Here’s a riddle: What has about 15 sides (it’s hard to tell exactly), is shaped rather like a cubist drawing of a horse’s head, and might affect the future elementary school? Answer: the Harvard Common Historic District.
The oddly shaped district extends through town center from Pond Road at one end to the watering trough on Ayer Road just north of Town Hall at the other. It jogs out along Littleton and Old Littleton roads for short distances and extends much farther out along Oak Hill Road.
At their May 9 meeting, members of the Historical Commission continued a discussion that Chairman Ben Guthro told the Press had been “going back and forth” for more than a year. At issue was an ambiguous, handwritten note that appears near the Bromfield School on an earlier version of the Common Historic District map and states, “School buildings excluded.” The note was reproduced on the most recent, computer-drawn version of the map, which is viewable on the town website at www.harvard.ma.us/sites/harvardma/files/uploads/harvard_common_district_map_v4c1_0.pdf.
The Bromfield School lies mostly within the historic district, but the back of the building extends beyond it. The current Hildreth Elementary School is completely outside the district. But one corner of the HES playing fields, where part of the new school would stand, is within the historic district. And Harvard’s bylaw states, “For purposes of this bylaw, any structures partially within the Historic District shall be considered wholly within the district.”
So the question before the Historical Commission is whether that old note excluding school buildings from the district standards applies just to Bromfield, as the note’s placement seems to suggest, or to schools in general, as the plural “buildings” seems to indicate.
As commission member George Triantaris explained, if the note applies only to Bromfield, not to all schools, then the Historical Commission would have jurisdiction over the exterior architecture of the new elementary school.
An ambiguous note
Guthro said in a telephone conversation with the Press that he had asked Town Administrator Tim Bragan about the issue, and Bragan agreed the note was ambiguous and said the commission should clarify it. At their October 2017 meeting, however, the commissioners rejected a warrant article drafted by Bragan that would have exempted the new building from historic district regulations. All the commissioners voted against the measure except Guthro, who abstained, according to minutes of the meeting.
Instead, at the May 9 meeting, the commission considered a proposal developed by a subcommittee to bring two alternative bylaws to a Special Town Meeting next fall. The first proposed bylaw would state that the confusing note applies only to Bromfield. If that bylaw were to pass with a two-thirds majority, the commission would have jurisdiction over the new school’s exterior. But if that bylaw were to fail, the commission would offer its second option, a bylaw stating that the note applies to any school building on the two lots where Bromfield and HES now stand. If the second bylaw were to pass by a two-thirds majority, the new HES building would be exempt. Either way, the ambiguity would be resolved.
Guthro said the two-bylaw solution had been suggested by his neighbor, Selectman Ken Swanton. Guthro emphasized that the measure would not change the Common Historic District map in any way. It would clarify just the note.
The Historical Commission did not vote on the draft bylaws at the May 9 meeting because a vote had not been listed on the meeting’s agenda. But Guthro said the commission should vote on the measures at its next meeting, scheduled for June 6, because August is the deadline for bylaws to be included in the fall Special Town Meeting warrant. If the commission approves the two proposed bylaws, the measures would go next to the Select Board, then to town counsel, and finally to voters in the fall.
