Historic District Commission - 7 25 2018 - ApprovedCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Historic District Commission
DATE: July 25, 2018
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch - Chair, Suzanne LaMont - Vice Chair,
Caroline Mason, Wendy Pearl
OTHERS PRESENT: Emily Hutching - City of Beverly; Mr. Kennedy - 43
Front St.; Kyle Bryson - Renewal by Andersen; John
Bryson - Andersen Windows; Kathleen Corbett - 38
Front Street
RECORDER:
Travis Lovett
Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
Recess for Public Hearing
Finch closes regular meeting and opens recess for public hearing.
Application for Certificate of Appropriateness - 43 Front Street
Mr. John Kennedy, the property owner of 42 Front Street, stated that he wants to replace
three existing windows on the rear of the house (not visible from the front of the house)
with double pane windows. Mr. Kennedy stated that the weather has damaged the glass in
the windows, which affects the view out of the windows, and the windows are also drafty in
the winter even with storm windows and weather stripping. The applicant stated that
windows are visible from Water Street, but there are no residences but only cars driving
by. Additionally, the applicant noted that the windows are of a significant distance from
Water Street. The applicant stated the windows he intends to install are double -pane 6-
over-6 windows, and the concern is that double -pane windows may not be permitted. The
applicant noted that there are no written rules that specify what is permitted in the local
historic district, but stated that he was told at a previous meeting that double -pane
windows may not be permitted. (The meeting being referred to is the April 2018 regular
meeting of the HDC, when an informal discussion of the windows at 43 Front Street took
place.)
Kyle Bryson, a representative of contractor Renewal by Andersen, provided a sample of the
windows the applicant would like to install. Bryson said the windows are full divided light
windows, with the exterior made from a composite material. The grill, which would be on
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Pagel of 9
the exterior of the window, would be made of a composite and be white. The windows also
have a grill on the interior. Finch asked to review the sample grill and asked if the interior
profile would be the same as the exterior profile. Bryson confirmed that the profiles are the
same. Bryson stated that the windows have a sloped sill, and noted the differences
between the proposed windows and vinyl windows with regard to the sill. Bryson
provided a technical description of the proposed windows and how they would be
installed. Finch asked how the exterior grill would be applied. Bryson stated that there are
two ways: the first is clips that can sit in between the frame, and the second is double -sided
tape. Bryson noted that for the inside grill, there is an option for the owner to decide
whether to permanently attach the grill or be able to remove the grill. LaMont noted that at
the informal discussion of the windows, permanently applied grills had been discussed.
Bryson confirmed that the grills are able to be permanently applied. Finch asked about the
exterior casings for the sash, and Bryson stated that the exterior casings would not be
touched. Bryson demonstrated with the sample how the window would be installed with
the casings, and stated that the windows could be installed without removing the casings.
Bryson stated that the windows are custom made, and custom grills are able to be made.
Finch asked about whether a grill matching the profile of a traditional putty glazed muntin
could be made, and Bryson stated no. Finch asked whether the windows are paintable, and
Bryson said yes, the windows are paintable. Finch asked if the dimension from the side of
the casing to the glass the same as the existing window, or is it wider? Bryson stated the
dimension is the same as the existing windows. Finch asked him to show the window with
the grill applied.
Finch said he believed the existing windows were installed in the early 1970s when the
building was moved to its current location. Finch noted that the windows are standard
wood single - glazed windows to imitate the appearance of an original 6- over -6 19th- century
window. LaMont noted that at the informal discussion the contractor had noted that the
proposed windows had been approved in other 40C (local historic) districts, and asked for
additional information. Bryson stated that a list had been provided. Hutchings noted that
she had contacted four of the communities on the list: Salem, Swampscott, Newton, and
Cambridge. All emphasized that the windows had been approved, but the approvals were
very case - specific. In certain cases, windows may not have been visible from a public way,
and in other cases buildings may have been of an age where such windows are not
inappropriate. All the communities noted that such approvals should not be taken as a
valid reason to approve the proposed windows in separate cases. Hutchings stated that a
different type of approval (Certificate of Non - Applicability) is required for alterations or
improvements that are not visible from a public way. LaMont noted that the rear facade
(where the windows are to be replaced) is a very prominent facade, although the windows
are not the most visible ones on the building. Finch stated that although the building is set
back from the street, the windows are clearly visible. Bryson noted vinyl windows have
been installed on the first floor (which are not to be replaced), whereas the proposed
windows would be comprised of 40 percent wood. Finch stated that the windows remain a
synthetic material that is not entirely wood, and that the section with the vinyl windows
was entirely new rather than historic construction.
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Finch opened the floor to public comment, and first asked whether any members of the
public in favor of the proposal to come forward and speak.
Josh Bryson, also from Renewal by Andersen and son of Kyle Bryson, came forward.
Josh Bryson stated that he met with Mr. Kennedy and noted that aspects of the
window, such as mullions, could all be matched to look like what is currently
installed so not to change the look of the property.
Finch then opened the floor to members of the public either against the proposal or with
questions.
Kathleen Corbett of 38 Front Street asked if the sash or the frame is being replaced.
Kyle Bryson described that it would be a window going inside an existing window,
and the casings and interior would not be removed. Finch asked about the existing
balances on the existing window. Bryson noted the balances are attached to the
existing windows. Finch asked about the balances, and Bryson described the jamb
liners and sash, and how the proposed windows would fit. Bryson stated that only
the interior side stops would be removed to install the replacement windows.
Corbett asked if Andersen makes an all wood window with true divided lights.
Bryson stated that no, Andersen does not. Finch asked if Andersen makes windows
other than what is shown, and Bryson responded that they make a 400 series and
200 series, which is a wood window with a vinyl coating on the exterior. Andersen
also owns a company that makes all -vinyl windows (although Andersen does not
make those windows).
Corbett asked if it would be possible to reglaze the windows or replace the glass in
the existing windows to keep all -wood windows with true divided lights. Bryson
said that was possible, but the efficiency levels would not be changed. Corbett asked
about the efficiency of the wood windows with storms versus the proposed
windows. Bryson responded that a single -pane window with a storm does not have
the low -e coatings to retain heat. Finch noted that in the issue of energy efficiency,
the entire window assembly should be considered, not just the sash. Bryson
described the u- factor of the proposed windows versus the existing windows.
Kennedy noted that with the existing windows, the house is hot in the summer and
cold in the winter. The proposed windows would reduce that issue.
Finch stated that if one reglazed the sash with new glass, one could also replace the
balances with tighter balances. Corbett asked whether such an option would change
the profiles of the windows; Finch responded no.
Corbett stated that she had lived previously in the home at 43 Front Street, and has
lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years; she stated that maintaining a historic
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 9
home is expensive. Corbett stated that she would prefer to see a true divided light
in an all -wood window. Bryson asked if Corbett had installed the vinyl windows
when she lived at 43 Front Street. Corbett stated no, she had not, and although she
does not approve of the vinyl windows, she also understands that they are in a
modern portion of the home. Corbett states that when possible, historic features
should be replaced in kind.
LaMont asked if the idea of repairing the windows had been discussed at the
informal discussion, replacing the glass and the glazing. Kennedy stated that it
would not be worth it financially, and he is looking for energy efficiency. Kennedy
noted that the rear facade of the house is impacted heavily by the weather. Corbett
stated that the proposal is not to replace windows in new construction, and is not in
the spirit of a historic house.
Finch stated that the storm windows that are currently on the windows that are
proposed to be replaced are old and may be inefficient compared to high quality
new storm windows, and described the storm window /historic window
combination at his historic home that improves energy efficiency. Finch also stated
that there are windows from other companies that preservationists and window
restoration professionals consider appropriate, and could be glazed to have low -e
glass and sash. Interior storm windows and new jamb liners would also improve
efficiency. Bryson noted the additional cost of such actions which would still
include storm windows, and Finch responded that that is what is done in local
historic districts, and replacement sashes could be purchased at lower cost. Bryson
cited a recent case where another property owner with a historic home on the ocean
had restored the windows in a historically appropriate fashion; within two years the
property owner asked Renewal by Andersen to replace the windows.
Mason stated that ordinarily she would prefer replacement in kind, but the fact that
the windows are not original and that the visibility is limited due to the distance
from a public way, the case may be an exception if the grills are made permanent.
As there are no more questions or comments by the public, Finch closed the public hearing
and reopened the regular meeting of the Historic District Commission.
Determination for Certificate of Appropriateness - 43 Front Street
Finch asked for comments and questions from Commission members. Pearl stated that
although she agrees that the facade is secondary and distant from the street, she has
concerns about setting a precedent by allowing different window treatments and changing
the standard for property owners. Given that the district is small, Pearl emphasized that the
consistency in how determinations have been made is important; Pearl noted that although
the current windows are replacements, they are wood. Pearl asked Finch if there have
been other examples of similar situations. Mason interjected that she has read of scenarios
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 9
that when the cost of restoring windows is inordinately high, then replacing windows may
be acceptable. Mason also noted that allowing such windows in one case does not
necessarily require similar decisions on other cases, as proposals are reviewed on a case -
by -case basis. Finch noted that denying such windows, even on a case -by -case basis, would
become more difficult.
Finch said the Commission has not previously supported the use of synthetic materials for
windows on historic homes, although clad windows have been approved in the case of a
post -1970 house on a non - historic facade, as well as for the basement of 43 Front Street,
which is not the historic portion of the building. The basis for approving the non -wood
windows was that the portion of the structure was built in the 1970s and was not part of
the historic construction. Finch noted that other homeowners have applied for Certificates
of Appropriateness for the restoration of historic windows; a precedent has been
established that wood single - glazed windows are appropriate for historic buildings where
the windows are visible from a public way. Finch emphasized that synthetic windows have
been approved on historic homes in cases where the windows are not visible from a public
way, but windows that were visible from a public way remained wood and single - glazed.
LaMont stated that the cost of restoring the sashes should be established before the
Commission can know that the proposed replacement windows are the most cost - effective
option for window improvements; stated that consulting an expert may be necessary.
LaMont also stated that she has concerns with the windows not being wood, and that a
composite material with 40 percent wood still has different fibers and material, a different
texture, and is not historically appropriate. Bryson emphasized that wood windows that
are historically appropriate require significant cost and upkeep.
Finch stated that he made inquiries to establish how much a standard wood window would
cost. Without installation costs, the estimate was $200. Finch estimated that full
replacements with painted wood windows would cost approximately $500 each. Mason
asked about a historic house on Hale Street near St. John's Episcopal Church, and said that
she heard that the windows cost approximately $1500 each. Finch noted that that was
correct, but he is discussing the cost of standard production wood window replacements;
the windows on the home on Hale Street were specially designed with all new frames,
sashes, and storm windows, with the regular windows done in mahogany with frames to
match. Finch stated that that company (and others) can make very high quality
replacement windows from materials such as mahogany or Spanish cedar wood, but they
are expensive. Bryson stated that windows would still have to be custom windows, and
Finch responded that the dimensions would likely be standard. Bryson argued that the
current windows are Marvin double -hung windows, and one could not find the same size
window unless he /she went back to Marvin to get a replacement. A business such as
Brosco would have their own sizes that may not fit appropriately. Finch emphasized that
the point he was trying to make is that all the options have not been explored, and that the
windows to be replaced are not in terrible condition, but that have problems with the
condition of the glass and are relatively drafty compared to a modern double - glazed
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 9
window. Finch said there are questions we don't have answers to and he recommends
exploring other options further, such as considering new storm sash. Alternatively, Finch
noted that the windows are set back from the street and not as visible as the windows on
the front facade of the building.
Mason asked what the Commission had recommended to the property owner at the
informal discussion of the windows, and Finch noted that the matter of different options
for windows had been discussed. Bryson stated that a request had been made for a list of
other communities that had approved the windows, which had been provided. Pearl asked
how seeing other options and their respective costs would help the Commission reach a
decision. Kennedy stated that he feels that the cost of the project is his concern and not the
Commission's. Finch stated that the Commission is not requesting to know the cost of
other options, but that exploring other options would be wise, and that no evidence has
been provided that other options have been explored. In some cases, other commissions
have required window conservation experts to evaluate windows to determine whether
they are reasonably restorable or whether windows need to be replaced. Pearl said this
Commission should not be in the business of requiring homeowners to take on
unnecessarily expensive preservation projects, but that understanding the relative costs
associated with historically appropriate window improvements may be beneficial. Finch
stated that the windows do appear to be salvageable, although a more in -depth exploration
may find otherwise. The only way to receive the answer to such a question is to ask a
professional.
Mason stated that she does not believe this particular project requires such strict scrutiny,
and that given the distance of the windows from a public way and the quality and design of
the proposed replacements, the project looks reasonable. Pearl stated that a reason that
cost was brought into the discussion is that cost of repairing or restoring the existing
windows was one of the applicant's objections. LaMont stated that in this case, retaining
the wood is important. Finch noted that he has seen cases on Beacon Hill where applied
muntins that have either fallen off or been removed a few years after the installation. Pearl
said the discussion isn't a reflection on the quality of product being made, but that the
Commission's task is to preserve the character of the district. If the Commission has not
approved synthetic windows when the windows are both in historic buildings and visible
from a public way, a precedent has been set. Pearl stated that when she considers a case
she would like to be consistent and respect the past decisions of the Commission. Finch
stated that owning a house within a historic district comes with certain maintenance
obligations that property owners outside of a historic district would not likely pursue.
Finch stated that there are commissions that will allow double - glazed windows with
applied grills as long as the windows are wood. Finch stated that the other question that
may be asked is that if such a window is to be approved, what are the profiles of the
muntins: should they be of a certain profile, or, given the distance, do the profiles not
matter? LaMont stated that her opinion is that, given the distance, it doesn't matter. Mason
concurred. Finch stated that he raised such an issue because of precedence that may be set.
Pearl said that in the case of future replacements, she would be interested in seeing a
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 9
double - glazed wood window, still to be considered on a case -by -case basis. However, in
this case, Pearl stated she feels that the Commission should not break from the precedent
that has been set.
Finch said that one other observation he has made is that black screens tend to obscure the
window behind them; a half - screen may be a good option. Bryson described the options
that Renewal by Andersen provides, and Finch stated that he is simply making an
observation. Finch asked if the Commission is ready to entertain a motion.
Pearl motions to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the window choice because of the
lack of real wood and the mismatch of materials; the single glazed wood window in the
district has been the standard for windows on historic buildings that are visible from a public
way, and the proposed replacement does not contain enough wood to be a wood window.
LaMont seconds the motion. The motion carries 3 -1, with Mason voting against the motion.
Bryson asked if such windows would ever be allowed in a historic district. LaMont
emphasized that windows are reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Finch stated that if a
window is not visible from a public way, it is not subject to the purview of the Historic
District Commission. The Commission described scenarios that are and are not within the
purview of historic commissions, and emphasized that they cannot speak for other
commissions.
Community Preservation Plan Review
Pearl said she is now serving as Vice Chair of the Community Preservation Committee. The
group could also review this document in August or September if there are more urgent
matters, Pearl said. LaMont said they reviewed this plan a year ago. LaMont would add the
Briscoe School as a preservation priority. Mason said that the Mayor indicated that they
might not be able to protect the Briscoe School. Pearl said a preservation restriction could
create a one building historic district. Hutchings said amending an ordinance that already
exists to create a one - building historic district would be easier than creating and passing a
new ordinance to establish a historic landmark. Pearl said the ordinances would be local
and would not involve the National Register. Pearl asked if they would want to contact the
Mayor with concerns about protecting the building. Finch said he doesn't know what the
interior of the school is like. Mason said the building is very different and beautiful. Finch
said the preservation restriction could cover multiple aspects of protection for the building.
Hutchings said it would be best to have a discussion with the Mayor and that whatever
happens would need the administration's support. Finch said windows become a major
issue when it comes to tax credits. Pearl said if a preservation restriction is on the
property, the purchase cost may be less to a potential developer. Part of the role of this
Commission is representing the public interest in the historic districts and areas in this city,
Pearl said. Pearl said the Mayor wants to preserve the building and the Commission should
set up a meeting with the Mayor to talk about how they can make the project work. Finch
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 9
said the McKay School was sold without any kind of preservation restriction placed on the
project.
Retrofitting Briscoe Middle School as the police station to meet homeland security rules
would be an astronomical cost, LaMont said. Pearl said that no more than two committee
members could be present with the Mayor without it being organized as a public meeting.
Pearl said if there are bricks and mortar projects, preservation restrictions should be
applied to the property. Pearl said projects are sometimes phased for community
preservation to better utilize the funds and to protect the public investment. Finch said he
felt like the plan was decent and that there were very minor wording changes he would
suggest. He said he would read the plan again and provide Pearl with updates. Pearl asks
for Commission members to provide comments by the end of August.
Lynch Park Carriage House Conditions and Treatment Plan
It is part of the CPC agreement that the Historic District Commission reviews this document
to ensure that it meets conditions. The document for the Lynch Park Carriage House is
200+ pages. The document was reviewed by Commission members, focusing on
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards.
Pearl moves to write a letter to the Community Preservation Committee that the Carriage
House document meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. LaMont seconds the motion.
The motion carries 4 -0.
GAR Hall - Review of Design and Construction Documents
Clapboards on the GAR Hall property date back to 1905. Wholesale clapboard replacement
is being debated. The price to redo the steps was about $40,000. Finch said the debate was
whether to recast the stairs with cement or cap them with granite or some other materials.
Hutchings said the stairs are a cost decision and the differential is about $15,000. For the
GAR Hall, Hutchings said the concerns were about making sure we comply with Secretary
of the Interior Standards. Massachusetts Historical Commission would not recommend
GAR Hall for individual eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, but would
recommend the building as part of a district. Pearl said she isn't sure that an investment in
the paint analysis for GAR Hall would get much return on investment. Finch said one of the
values of paint analysis is that it prevents further debate. LaMont said the GAR Hall is a
community building and would like to see community input.
Design Guidelines
Design guidelines are tabled for future discussion. Finch said the Swampscott Historic
District design guidelines should be different than our guidelines. Their attitude toward
synthetic materials is different than Beverly's guidelines, Finch said. There needs to be a
significant section on windows in the design guidelines, Finch said.
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Minutes Review Tabling
Finch motions to table the approval of minutes. LaMont seconds the motion. The motion
carries 4 -0.
Powder House Update
The Powder House nomination should be eligible for a MPPF grant next spring. Finch
asked about construction updates. Hutchings said it depends on the decision regarding
MPPF grant funding. Pearl said if MPPF grant funding comes through, construction would
likely begin in Fall 2019.
Historic Resource Survey Update
There are questions about the dates for a start -up meeting to review the historic resources
survey update. The garden located at 4 Prince Street is in question as 4 Prince Street is not
currently a valid address and Hutchings was wondering if anyone did research on this
property. Pearl said they should convene a start -up meeting. LaMont said she would be
willing to participate in a start -up meeting again. Hutchings said the meeting would
establish what is needed from the city. Mason said she would be willing to participate as
well.
Adjournment
Finch motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 pm. Pearl seconds the motion. The motion
carries 4 -0. The next Historic District Commission meeting will be held in Beverly City Hall
on October 24, 2018 at 7:00 pm.
Historic District Commission
July 25, 2018 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 9