Loading...
2002-10-21Historic District Commission Public Meeting Minutes October 21, 2002 Page 1 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Monday, October 21, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Matt Lewis, James Younger, John Condon, John Frates BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Cheryl Lamont Mr. Finch, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Demolition of dwelling at 5 Elmtop Lane. Determination as to whether the structure is historically significant and if it is preferably preserved Chairman Finch explains that he is reconvening a public hearing that was started at the previous meeting and will be hearing comments on the historic significance or lack of significance of the property in question relative to its historic value to the community and also whether or not there is public benefit to the community in preserving the building under the statute relative to a potential finding that the building is “preferable preserved” which finding would institute a six-month delay on the issuance of the requested demolition permit. He further states that following the hearing they will take up that matter in order to make two findings. They will determine whether or not the building is historically significant, and if it is historically significant, whether the building merits being determined to be “preferably preserved”. Chairman Finch also explains that if the property is found to be “preferably preserved”, the Commission also has the right, at the request of the applicant, to re-examine the situation should the applicant present plans that he feels mitigate the problems of demolition sufficiently for the Commission to lift the delay. The basic intention of the delay period is to try and make it possible for the owner of the property and other concerned citizens who are concerned about preservation of the property to reach some kind of a compromise solution that would result in preserving the building in question. Historic District Commission Public Meeting Minutes October 21, 2002 Page 2 Chairman Finch states that they have a certain amount of information on the building, including the fact that it was constructed in 1879 for Charles Elliott as a summer home as well as other properties along that stretch of waterfront. It then became a year-round occupancy and has had various alterations done to it. Chairman Finch begins to read a letter from abutter/neighbor into record. Ms. Zambernardi continues reading this letter into record written by Walter J. Reilly III of 4 Elmtop Lane. Chairman Finch asks the applicants if they would like to present their proposal in terms of the reasons for demolition. Chairman Finch explains that the Board’s decision is made based on the historical significance of the existing property and not what is proposed. Michael Hubbard, one of the property owners, along with his brother Robert, spoke and stated that they purchased the property and after carefully looking at the construction and the fact that is was originally built as a summer home, found that the wiring is in need of renovations, as well as the plumbing, the basement, the windows are single pane, the stucco exterior is a difficult material to work with and the general layout of the house is not by today’s standards and they have determined they would like to tear the house down. The owners are working on a plan of what would replace this property and are not prepared to discuss their plans. When their plans are finalized, they have no problem in sitting down and discussing them with the neighbors but in their opinion it is time to take this property down. Robert Hubbard states that they will be taking down this property and he does not see any alternatives on the owner’s part. They are prepared to wait the six-month delay period. He also states that if anyone would like to have the house and move it they could. Chairman Finch then asks people who are in favor of determining significance to speak. Walter J. Reilly, III of 4 Elmtop Lane, states that he is the author of the letter read into record and was going to summarize it but since the entire letter was read it seemed to say everything they wanted to say. He then added that 5 Elmtop Lane is a house with a lot of history and many think it is a unique estate home with many distinctive features. He states that demolition would not make the property or the surrounding properties more attractive or desirable. He and the neighbors/abutters are united and firm that a subdivision would be a serious mistake for the neighborhood. Charles Harris, 9 Ober Street, asks that the members of the Board identify themselves. Board Members identify themselves. Mr. Harris asks if according to the policy of the City of Beverly regarding demolition, that if the Commission rules to delay the demolition and the owners decide they want to proceed with demolition regardless, what are the consequences for the owners as far as the current laws that exist under the Historic Commission and Zoning. Historic District Commission Public Meeting Minutes October 21, 2002 Page 3 Chairman Finch replies that should the owners proceed with demolition after that finding is made, the ordinance, as it currently stands, is limited to a one-time penalty of three hundred ($300.00) dollars. He states that this would also be a violation of the building code and there are other consequences involved. Ms. Zambernardi reads a letter into record addressed to Janet Levy from Coldwell Banker/Hunneman, dated December 8, 2001. Leonard Levy, 12 Ober Street, asks if the Building Inspector could give the owners a permit for one house or for more than one. Chairman Finch replies that the only permit at issue is the demolition permit for the existing building. Alice Harris, 9 Ober Street, asks if there is a possibility that at tonight’s meeting it would be declared as historical property. Chairman Finch replies that the process of historical designation is quite lengthy and requires a study and many public meetings. The Board will make rulings on the two matters before them tonight only. Chairman Finch then asks if there are anymore comments on the proposed demolition of the site. There are no more comments. Chairman Finch asks if there are any comments in favor of demolition. There are no comments. Chairman Finch then closes the public hearing and reconvenes the regular meeting. He then asks for comments from board members on the merits of declaring the property to be historically significant. Younger states that the evidence presented tonight indicates that this property has historic significance. Frates concurs. Younger: motion that the property at 5 Elmtop Lane is historically significant based on historical documentation presented tonight as it is one of the extant examples of the many summer estates along the water in Beverly and due to the context of which it sits on that knoll. Condon seconds the motion. All in favor. Motion passes. Historic District Commission Public Meeting Minutes October 21, 2002 Page 4 Chairman Finch states that now a determination has been made that this property is historically significant, under the terms of the Ordinance, due to its setting as one of the summer estates along the shore of Beverly in the latter nineteenth century, and that now the question of whether it should be designated as preferably preserved and whether there is public benefit to the concept of preserving this building as part of Beverly’s heritage, should be decided. Chairman Finch asks for any comments. Younger asks if there is any criteria is that is used in judging this. Chairman Finch explains that criteria can be found in the Ordinance and it is based on criteria in the national register. Ms. Zambernardi provides a copy of the City Ordinance and Chairman Finch reads from the Ordinance to the Board. Younger states that the determination is weighed heavily on the determination of historical significance. He states that it would be preferable to move the house, if they need to remove it from the property. He hopes that the applicants would look at that option. Chairman Finch states that the siting of the building and its proximity to the water are principle historic characteristics of the house. Frates states they have not heard any alternatives for the building except for moving it. It seems that electrical and plumbing could be remedied. He sates there have been several success stories due to the delay. He states that the applicants should look into alternatives if the delay is instilled. Chairman Finch states that he understands the applicant’s desire to take down the building and put up something that is marketable, but there are also many people who may want to buy and renovate the building. There is not a pressing reason in terms of photos that the house is not restorable. It is a preservable building. Lewis: motion to consider the house preferably preserved due to the visibility and siting of the historic house atop a knoll overlooking Beverly’s seashore. Seconded by Frates. All in favor. No one opposed. Motion carries. Younger: motion to enter Executive Session and not reconvene for the purpose of discussing strategy with respect to impending litigation. Seconded by Condon. Members take a roll call vote to enter executive session.