Loading...
2002-10-02Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 1 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission TOPIC: DATE: October 2, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch (Chairman), John Condon, James Younger, John Frates, Matthew Lewis BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi (Asst. Planning Director) RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (tape) Chairman William Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Finch explains the hearing process to members of the public. Certificate of Appropriateness Dana Hartnett - 7 Front Street - replace fence Finch states the application and photographs are available for review at his desk. Nobody is present representing the Hartnett’s in this matter, by their choice and they would like the Commission to proceed without them. Finch briefly presents the application to the members of the Commission and members of the public. On the Front Street side of the property, for a long period of time, there has been a temporary plastic fence and a substantial drop on the side of the property. There was once a stockade fence on the edge of the property at the sidewalk level, which was taken down approximately eight to nine years ago in order to repair a retaining wall. There has not been a fence since then. The owner currently has a Certificate of Appropriateness to erect a metal picket fence, 4 feet high on this location but he prefers to erect a wood stockade fence, like the one on the lower boundary of the property on Water Street. The proposed fence would be 6 feet high with sections. Finch asks if any members of the public have any questions. Heather Pike, 16 Front Street, states she thinks 6 feet is a bit high and she is concerned that the height of the fence might change how the street “feels” and that it would block water views. Chris Griswald, 52 Water Street, expresses concern about the height of the fence and views from Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 2 Water Street looking north. Buster Pike of 16 Front Street states that he has a 2-year old child and a fence is needed for safety. Finch closes the public comment period of the application and asks members of the Historic Commission for their comments. There is discussion regarding the height of the previous fence. Finch states the fence that was there eight years ago was a simple six-foot stockade fence. Frates states that he thinks the four-foot fence would be nicer and it would enable people to see the water. Finch states he thinks in terms of appropriateness, a fence with articulated posts between sections is far more traditional and appropriate than a fence with a singular straight line of cedar stockade fence. Frates asks the abutters if they hear noise from the boatyard. Heather Pike, 16 Front Street, responds she can hear noise from the boatyard but she does not mind. Finch states he shares the concern that a four-foot fence would be more attractive than a six-foot fence and perhaps more so from a point of a view of people looking from Water Street north. There is a long history with the situation of the fence and difficulties reaching an agreement with this owner and we would like to move it along. He suggests giving approval for what the owner would like, but stating that the Commission would prefer to see it with posts on a regular basis and also prefer a four or five foot height. Younger: Motion toapprove a 6-foot tall wood cedar stockade fence along the Front Street boundary of the property. The Commission recommends, at the applicant’s discretion, that the wood cedar stockade fence have posts articulated with ball caps set on molded post caps that appear at even intervals and that the fence be 4 feet in height. They may construct this fence without requesting another Certificate of Appropriateness. Seconded by Lewis. Motion carried 5-0. Public Hearing – Demolition – 5 Elm Top Lane Finch states the public hearing is under the City’s Demolition Delay Bylaw for the demolition of property at 5 Elm Top Lane. There are two decisions to make. If the Commission makes the decision that the building is not historically significant, the Commission does not consider the question of preferably preserved. If the Commission determines that the building is historically significant to the City of Beverly under the terms of the ordinance and that it is also preferably preserved due to its historic characteristics, then the building inspector does not issue a permit for demolition for up to six months unless he receives a further notice from the Commission that it Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 3 has reduced the time period under the ordinance in terms of review and mitigation of the proposed demolition. Finch states the Commission has already made the determination that the building might be historically significant. The building was constructed in 1879 for a Charles E. Elliott and has been added to somewhat over the years. Finch opens the public hearing and asks the owner/applicant to explain what he is proposing to do. Michael Hubbard states he believes there was inappropriate advertising for this hearing. Finch responds that it is his understanding that there has been inappropriate language in the advertisement that could lead to a challenge of the Commission’s decision and it would be in the best interest of everyone to continue the hearing to a meeting, which has been properly advertised under the ordinance so that there will be no challenges. In order to do that, the application must concur with the waiver of the time limits involved in the ordinance. The applicant concurs. An abutter asks why this matter can’t proceed tonight if everyone is present for the public hearing. Assistant City Solicitor Bob Munroe responds that the problem is that there is no way to determine how many people are not present at the hearing because they read the notice and the cited section of the ordinance and determined that they would not attend because of that. Anyone could appeal the decision of the Commission because of the defective notice. The appropriate notice should be posted so that the people who need to be present are able to attend. He recommends suspending the hearing until the next meeting. Younger: motion to continue the public hearing on this application until the next public hearing on Monday, October 21, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., subject to the petitioner’s signing a waiver of the time requirements. Lewis seconds. Motion carries 5-0. Finch apologizes for the inconvenience. He states the ordinance requires the Historic District Commission to hold a public hearing in order to make two determinations. First, whether the building is historically significant to the City of Beverly under the terms defined in the ordinance. Secondly, if it is historically significant, to make the finding and make a second determination as to whether or not the building is preferably preserved as defined in the ordinance. If the Commission makes the findings that the building is significant and that it is preferably preserved, that then triggers a procedural postponement of the issuance of a demolition permit to the owner by the building commissioner for six months or less, if, for some reason, the Commission determines that the time period should be less. At the end of the six months, the owner of the building has the right to go to the building inspector and receive the permit to which he has applied already for. This whole process is triggered by the application of an owner for a demolition permit. The content of the hearing and decision making is based essentially on criteria of historical significance both in terms of architecture, personal associations of historical people, events, etc. that are associated with the building or the property. They are not made on other criteria that may be of concern to abutters. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 4 Finch states it is fairly routine, when there is a Purchase and Sale Agreement, for an owner of a property to file for a demolition permit on behalf of the buyer or for a buyer, who is under Purchase and Sale, to file for the permit with some kind of cosigning or letter from the seller acknowledging that he is fully aware of that application. An abutter asks when the clock starts. Finch responds that the clock starts when an owner files for an application for a demolition permit and the building inspector forwards to the Planning Department a form stating that the application has been filed. The Historic District Commission then has ten days to receive and make the first set of decisions. st An abutter asks if the applicant comes back on October 21 then the process could take until some time in March before anything could be done to the property. Finch responds that it is his understanding that nothing can be done as far as the activities related to the demolition permit. Any activities requiring a demolition permit that take place before the expiration of the six months and the actual issuance of the permit would be a violation of the City’s demolition permitting process. An abutter asks what the consequences are for violating the demolition permitting process. Finch responds that he cannot answer specifically. He states the consequences under the City’s own specific ordinance are fairly light, in terms of the Commission’s ability to issue fines but he believes it is a violation of the City’s building code and that would presumably trigger some more significant repercussions as have been the case in a property on Lothrop Street. The bottom line is the punitive aspects of this ordinance fall back on the building inspector’s department and the punitive measures or enforcement measures that are in place with the City’s ordinance relative to infringements and enforcement of the building code. An abutter asks who owns the property. Michael Hubbard responds that he owns the property. Finch states that all members of the public are welcome to visit the Planning Department or the City Clerk’s office to review the ordinance or get a copy of it. He states the Commission is in the process of proposing some changes to the ordinance that would put in some of the enforcement measures. Finch states that in cases where the Commission determines that a property is preferably preserved, if the applicant comes forward at any point in the six month period with a proposal and plan to mitigate the issue of demolition that the Commission was concerned with, and that the Commission feels does in fact mitigate the demolition, the Commission has the right, by vote of the Commission, to end the delay period. The intent of the ordinance is to try and inform owners of historic properties of the value of their properties and to try to find some time for other solutions. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 5 Approval of Minutes Condon moves to approve the minutes dated July 18, 2002 as written, seconded by Younger. All members in favor. Motion carries. New/Other Business Historic District Ordinance Amendments Finch states there are two different items for discussion. One is the amendment to the Historic District Ordinance under Chapter 40C. Item 1 Will take out the paint color requirement. Item 2 Change the phrase that the Commission has “7 members and 3 alternates” to “not less than 5 and not more than 7. Item 3 Delete the word “aluminum siding” so that the Commission is not making exceptions for aluminum siding. Item 4 Delete the phrase “to be determined by charts used by Williamsburg, Virginia, Historic District.” Finch states his feeling is that the likelihood that people are going to willfully paint their houses extremely unattractive colors is pretty small. Condon moves to accept the amendments to the Historic District Ordinance, seconded by Lewis. All members in favor. Motion carries. Proposed Changes to the Demolition Delay Ordinance Finch states Zambernardi has provided a summary of what various communities do on this topic. The first item up for discussion is increasing the six month period to twelve months, which is something that only five other communities in the Commonwealth have. Finch states one thing that is important to note is that in order to enforce punitive measures, there must be a lot of support for the ordinance in the community. Finch states a large part of the problem stems from the City’s zoning in which we have a lot of substantial and architecturally significant houses on large lots in areas that have been rezoned to allow very small lots, which gives tremendous incentive for people to tear the houses down. Right now there are no real meaningful enforcement measures. Frates asks who ultimately approves this. Finch states it has to go to City Council. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 6 Zambernardi states there are other alternatives to increasing the delay period which are provided in the handout of possible amendments. She summarizes them. Finch states there is a property in Beverly Farms that has been going through a renovation. It is essentially demolition without a demolition permit. Nobody blew the whistle and inspectors allowed it to be done. He states that was pretty blatant in his mind. Finch states there is one caution that he would like to provide. He states in his short conversation with Bob Munroe, he was raising the question of the validity of the ordinance relative to the authority of the building inspector. That is something that has been raised over and over again in various communities and it has been thrown out all the time it has been raised, the concept that the demolition ordinance is taking authority from the building inspector and giving the authority to another board in the City (Historic District Commission). When the ordinance first started getting passed about ten to twelve years ago, there were some legal challenges. There is at least one member of the City Solicitor’s office who is not terribly friendly to some of this. Finch states the question is whether there would be support in the City for a twelve month delay and it would be nice to get some idea whether the Commission has support. There is discussion regarding the time six month delay period for demolition. Finch recommends that the Commission speak with Peter Gilmore for some clarity on this topic. The Commission also recommends that Zambernardi look to further clarify the language of part e. of the handout. Signatory Authority Finch states that currently under the demolition delay ordinance, he has administrative authority to make a decision, without consulting the other members as to whether or not a building is not historically significant or that it might be historically significant and move it to the next step. The sign off would enable Leah Zambernardi to sign the forms without Finch having to sign, or to sign Certificates of Appropriateness. Condon states that is putting a lot of responsibility on Ms. Zambernardi. Finch responds that it is only giving Zambernardi the authority to sign his name when he says it is ok to do so. He does not think Zambernardi is taking any risks. Finch asks if the Commission wants to give Zambernardi the authority to make the decisions regarding the 10 days without the involvement of the Commission members? Younger moves to give signatory authority to Leah Zambernardi, the Assistant Planning Director, seconded by Frates. All members in favor. Motion carries. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes October 2, 2002 Page 7 Discussion on Meeting Days Younger states he has a time conflict with Thursday meetings. The members concur that Tuesdays are the best days for meetings. Adjournment Frates moves to adjourn, seconded by Lewis. All members in favor. Motion carries.