold

By DAN TOMASELLO

LYNNFIELD — The Historical Commission recently voted to hit the brakes on a proposed plan seeking to raze a historic Main Street home. 

Local attorney Jay Kimball submitted a demolition permit application seeking to raze his historic 618 Main St. home along with a historic barn and a historic chicken coop that are located behind the house. He submitted a separate demolition application seeking approval to demolish the chicken coop. 

Under the town’s Demolition Delay Bylaw, the Historical Commission has the authority to implement a one-year delay on demolition permit applications that seek to raze historic structures. 

Kimball stated in a letter sent to the Historical Commission that his family has owned the 618 Main St. home for over 50 years.

“My wife and I purchased it from my parents in July of 1977, and we have owned the home ever since,” stated Kimball. “Originally constructed in 1839 as a simple cape with sheds on the right of the house, the home has been revised, renovated and enlarged over its 185-year life to the eclectic structure it is today. Last year, I made the decision to place the home on the market.” 

Kimball offered to sell his 618 Main St. property to the town last year, but the town declined the offer. The town agreed to purchase a $275,000 historic preservation restriction for the property with funds from the Sale of Real Estate Account. 

While the 2023 Fall Town Meeting approved appropriating the $275,000 for the historic preservation restriction along with an additional $25,000 for legal costs in a 416-96 vote, Kimball rejected the offer because he stated in the letter that the restriction’s appraisal was “totally inadequate.” 

 “I don’t want to tear the house down,” said Kimball during the Historical Commission’s meeting. “I am looking to receive top dollar for it. It is not my intent to tear down the house, barn and chicken coop, but I want to make a demolition permit available to a buyer that will allow them to do so in order to broaden the buyer base when we go to market the property. The idea would be to offer a buyer the permit so that they wouldn’t have to wait a year to go through this process themselves. It makes the house more attractive. I do not have any intention to tear the house down. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it, but I do not have the intention to do it. It means a lot more to us than anyone else in town because it has been the family homestead.” 

Historical Commission member Bob MacKendrick said he is “in favor of keeping the house and barn.”

“It has always been a significant home,” said MacKendrick. “I am opposed to tearing down the house and barn.” 

In response to a question from Historical Commission alternate member Erin Hohmann, Town Counsel Tom Mullen said the preservation restriction would have applied to the 618 Main St. home’s “three façades that would be visible from the street.”  

Willard Lane resident John Patti said he opposed razing all three structures.  

“I have owned and resided at 11 Willard Ln. for 49 years,” said Patti. “My property directly abuts the rear property line of 618 Main St. I have known Jay Kimball for almost 50 years, and I consider him to be a good friend and a good neighbor. His property at 618 Main St. is an integral component of the town center’s historical heritage along with the Meeting House and Centre Farm. To demolish it would create irreparable harm to the legacy of this town.” 

Patti said he was disappointed that the town decided not to purchase Kimball’s home. He said the town should buy the home, place deed restrictions on it to preserve the façades and then sell the property. He recalled that the town undertook the same process with Centre Farm. 

 “If the 618 Main St. property were restored in a similar fashion to Centre Farm, it would not only preserve and enhance the historical significance of the town center, but it would provide decades of enjoyment for a new family as it has done for the Kimballs,” said Patti. 

Patti also said he had “some issues” with the demolition permit application that Kimball submitted to the Historical Commission. 

“I didn’t see anything that was specific about the potential reuse of the property,” said Patti. “I would request that the commission require that in writing. If the house comes down, what is going to happen to the property?”   

Historical Commission Chair Kirk Mansfield asked Kimball why he did not include any specific information about what would replace the home in his demolition permit application. 

Kimball said he did not include specific information about the property’s future was because he “didn’t have specifics.” He said the property is large enough to be subdivided, which would allow two homes to be constructed on the property. 

“If it were redeveloped and stayed residential, it would be a matter of dividing the lot that could be done with an approval not required plan,” said Kimball. 

Kimball also said “certain non-residential uses” such as daycare centers are allowed in Residential A Zoning Districts. 

Historical Society Treasurer Bob Gillon asked if the demolition permit could be transferred to a new owner. 

Mullen said yes. 

Main Street resident Patrick Rooney said he opposed tearing down the 618 Main St. home. 

“I think it is an iconic home, but I understand Mr. Kimball is trying to maximize his profits, which is well within his rights,” said Rooney. “If this permit is transferred to a new owner, we don’t know what their plans are. That has significant ramifications for all of us who live in close proximity to this property. That is giving me pause.” 

Historical Commission Vice Chair Steve Todisco said most demolition permit requests for historic homes include “a set of plans.”

Mansfield said he opposed razing the 618 Main St. home to be razed. 

“I do not want the house to come down,” said Mansfield.

After the discussion, the Historical Commission unanimously voted to deem Kimball’s 618 Main St. home and barn as significant structures, and denied his request to raze them for one-year. 

“I fully expected that,” said Kimball. 

Kimball said the separate demolition permit pertained to just the chicken coop. 

 “By eliminating the chicken coop and with certain permitting relief from the town, we would be able to set up one building lot,” said Kimball. “The reason why we are asking for one permit just for the removal of the chicken coop is to accommodate a possible buyer’s desire to do a one-lot subdivision that would be similar to the one at 271 Main St. It would increase the purchase price.”

MacKendrick said he supported Kimball’s application seeking to raze the chicken coop.

“It would certainly ease up any clearance issues and so forth with the proposed roadway for the second lot,” said MacKendrick. 

Historical Commission member John Michalski agreed. 

“I don’t think there is any issue with tearing down the chicken coop,” said Michalski. 

Mansfield and Historical Commission member Abby Kilgore both said they did not oppose razing the chicken coop. 

Patti said he has “some concerns” about the 618 Main St. property being subdivided and a new home being constructed. 

“Having a house tucked right up against my back property line is not something I would look forward to, but I am not sure I can stand in the way of that if that is allowed by zoning,” said Patti.  

After attending last year’s Fall Town Meeting, Rooney said he was under the impression that the back of the 618 Main St. property would not be developed. 

“I just feel like that information is being trickled out after the fact instead of being upfront and transparent,” said Rooney.  

After the discussion, the Historical Commission approved Kimball’s request to raze the chicken coop.  

In response to a question from Rooney, Mansfield said Kimball will be issued a demolition permit for the chicken coop. 

“Demolition permits are good for six months,” said Mansfield. “It will be up to Jay with what he does between now and the sixth-month mark.”

Mullen said it will be up to Building Inspector Joe O’Callaghan to approve renewing the demolition permit for the chicken coop.