HDC Minutes 9-24-20CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION Historic District Commission
DATE: September 24, 2020
LOCATION: Google Meet
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Chair; Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair;
Caroline Mason, Wendy Pearl
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Emily Hutchings (Planning Department, City of Beverly)
RECORDER:
Jodi Byrne
1.Call to Order
Chair William Finch calls the September 24, 2020 meeting of the HDC to order at 7:00 pm and
reads a prepared statement introducing the meeting, the authority to hold a remote meeting,
public access and public participation, and meeting ground rules. He 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.Application for Determination of Historic Significance
David Perinchief
David Perinchief from the Beverly Veterans Department
Cemetery project. He says that he will work with Emily Hutchings to conform to the Community
Preservation Act (CPA) requirements in the category of Historic Preservation. He says that the
CPA grant requires the project to either qualify as historically significant, as designated by the
Historic District Commission, or to be listed on the Historic Registry. Chair Finch states that this
background and eligibility for seeking funds will be determined at the next CPA funding round,
significant.
Hutchings notes that the project aligns with the draft Historic Preservation Plan, and that it
encourages the protection of landscapes, particularly historic landscapes including cemeteries.
Chair Finch says that this project falls within the requirements of a property or landscape that is
important to the history of Beverly. Suzie LaMont requests details on the extent of the
ϭ
restoration, and Perinchief reports that the initial plan is to restore everything from the ground
up. He says that the grounds are in need of maintenance, and that tree life that is overgrowing
headstones must be trimmed back. Perinchief also reports heavy biologic growth on many stones
which will need to be removed by hand. He says that work also includes the need to straighten
and level all of the existing stones. Perinchief says that he will request a CPA grant for ground
penetrating radar (GPR) equipment, as stones have sunken into the ground at approximately 10
cm. per year, over a 200-300 year period. He says if they assess the area with GPR, original
stones and burial sites can be determined. Perinchief adds that they want to digitize maps and
utilize local contractors for tree maintenance. He reports that three headstones were almost
crushed by trees during the last storm. He also states that this project can set the tone for the rest
of the historic cemeteries as it is small enough to control and people will see the progression
rapidly. Chair Finch reminds Perinchief of the application process with specifics to the work and
methodologies that will be required for a full CPA grant application.
Ken McKay, also from the Beverly Veterans Department, reports that in 1941 the cemetery listed
187 names, yet records from 1850 show 47 more names with no stones to be found, indicating
that the current records are incorrect.
Pearl states that the significance of this project is clear cut as the site is eligible to be listed on the
National Register. She commends the project, stating that a cemetery is much more than just the
stones. Pearl requests that the character of any intentional landscape be researched and respected.
CPA grant, and that this requires research. Pearl also suggests that the project continue outside of
the known cemetery borders with respect to the marginalized public who were sometimes buried
outside of the cemetery perimeter.
LaMont: Motions that the Commission find to be historically
significant on the basis of its early history, including notable and prominent
families and citizens of Beverly such as the Dodge family, and for its well-
preserved and distinctive space. Pearl seconds the motion. There is a formal roll
call vote with all members voting yes:William Finch, Chair; Suzanne LaMont,
Vice Chair; Caroline Mason, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (4-0).
Hutchings reports that she will finish the official form and send it to both Perinchief and Denise
Deschamps, who staffs the Community Preservation Committee. Perinchief welcomes the HDC
to visit the site. Pearl says that there are some historic aerial photographs (historic aerials
website) that may prove helpful.
2.Request for Discussion New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid N192
Cabot Relocation/Beverly Regional Transmission Reliability Project, Salem and
Beverly, MA. MHC #RC.65410 The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
Chair Finch reports that the HDC received a letter explaining the implications for the preliminary
investigation, indicating that National Grid desires to proceed with the level of protection that
they originally requested.
Andrew Cole of National Grid gives a brief overview of this project. He reports that it is
currently in the planning phases and that they have been working in coordination with Beverly
since 2018. He introduces both Gregory Dubell and Suzanne Cherau from the Public
Ϯ
Archaeology Laboratory, who are completing the assessment of potential impacts on, and
appropriate treatments for, historic sites.
Dubell is the project manager overseeing this job which requires both federal and state
approvals. Dubell reports that the Army Corps has a specific permit area identified at the river
crossing going from Salem to Beverly. He says that in 2018, there were concerns brought to
National Grid regarding an earlier route where a water line was running. Because of this, Dubell
reports that National Grid shifted the line and ordered an archaeological survey based on this
urban route. He introduces Suzanne Cherau, who since 2018, has consulted with the local
historic commissions and local native tribes.
Cherau reports that they performed extensive research in order to identify that this area (near
Monument Square and Hale Street) passed very close to ancient burial grounds. She says that the
sensitive area is located underneath the pavement, and that soil samples show fill deposits as
there are existing utilities in the area. Cherau says that National Grid will go primarily
underneath the utilities, monitoring all construction work with protocols in place. She reports
that these protocols include an immediate stoppage of work if any artifacts are found. Cherau
adds that there are unmarked burial laws that govern what happens if human remains are found.
She says that the methodology includes an archaeologist who will be present alongside the
construction crew, and that each bucket that is extracted will receive close inspection. Cherau
says that this process will be described in a proposal that will be submitted to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission as a part of the permit application package, and that the HDC will be
copied on this methodology narrative. Cherau reports that this is a methodology that is tried and
true and used all the time, and that the Massachusetts Historical Commission is 100% supportive.
Cherau says that this plan will provide a great level of protection with no compromising of
integrity or protocol.
Pearl says that monitoring sounds like it only happens if something is seen and the project
stopped. She says that she is uncomfortable with this as burials have been found in that area and
asks if there is a post review discovery plan.
because in this plan an archaeologist is present. She says that because they expect to see mixed
soil and perhaps artifacts, they will be keeping a close eye out for any materials, and if they see
anything that resembles a burial area everything will stop. Cherau reports that protocols and
safeguards are in place, and that they are present on the site if anything needs review. She reports
that if something is found, it will be discussed with the Massachusetts Historical Commission
and the native tribes. She also says that this monitoring does not preclude an excavation form
happening if remains are found. Dubell says that National Grid is sensitive to cultural resources,
and that this stretch of the project may be done in the beginning stages so that if something is
found there would be adequate time for a consultation.
Pearl asks of the difference between Waite Street and Monument Square. Cherau says that the
area at Waite Street hosts no other materials or utilities, promoting a risk for problems such as
gas lines. Chair Finch asks how they install underneath utilities without damaging them, and
Dubell answers that both shoring and trench boxes work as they are sometimes 10 feet deep and
often dug by hand.
ϯ
LaMont says that she appreciates this report on the methodology and an explanation of what will
happen if artifacts are found as this was not apparent in the previous information given to the
HDC. She adds that she appreciates having an archeologist on site and the established protocols.
Andrew Cole adds that National Grid provides environmental training to all contractors.
Mason says that while she originally had c
alternative.
Hutchings says that the HDC can motion to amend the letter that was sent or to amend the
recommendations to the Massachusetts Historical Commission reporting that they are
comfortable with what is being proposed.
Pearl: Moves that the HDC prepare a letter to recognize that the presentation made tonight has
provided additional information that has changed our view of the project, and that the
HDC now accepts monitoring as an acceptable treatment for the Monument Square Area.
The motion includes an amendment that the HDC concurs with the Massachusetts
There
is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes:William Finch, Chair; Suzanne
LaMont, Vice Chair; Caroline Mason, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (4-0).
Dubell says he will copy Hutchings and the HDC on the proposal sent to the Massachusetts
Historic Commission.
3.Discussion Considerations for Small Preservation Projects Grant Program via
CPC
Hutchings says that she submitted an updated outline for HDC review. Pearl asks for
would be allowed.
Hutchings says that this description addresses recommendation #4 on gap funding as a way to
support affordable rehabilitation that is historically appropriate. Hutchings adds that this
consideration is to provide a streamlined process for smaller projects, and that larger project
applicants may find it best to pursue the full amount. Chair Finch provides the example of a roof
replacement project, using wood shingle to restore the roof to its historic appearance, rather than
using more affordable, non-historic materials. Hutchings says that if the funding is $15k or more,
that a preservation restriction will be required, and that this number can be changed as it is a
baseline. Hutchings adds that in condition #4, it reads that the actual funding is the gap between
what the applicant wants to do and the actual historical cost, with the intention of the CPC grant
funding historically appropriate treatment.
There is a brief discussion on the validity of project cost estimates, and it is suggested that
applicants be required to show multiple cost estimates at the request of the CPC. Pearl adds that
the CPC has an administrative fund allotment to hire a consultant as a part of due diligence to
determine accurate numbers.
It is clarified that this is a proposal from the HDC to the CPC providing a framework that may
work if the CPC chooses to fund projects like this, and that is a good example of the HDC acting
as a Historic Commission. It is also stated that this could be considered as an affordable housing
ϰ
asset as someone with a lower income could apply for an attractive treatment that they could
otherwise not afford.
Hutchings says that they could present this to the City Solicitor's office and the Planning
Department to see if there are any concerns. If so, she will bring these concerns back to the HDC
to discuss and possibly amend. Once completed, Hutchings says it can then be presented to the
CPC.
4.Historic Preservation Plan Review draft recommendations, prioritization
Hutchings invites the HDC to share thoughts on the public forum and to discuss the prioritization
of the proposed recommendations for the Historic Preservation Plan. She reports that 24
members from the public attended this public forum and that the issue of affordable housing was
the most-discussed concern. She states that feedback indicated that there is a concern that
improving historic homes could push people out through gentrification. She reports that a small
focus group met regarding how to maintain equity, affordability, and under-represented groups,
and that their input is being integrated into the recommendations for the plan.
The HDC discusses prioritization of the draft recommendations and suggests a priority based
upon impending issues such as at-risk properties or areas and projects that would benefit at-risk
properties. Mason suggests that the HDC consider becoming a certified local government, and
Chair Finch says that while becoming a certified local government is a rather simple process,
other items in the recommendations require extensive man hours and education. He says that
community education and outreach is key, and it is suggested that the museum signage that was
sent to Hutchings be an example of how to educate people on the history of Beverly.
Pearl states that her priorities are for the downtown local historic district to protect Cabot Street
and to develop guidelines for different areas. She says that information should be provided up
front regarding regulated areas, including certain proactive options that show preservation in a
new way to homeowners.
Chair Finch says that conservation districts are important, as are guidelines that promote good
practices. He says that guidance could be provided in books or booklets and cites the Cambridge
model which includes both drawings and listings that promote community education and
regulatory information.
Mason reports that some important historic properties are not protected at all, and Pearl asks
what triggers a review under the Landmark Ordinance. The Commission has a brief discussion
on landmarking as a tool to possibly use as a way to better connect places or areas. Hutchings
reports that a place can be landmarked as a single-property local historic district under M.G.L.
40C, but nominally landmarking requires a separate type of ordinance that would require
separate adoption by the City.
Chair Finch says that the threat of demolition by neglect is important, and that the HDC needs to
provide local guidance. Pearl refers to an ordinance in Lowell that requires minimum
maintenance guidelines for homeowners, where they can receive a citation and be fined if they
do not meet these guidelines. He says he would like to see more practical guidance.
Hutchings states that she will relay the to consultant Peter
Benton of Heritage Strategies. She asks Commission members to contact her if they see anything
ϱ
else in the plan that needs revision. She says that the section on how to protect investment and
private property is being reviewed, and the section on ordinances is also being amended. The
Commission then discusses areas in which a historic district would benefit, and historic road
corridors that can be treated as conservation districts.
5.Approval of minutes
a.August 27, 2020
The minutes are discussed and amended as needed. LaMont motions to accept the minutes as
amended. Pearl seconds. There is a formal roll call vote with all members voting yes:William
Finch, Chair; Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair; Caroline Mason, and Wendy Pearl. The motion
passes (4-0).
6.New/Other Business
a.Other discussion or action items related to Commission business, if any
There is a discussion about the timing of new HDC member additions. Hutchings reports that she
is continuing to impress the need for haste with the Mayor, and that she is working to
set up meetings with prospective members. She reports that there is also a need for Conservation
Committee members, with the Mayor needing to meet and appoint these positions as well.
Pearl confirms that City staff has returned to City Hall. Hutchings reports that the first floor is
open to the public with two people at the front desk and six members from the public permitted
access at one time. Hutchings says that for staff whose offices are housed on the second and third
floors, meetings must be scheduled, and that any meetings with individual members of the public
are typically held outdoors. She states that no committees or boards staffed by the Planning
Department are meeting in person and that there are no in-person public meetings.
Chair Finch requests an update on the hiring of an Associate City Planner. Hutchings reports that
the position is not yet filled, and that it was reposted on the City website. The new Associate
Planner would likely staff and sit on the Design Review Board, but Hutchings will likely remain
the staff Planner for the HDC.
Pearl reports that the scheduled CPC public hearing will be virtual. She says that this year they
will invite previous grant recipients to talk about their projects, providing clear examples for new
applicants. She adds that the public hearing will be followed by a grant proposal workshop.
Hutchings notes that preservation awards are delayed by the Massachusetts Historic Commission
due to the pandemic.
Adjournment
Pearl motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 pm. Mason seconds the motion. There is a formal
roll call vote with all members voting yes:William Finch, Chair; Suzanne LaMont, Vice Chair;
Caroline Mason, and Wendy Pearl. The motion passes (4-0).
ϲ