HDC minutes_ 05.26 CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMISSION: Historic District Commission
DATE: May 26, 2022
LOCATION: Google Meet(Virtual)
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch (Chair), Suzanne LaMont (Vice Chair),Wendy
Pearl,John Leahy, Gregory Howard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Caroline Baird Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Planning Director;Victoria Healy,Associate
Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Rick Alpern;Zachary Brock; Kevin McMahon; Mike Tierney;
Miranda Siemasko;Jim Patierno; Bruce Doig; Paul Leighton;
Robert Porzio;Thad Siemasko
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Call to Order
Chair Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
1. Demolition Delay Reviews #275 —Flint Properties
Miranda Siemasko represents the applicant, Flint Properties, Mike Tierney; Jim Patierno; Rick
Alpern. This is a renovation project for a cannabis dispensary. M. Siemasko briefs the
commission on the original scope of project and the current project status. M. Siemasko informs
the commission, after the initial review, there is considerably more structural damage to the
building than anticipated. Mike Tierney details the structural damage. The structural engineer
expressed concerns over the original plans. The completed interior demolition demonstrated the
significant amount of renovation work needed to improve the structural integrity. The project is
aware of a fire many years ago,the damage caused and the repair work completed. Tierney
reached out to a third-party firm that substantiated the original concerns of significant
improvement and increase of the scope of work intended.
The structural integrity of the building requires full demolition. Tierney discusses the plumbing,
timber replacement, energy codes, and building codes. As a result, the team requests full building
demolition instead of renovation. In attempting to renovate the building there would be too many
replacements to the original woodwork and framing denigrating the historical significance of the
building. Thad Siemasko presents the new building design and site plan modification. A two-
story building to replace the 3-story building. Brock informs the Commission they would need to
replace 90% of the wood structure of the building in order to renovate.
Finch describes the facades, cornices, Italian immigrant history, flooring and storefront. Informs
members to please review email and attachments pertaining to the building, sent last minute. The
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 8
building does have an inventory form completed in 1993. This building does not qualify for
individual listing on the National Registry.
Recess for Public Hearing
2. Public Hearing: Demolition Delay Reviews #275 —Flint Properties - Demolition of a
building located at 350 Rantoul Street
Finch opens for Public Hearing at 7:27 pm. Wynne confirms there are no members of the public
present for comment. Hearing no public comments or concerns; Finch closes the Public Hearing
7:29 pm.
Reconvene Regular Meeting
3. Determinations: Demolition Delay Reviews #275 —Flint Properties - Demolition of a
building located at 350 Rantoul Street
Finch reminds members their responsibilities are to 1) determine if the property is significant to
the history of Beverly and 2) if the Commission determines the building is historically
significant, to then determine of the building is preferably preserved.
Finch asks for input from commissioners. Pearl does determine this building is historically
significant, especially in lieu of the Rantoul developments in recent years. Leahy determines this
building does maintain some historic features; and acknowledges the changes throughout the
years. Leahy expresses concerns that if this building were to be demolished, where is the line
drawn before all buildings of a similar type are razed. LaMont echoes the same sentiments of
Pearl; the building's unique history and location on a fast-changing streetscape. Finch comments
the store front was changed as of the 1970's and is not characteristic of the type of store front
originally. It is representative of the typical triple decker buildings dispersed up along Rantoul
streetscape. Finch's issue is that this is isolated at its current location among other present
structures and is not a National Registry caliber building in its own right. If the modern code
were applied to all the wood frame buildings present they would need to be razed. Finch notes
that the type of building they are trying to create out of the existing structure represents a use
change that will trigger current code updates to the building (roof codes/snow codes). Finch and
LaMont discuss the current wood frame buildings and how the modern codes affect them. Finch
believes this building is characteristic and reasonably stands out. Finch discusses the Victorian
features, upper facade, cornices, finishes, and sign bands. Commissioners are concerned; and
question how the development team could not have anticipated the extensive building damage
with the project history known. A structural review completed by TFM Structural Engineers
(2020), outlined the project needs as it related to renovation has been on file with the Planning
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
Department and suggests that the applicant knew of these significant challenges before the
building was vacated. The report noted the extensive fire damages and serves as a
comprehensive analysis of additional building code challenges to the project.
Brock discusses the original report where the finishes were removed. There were still tenants on
the first floor. Once the tenants were vacated, further review of interior structure and fire damage
were significantly more than originally thought. The extent of the damage was not known in the
original report.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Finch instructs the Commission to make a determination if the building is historically significant.
Finch experiences technical difficulties. Members decide to pause the meeting in order for Finch
to rejoin. Members decide they do not need a site visit. Finch rejoins the meeting. LaMont
informs Finch the group consensus determined a site visit was not necessary.
Motion: LaMont moves the Commission finds the building is determined to be historically
significant on the basis of the uniqueness to the 19th century period of industrialism, the
immigrant neighborhoods, and prevailing architecture at the time. Finch suggests an addition to
the motion that it is an important component of the 19th century streetscape. LaMont amends the
motion. Pearl seconds. The motion carries, 4-1. Howard dissents.
Determination: The building is determined to be historically significant.
Ms. Siemasko comments to the commission regarding how preserving the building relates
to the public interest. Reminds the commission the building will not be historically preserved
even if determined it is preferably preserved. There will not be much left of the building once
those structural repairs are made. Finch clarifies preserving the facade and storefront would be
more important as opposed to interior preservation. Pearl inquires 1) how this change in plan
affects the change in permits already secured; 2) during the long process to secure the permits,
what was the public interest or support for the project; and 3) if there was public support, it was
it related to preserving the historic building.
M. Siemasko discusses the public process. The project must go through the host community
agreement process and the selection process. The owner of the building at the time, Rick Alpern,
was active in the process and in general afe is quite active in the community. The Zoning Board
was more focused on the use, not the historic preservation. M. Siemasko informs the commission
the project voluntarily went to the Design Review Board seeking approval. M. Siemasko notes
the project will need to return to the Planning Board, Design Review Board, Parking and Traffic
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
Commission for site plan modification and review of special permit. M. Siemasko notes this
applicant did not undertake this consideration lightly to return to these boards for site review.
Rick Alpern requests permission to speak. Finch grants permission.
Alpern explains the community meeting process and feedback to the Commission. The
overwhelming response was that people were more curious about the specific proposed business
use as opposed to the history of the building. Two members of the public were vehemently
against legalized marijuana. There was not much focus on the historic preservation. There was
more focus on parking, safety, and business type. From a community stand point no one came to
the meeting to discuss the historic value. By way of explanation to those vehemently against
legalized marijuana, this process occurred before so many dispensaries were established.
Finch notes this is a background building and is not a major architectural landmark.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Motion: Pearl moves the building is determined to be preferably preserved as an example of the
19th century streetscape and unique survivor of that era. LaMont moves to amend the motion.
This is a building with historical ties to a notable Beverly family, the Fortunatos. Pearl accepts
amended motion. Lamont seconds the original motion. The motion fails, 2-3. Finch, Howard,
and Leahy dissent.
Determination: The building is not determined to be preferably preserved.
4. Review of Proiect for North Shore Community Baptist Church—1 Hart Street—
EBI Consulting o/b/o Dish Wireless
a. Installation of antenna and equipment modification atop existing bell tower/steeple
Finch updates the Commission on the modification and understands the changes occurring are
within the tower, not on the exterior. This is fairly straightforward review. Members determine
the project has no adverse effect on the property. Wynne will draft a letter in support of the
project.
5. Request for Letter of Support: Historic Tax Credit Application for 3 Essex Street,
Beverly, MA—Powers & Company for Monarch Companies
Wynne provides the updates and discusses the extension to file the tax credit due to missed
deadline and change in meeting times.
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
Kevin McMahon represents the project. Finch explains the commission is not approving the
project, debut they should consider if the project meets the secretary of interior standards and, if
so, moves the application forward. Finch notes, does the commission have major concerns about
the project. McMahon discusses the prior window replacements; in 1994 they were not of the
highest quality. The applicant would like to redo the windows for better quality. McMahon
confirms for Leahy there are no original windows to the building. Finch confirms they are not
doing any roof top changes to the addition, and recalls the shingles are asbestos slate. McMahon
confirms yes, and those will be retained. Per McMahon the changes are minimal including
repairs to the railing.
Motion: Leahy moves the Commission draft a letter of support for the project. Howard seconds.
Wynne asks if there is anything to attach to the motion that can be detailed in the letter. Finch
notes the building is an important community landmark. The motion carries 5-0.
6. Bass River Rezoning: Discussion and consideration of letter to Mayor
Wynne notes the letter is not time sensitive and can be moved to next month's meeting. Members
agree to review at the next regular meeting.
7. Neighborhood Conservation Districts Ordinance: Subcommittee report and
discussion
The commission will table to next month's meeting. Members request this is the first agenda
item for June's meeting.
8. Designate HDC representative to the Community Preservation Committee
Pearl describes the CPC position and gives up her representative position. LaMont expresses
interest.
Motion: Finch moves to nominate Suzanne LaMont as designated representative to the CPC.
Howard seconds. The motion carries 5-0.
9. Approval of minutes
a. January 26, 2022 Regular Meeting (amended)
Motion: Pearl moves to approve the amended minutes. Howard seconds. The motion carries 4-0-
1. Finch abstains. The motion carries.
Members will review and approve additional minutes at the June meeting.
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
b. March 30, 2022 Regular Meeting
C. April 7, 2022 (Bass River Rezoning Subcommittee Meeting)
d. April 14, 2022 Regular Meeting
e. April 27, 2022 (Bass River Rezoning Subcommittee Meeting)
f. April 27, 2022 (Neighborhood Conservation Districts Ordinance Subcommittee)
10. New/Other Business
a. Project Update: Restoration of the staircase between Gillis Park and Pleasant View
Beach
Finch provides the updates for the Commission and notes this is a contractor's review. Doig
presents the project to the commission. Finch is seeking details on the project scope, including
what specifically is to be done and how is it the work is to be monitored. Since this is a CPC
project, Finch wants to ensure the project meets Secretary of Interior Standards. Doig explains
the pandemic held up the project. He was not able to get in touch with the original masonry
company who bid and quoted the project. The second quote is not as specific as the first quote,
however; Doig assures commissioners the scope of project has not changed. The original quote is
from the Murray Masonry Corp., but Robert Tremblay of A&R Construction will be executing
the project. LaMont would like to have the specifics of the types of stones to be used by A& R
Construction. Members agrees this project needs design specifics. Pearl opines this project needs
more than just repair. As it is a CPC historic project, there is needs to be a clear defined scope of
work. Pearl applauds and understands the desire to get the project completed. Doig explains he
will defer the expertise to the Planning Department. Doig is ok with putting the project on hold
to have the design specifics correct and iterates he is looking for guidance on how to move
forward. Doig inquires if there are consultants to hire who can review the project and better
define the scope, including increasing the funding and making sure this is done to proper
preservation standards.
Wynne informs the commission the planning department does not have the resources available at
the moment. Wynne echoes LaMont's request for a detailed scope of work and list of projects the
mason has completed. Otherwise, the project will need to go out to bid.
b. Other discussion or action items related to Commission business, if any
Leahy informs the commission he is relocating to Wenham. The mayor's office is aware and
approved his continued membership on the HDC.
11. Adiournment
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
Motion: Leahy moves to adjourn. Howard seconds. The motion carries 5-0.
Meeting adjourned 8:59 pm. Next meeting scheduled 6/23/22.
1. Draft Review of the NDC Ordinance
Leahy confirms with Healey the two different versions of the draft. Members discuss the two
versions of the draft to resolve confusion on which one to vote and submit to the Planning Board
for next steps. Leahy iterates he did not think it appropriate to make changes on behalf of the
HDC in one version of the drafts presented. Pearl clarifies the difference between documents
while Healey reviews next steps to move the draft forward. Pearl confirms this version reflects
discussion from last meeting.
Members review comments from the Planning Director. Pearl notes it is important the
neighborhoods feel empowered to start the process themselves. Pearl does not want the
administrative process supplanted by authorities from other entities. Members agree there will be
levels of authorities and roles. Mason is in favor of voting on the current document as it knowing
it will pass onto other groups such as the Planning Department and Legal for their comments.
Mason notes the commission was charged with creating a draft. Mason advocates to vote on the
draft and continue moving forward. Finch suggests sending the draft to the Planning Department
first and let them send to Legal as they are the appropriate body to forward onto Legal.
2. Draft Vote and Next Steps
Motion: Pearl moves to finalize the document as the final draft of the NDC Ordinance and to
send the draft to the Planning Department. Mason seconds. The motion carries 5-0.
Pearl asks Healey who has the final say in the Ordinance and also inquires if there is an
Ordinance Committee. Healey discusses the procedure before it goes to City Council for final
approval. Members ask there to be a public hearing before the Ordinance is final.
Leahy suggests since there are two drafts including one from the Planning director,the
subcommittee can now get together and incorporate those comments. Healey advises not to
meet it would not be a productive use of time. The comments from Planning department can be
answered by Legal. Leahy withdraws his suggestion.
Sidebar:
Historic District Commission
May 26,2022 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
Finch observes through a Globe article the Boston City Council approved the architectural
conservation district of Roxbury's Highland Park district.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/05/metro/city-approves-architectural-conservation-
district-roxburys-hi hlg and-park/
Healey confirms RFQs for the Rantoul survey and the National Register for Lynch Park went
out. Finch asks Healey to contact the Building Inspector's Office to review the application for
the demolition request 62 Ober Street. Finch would like to see if this is a partial or full
demolition as part of the remodeling plans. Members would like to update the form to be specific
for what exactly will be demolished on the property. Pearl provides some history to the
architectural style of the home, suspecting that it might be a Royal Barry Wills (1895-1962)
house in the traditional Cape Cod style. Wills was an American author and architect who
mastered the Cape Code type house (1930-1950), a Colonial Revival incarnation. Healey will
email Historic Beverly for any additional information pertaining to 62 Ober Street.
LaMont asks if the 218 Cabot Street and 478 Rantoul will have demo hearings for the next
regular meeting July 28, 2022.
Healey asks members if they would like to continue remote meetings and members affirm.
1. Adiournment
Motion: Pearl moves to adjourn. LaMont seconds. The motion carries 5-0.
Meeting adjourned 8:59 pm. Regular meeting scheduled 7/28/22.