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.