Loading...
HDC Minutes 12-10-20CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION Historic District Commission DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: e Call to Order December 10, 2020 Google Meet (Virtual) William Finch, Chair; Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair; Caroline Mason, Wendy Pearl Emily Hutchings (Planning Department, City of Beverly); Patricia (Patti) Pellegrino; Charlie Silva Jodi Byrne Chair William Finch calls the December 10, 2020 meeting of the HDC to order at 7:00 pm. Assistant Planning Director Emily Hutchings reads a prepared statement introducing the meeting, the authority to hold a remote meeting, public access and public participation, and meeting ground rules. She takes roll call attendance. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Suzie LaMont William Finch Caroline Mason Wendy Pearl Staff, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Emily Hutchings Jodi Byrne Supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available from the Planning Department. 1. Demolition Delay Review #252 — Demolition of a building located at 29 Ober Street — Patricia Pellegrino (continued) Finch provides a review from the November meeting of the HDC. He allows time for members from the public to comment, and there are none. Finch closes the public meeting. Patti Pellegrino says that she has nothing to add since her last report at the November meeting of the HDC. Finch asks the HDC to state their views, noting that they had a site visit prior to this meeting. Mason says that she was glad for the site visit and that the house was grander inside than she had expected. She asks if all of the mold and other problems can be remedied. Finch states that the areas with mold would probably have to be repaired by removing the drywall down to the studs. He says he was concerned by the leaks in the different roofs and the damage that has happened that could have been prevented with the repair of those roofs. Mason also asks of the importance of the owner (and possible architect) Emory K. Benson, and Finch says that little is known about him. Hutchings says that he appears to have been a well -known Northshore architect during the period of the build, and was later known from his connection with a Boston architectural firm Kilham and Hopkins. Mason asks if, because this is one of the long - established estates in the Lynch Park area, it could be considered historically significant. Finch says that it is a turn-of -the- century mansion along the coast, and that they are a dwindling resource. He adds that there are only a few stucco and arts and crafts mansions that remain along the Gold Coast as significant pieces of architecture. LaMont agrees that it does have historical significance, and says that it is the role of the HDC to look out for resources that are being lost over time. Pearl says that she sees the structure as a vernacular mansion and is not sure of its historical significance as an individual structure. Pearl refers to the Woodbury Street house, noting that after it was determined historically significant, a year later it was demolished. She states that that building had more historical features and more of a story to tell. She notes that while the 29 Ober Street structure does not have much left from its original build, if it is one of the last of its type she can see its historical significance. Finch refers to the twin gables on the house, and says that he thinks the stucco is probably original. Mason says that in looking ahead to the Great Estates Ordinance (which has not yet been submitted to or approved by the City), this is one more property that would be lost if they do not make an effort to preserve it. Finch asks if a member would make a motion to determine whether the building is historically significant to the city. LaMont: Motions to determine the property at 29 Ober Street is historically significant for its architectural value to the city of Beverly. Mason seconds the motion. There is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes. The motion passes (4 -0). Silva says that upon Pellegrino's ownership the condition of this house was poor and that she worked hard to keep the house in reasonable shape. He says that in regards to the preservation of the house, the condition of the stucco is poor and, at a huge financial cost, needs to be removed and replaced. Finch asks why the stucco needs to be removed and Silva answers that he believes that the damage to the stucco and wire behind it is corroding, and to do the job correctly it would need to be replaced. Silva adds that around the windows, all of the stucco would have to be removed in order to add correct flashings, and that it would be best to replace rather than patch 80% of the current stucco. Pellegrino confirms that there is an area at the back of the house near the chimney that shows metal wire, and it is discussed that the metal grating could have been an addition from the original grate. Mason questions if the amount of money needed for restoration is a valid reason not to support saving the house. Pellegrino says that the house purchase price and restoration cost would far exceed any value of any other house in that area. Pellegrino reports that the building is 11,000 square feet of crumbling everything, and Silva says that it would cost $5 -$6.5 million to restore this house correctly. Silva says that while he would love to restore a house like this, but the ultimate value does not justify the cost. Mason asks about the pictures Hutchings sent the HDC and whether there are significant interior spaces, and Finch says that it has some nice period spaces and others that are in very poor condition. He says he has seen worse, and that its location and surviving spaces are of value. Mason says that the great room and staircase are noteworthy, and Silva states that none of the balusters are original. Silva says that the main living room to the left of the entrance is the best room, but that upstairs, particularly the master bath, is horrendous with no historical remnants. LaMont notes the contrast of the original floors and the replaced stairs as well as other areas that were remodeled, taking away from its grand history. Finch asks if Pellegrino still plans to build a new single - family house if the old one is demolished. Pellegrino says that due to a health issue, the property is on the market, and adds that they are in no position to go through a two -year build. Finch asks whether, if the HDC does not impose the delay, if she would demolish the building herself, and she answers no. Pellegrino says that she hopes someone will come in and restore the house, but she doesn't think anyone will take on this prohibitive cost. She says she will only take the building down if it doesn't sell and if neighbors express concern with its safety. Pellegrino says that she is giving this situation one year, and if this house is sold or stays in her possession she will demolish it. Finch notes that it may help her to sell if they take the structure down, but Pellegrino says she is not planning to do this. Mason says that it makes sense to allow one more year of preservation to see if the Great Estates Ordinance might be adopted in that time and could be applied to the property. She says that this is a good example of delaying the demolition in order to try and find an alternative. There is a brief discussion about the possibility of this building being converted into multiple residences such as condominiums. Pellegrino says that putting in 2 -3 condos would mean removing what is left of the historic fabric, and the neighbors do not want additional housing units. Mason says she respectfully disagrees as some of these estates that are made into condominiums allow interiors to be preserved, and that most people cannot keep these large houses maintained as single homes. Hutchings notes the role of the HDC as part of the demolition delay process. She says that if this property is found historically significant and preferably preserved, the HDC can work with the property owner to find opportunities for a buyer or alternatives to demolition. Hutchings says that in regards to the Cultural Heritage Properties (Great Estates) Ordinance, it is currently only in the draft form but its adoption is a recommendation of the Master Plan. Hutchings says that to preserve historic buildings and the city's historical fabric, there are ways to condo -ize buildings while keeping historical elements, and an additional benefit would be retaining open space. She says that this property is in an R10 zone and has more than 10,000 square feet, so a subdivision, although not likely, is not beyond the realm of possibility. She describes the benefits of a Great Estates ordinance, noting, for example, that three units could be put in one large historic home rather than subdividing the property, which would retain the historic building, retain open space, and be more environmentally friendly than demolishing the original building and constructing others. Hutchings says that while this is not what should necessarily be done in this situation (she is asserting a hypothetical scenario), it is why this planned ordinance is relevant. Finch says that he has seen condos built within historical buildings that keep the historic fabric, and also ones that do not. Silva says the issue is the extent of the damage is still a huge financial cost, and that the basement is in worse condition than the upstairs. Pellegrino says she applied for this permit because without a demolition permit the property is not attractive to buyers. Finch says that the property cannot currently be subdivided as it lacks frontage, yet a developer can come in with a plan to bring in a street to form a subdivision. Hutchings says if there was a plan that included roads and other pieces, a developer could hypothetically go through the L; subdivision process with the Planning Board. Pellegrino says that she doesn't think a road would ever get an approval from the Conservation Commission. She also says that neighbors would fight any type of a subdivision. Hutchings says that based upon the square footage alone, someone could put in 4 -5 units, but that this does not take into account the approval needed from the Conservation Commission or needed roads and potential waivers from the Planning Board (dependent on a hypothetical plan). She says that it is more likely that a developer would propose cutting the property into two or three lots, but notes that any of this would have to go before the Planning Board. LaMont notes another property that was a great estate and changed into multiple units and says she thinks that subdividing sounds just as difficult as restoring. Hutchings confirms that this is a narrow property and would be difficult to subdivide but is just noting all of the possibilities, however unlikely. Mason states that the purpose of the Great Estates Ordinance is to preserve great estates and notes that the HDC has the discretion to shorten any demolition delay if needed. She says that the HDC needs to be bold about what they are trying to preserve. Finch says that demo by neglect is the issue and that the HDC must consider if the building can be saved. He asks if the HDC wants to impose the delay or say that the building can be demolished. Finch: Motions that the building located at 29 Ober Street be preferably preserved due to its importance to the Great Estates as historically significant to the city of Beverly, and to impose the delay of demolition for one year. Mason seconds the motion. There is a formal roll call vote. The motion fails to pass (1 -3) with Mason voting yes and LaMont, Pearl, and Finch dissenting. 2. Approval of minutes a. November 18, 2020 The minutes for November 18, 2020 are discussed and amended as needed. Pearl: Motions to approve the minutes as amended. LaMont seconds the motion. There is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes. The motion passes (4 -0). 3. Election of ChairNice Chair for 2021 Pearl asks if officials must be elected every year, and Hutchings confirms this per the Rules of Procedure. Pearl suggests amending the Rules of Procedure to allow a two year term for HDC Chairs. Hutchings says she will put the subject of amending the Rules of Procedure on the agenda for the next meeting. Pearl confirms that Finch and LaMont are willing to serve again. Mason: Motions to nominate William Finch as Chair of the HDC and Suzanne LaMont as Vice Chair of the HDC. Pearl seconds the motion. There is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes. The motion passes (4 -0). 4. 2021 Meeting Schedule — Review and Approval The HDC agrees that they have reviewed the schedule and Hutchings notes that virtual meetings may be changed to in person if deemed possible in the future. There is a brief discussion of holidays and school breaks and Hutchings says they can amend the meeting schedule if needed. All agree that the schedule is acceptable, and no vote is needed for approval. 5. New /Other Business Other discussion or action items related to Commission business, if any Hutchings says that she is working to finalize the preservation plan and hopes to present it for formal adoption at the January meeting. Pearl congratulates Hutchings on receiving her AICP certification. Pearl informs the HDC that funding for the Gruppe mural restoration was approved by the City Council. 6. Adiournment Pearl: Motions to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 pm. Mason seconds the motion. There is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes. The motion passes (4 -0). 4