Loading...
HDC - 8.8.19 Special Meeting - ApprovedCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission DATE: LOCATION: August 8, 2019 Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Chair Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair Caroline Mason Wendy Pearl OTHERS PRESENT: Emily Hutching — Associate Planner Brian Austerman — 45 Bartlett Street Ben and Sharon Zolper — 19 Woodbury Street Thomas Alexander — for 167 West Street Bob Griffin — for 167 West Street Jeffrey J. Lawler — for 167 West Street Matt Pujo — I I Longwood Avenue RECORDER: Amy McDonough Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. LaMont motions to move to number 3 on the agenda to 7:00 PM. Pearl seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 3. 8:00pm Certificate of Appropriateness 45 Bartlett Street: The applicant, Brian Austerman, describes the intent to update the porch skirt, switching from a lattice to stockade style with access gates. The boards will be 1.5 inches in width. Austerman notes the need to alter the porch skirt due to problems with rodents getting under the porch. Finch recuses himself from the case, noting that he is an abutter to an abutter of 45 Bartlett Street. Lamont closed the regular meeting and opens public hearing. Lamont asks if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the case. No person from the public speaks. LaMont closes the public hearing and reconvenes the regular meeting Pearl motions to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness due to no adverse impact on the historic structure or the surrounding historic district. Mason seconds. Motion passes 3 -0. 1. 7:00nm Demolition of building located at 19 Woodbury Street: Finch gives a brief description of subject property. Finch explains the Demolition Delay Ordinance, the Historical District Commission's responsibility and the purpose of this meeting to those in attendance of the meeting. Historic District Commission August 8, 2019 Ben and Sharon Zolper, the owners of 19 Woodbury Street, are present. Mr. Zolper explains that the barn is in disrepair. Mr. Zolper describes how they have researched repairing the barn, having it moved to a different location, or giving the wood away, but no one has been interested in taking the barn or the wood, and that repairing the structure is cost prohibitive. Mr. Zolper states that the intention is to demolish the barn and build a two -car garage with a playroom above. The structure will be a similar shape and footprint, and the design will tie into the look of the house. Finch opens public hearing. Finch asks if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the case. No person from the public speaks. Finch closes public hearing. Finch says the structure appears to be erected in the 1850s. Referring to the previous site visit to the property, Finch notes that there is no clear evidence that the structure was used as a stable, and may have been used for storage. Finch states that the barn is not in terrible condition for its age; however, much of the floor is missing, and the structure appears to need significant improvements. LaMont notes that she found owner Levi Cole — noted as owner on the 1897 atlas — in the records, and that Cole was listed as a farmer. Mason asks for clarification that the 2nd story of the proposed new structure will be for playroom. Mr. Zolper confirmed. Pearl states that she thinks barn has significance, as not many barns from that era are left in the area. Finch states that these structures have become fewer and fewer because owners do not have a use for them. They are rare, but do not lend themselves to modern use. Mason notes that the City needs better descriptions /records so that when these types of things come up for review or demolition, the City knows more about the property and has better information upon which to base a decision. Lamont agrees about the rarity of the barn, and how that rarity lends to its significance. Pearl moves to determine the building historically significant due to its rare survival as a mid -19 century barn, and being associated with a specific social and economic period in the City of Beverly's history. Mason seconds. All in favor. Motion passes 4 -0. Finch reviews property and features of the barn structure. Nothing in the barn speaks loudly of its usage. The barn needs work but is salvageable at a cost. Finch asks the commission for additional thoughts. Pearl states that the structure is not on a main street, and not many people know about it. Pearl also notes that the demolition is not being done without exploring other options. The owners appear to Historic District Commission August 8, 2019 have considered every alternative, and have found no way to efficiently save the structure. Pearl notes that the delay likely would not lead to any other alternative that owners haven't explored. Finch says that this barn is different from a barn made on the ground, which can be assembled and then can be taken apart and resembled. This structure does not lend itself to this. The historic integrity of the structure has also been diminished, as the development of the area has eroded the historic context. Pearl agrees, and notes the thoroughness of the owners in exploring other options. LaMont and Mason agree. LaMont motions to find the building preferably preserved. Mason seconds. None in favor. Motion does not pass 0 -4. The structure is not found to be preferably preserved. Hutchings explains next steps to owners. 2. 7:30pm Demolition of Building known as 167 West Street: Representative present on behalf of the owners, attorney Thomas Alexander, is present. Engineer Bob Griffin, who did the research, and the builder, Jeff Lawler, are also present. Maps and photos are submitted and reviewed by the Commission. Alexander gives a brief presentation to the commission. Alexander explains that the owners bought property within the last year. The property is on a dead -end street, fourth from the end of the street. Alexander states that the property was part of the Henry Lee estate and was used for agricultural purposes. The property was subdivided the land was conveyed to George and Grace Cushing in 1940; the existing house was built c. 1940. Alexander notes that the building has had number of additions, and has been substantially altered. Alexander notes that the property did not appear as listed on any state or federal list as a historic site. He suggests that, based on the history of the site and the criteria for historic significance, the building is not historically significant or preferably preserved. Alexander says that the building is not visible, except from the four other houses on that end of the street. Hutchings notes for the record that she reviewed the property with Historic Beverly, the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds, and Historic New England, and not one had anything other than the information provided by the applicant. Finch opens the public hearing. Finch asks if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition of the case. Alexander restates, for the record, that he is in favor. No one speaks in opposition of the case. Finch closes public hearing. Mason notes that it is a beautiful house and is not sure why they are rebuilding. Historic District Commission August 8, 2019 Pearl states that the building is unusual with regard to its French Revival style of architecture. LaMont clarifies that the property is visible from a public way — it is visible from the water, and its removal will be noticeable. Finch says it is a good example of this architecture in this particular period, and that the period is often overlooked due to it not being as notable as the early 20 century or more modern in style. Pearl reiterates the building is historically significant because of the period and style. Alexander reads the ordinance to the Commission, and states that he does not think it meets the criteria for historic significance. The Commission responds that the building does appear to have significance in terms of architectural period and style, under criterion C in the ordinance. Finch restates that these types of buildings tend to get overlooked. The Commission has reviewed many buildings from 1900 and 1920, but have not seen many of this style. Griffin states that the building is in flood zone; the building is too close to sea wall and will be especially vulnerable if the sea levels rise. The replacement home would be moved to the back the property, away from the ocean. Pearl moves to determine the building historically significant due to its unique architectural style and being an example of a specific period and style of architecture within the history of the City of Beverly. Mason seconds. Motion passes 4 -0. The Commission discusses the property's potential for preferably preserved status. Pearl notes the limited public benefit — only a few (those with boats) are able to view the house from the ocean. Finch states that he doesn't think the building rises to the iconic level that is generally associated with a building designated as preferably preserved. LaMont concurs, and notes that although it is a beautiful home, it is not iconic in nature. Pearl moves to determine the building preferably preserved. LaMont seconds. None in favor. Motion does not pass 0 -4. The structure is not found to be preferably preserved. 5. Approval of Minutes: • May 23, 2019 Mason motions to approve the minutes. LaMont seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 4 -0. 6. New /Other Business: Hutchings reviews the request to place the proposed redevelopment of "Depot 2" on the agenda, and noted that the question is (a) whether it is appropriate for the HDC to issue a comment on the proposed redevelopment or the potential impact to the Beverly Depot — Odell Park National Register District, and (b) to whom a potential statement would be addressed. Mason discusses the harmony of area's urban fabric. Regarding the new proposed building on the Casa De Luca site, it is her concern that the area will be overwhelmed by the height of this building. Historic District Commission August 8, 2019 Mason asks if the HDC can get more involved, as this proposed development will have negative impact on the historic district. Mason notes that she hopes the Commission will provide formal comment based on the concern regarding scale of the project and overall impact on the historic district. Pearl notes that she believes letters and comments from individual members are appropriate, but not as a Commission. Pearl states that she will submit her own personal comments. Pearl suggests that Commission members discuss the technical issues with the proposed development such as the potential delisting of the historic district if the buildings to be demolished are gone. LaMont states her agreement with Pearl and the opportunity to comment as individuals. Finch says his position that we are free to make comments as individuals, but such comment is not the HDC's role as a commission. Commission discusses their responsibilities to the City and possible action. Pearl requests to open meeting to public comment. Finch approves. Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue, is present. Pujo discusses the National Register historic district, and the impact on the historic district should three historic buildings be demolished to redevelop the site. Pujo reviews the theme of the historic district, and reemphasizes the impact the proposed redevelopment will have, including the potential de- listing of the district from the National Register of Historic Places. Commission continues to debate whether the Commission has the responsibility to submit formal comment on the proposed demolition of the historic buildings and redevelopment of the site. Pearl asks what kind of precedent the Commission will set should they submit formal comment on this project. The Commission discusses past development projects and whether comment has or should have been provided, and those projects' similarities to and differences from the proposed Depot 2 development. Finch states that the role of a commission is to provide comment when requested to do so. If letters /comments are to be provided, submitting them personally /individually more appropriate. The Commission decides not to submit a formal comment about the project at this time, but determines to keep the subject open to be reviewed at future meetings if necessary. Hutchings states that she will add the subject to future agendas if requested by a Commission member. 7. Adiournment LaMont motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:20pm. Mason seconds. The motion carries 4- 0. The next Historic District Commission meeting will be held in Beverly City Hall on August 22, 2019 at 7:00 pm. Historic District Commission August 8, 2019