Loading...
2002-07-18 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission TOPIC: DATE: July 18, 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 7:00 p.m. Finch explains the hearing process to members of the public. Certificate of Appropriateness Scott and Mary Ann Loomis - 35 Front Street - replace existing wooden fence Scott Loomis appears before the Commission. He states that he would like to replace an existing wooden fence, which is beyond repair, with a wooden structure to match the existing fence in his garden. The current fence to be removed stands 36 inches high and he is proposing a 28 inch high fence. He proposes, instead of a straight top line between the posts, a curved line that would deflect approximately 4 inches. The caps on the posts would match the existing fence. The fence will be painted white. He provides pictures of the fence for review. He explained that the four existing wooden fence posts are routed out. They are placed over metal posts supported by concrete pilings and are secured by lag bolts. The new posts would also be routed and set on the metal posts in the same fashion. Finch asks if members of the public have questions. There are none. Finch asks if members of the Commission have questions. Lewis asks a clarifying question regarding the height of the existing fence. Mr. Loomis responds that the existing fence is 36 inches high. Lewis states the fence will be lowered quite a bit. Mr. Loomis responds that the fence will be lowered to 28 inches and the curve will deflect 4 inches. He is lowering the fence so that his window boxes will be visible. He will remove the Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 2 existing plant material behind the current fence. Finch states both the existing and proposed fences are fairly traditional. Both fences are within the parameters of fence design that the Commission accepts. Younger moves to accept and grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for 35 Front Street, based on the description provided tonight, seconded by Lewis. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). George Papagelis – 61-63 Front Street – Replacement Windows Judy Papagelis appears before the Commission and states that her husband George Papagelis could not be present this evening. She states that she is proposing to replace the windows on the northern side of the house because they have rotted and are leaking. Pictures are provided for review. Finch asks if member of the public have questions. There are none at this time. Boyd Roberts, the contractor, states he has been working with Mr. and Mrs. Papagelis trying to solve the problem of water damage in that area of the house. He made the suggestion to the Papagelis’ to replace the windows. The windows are intended to be vinyl clad windows with interior grills only. He states that he would argue that wood windows with aluminum storms might not be appropriate for this side of the house. The house was built in 1987. At that time, Brosco windows were installed incorrectly which led to water damage and rot. Finch asks if the condo association accepts the proposal to replace the windows. Ms. Papagelis states the condo association does accept the proposal. Younger asks about the two windows on the upper story. Mr. Roberts states that they are vinyl clad windows with interior grills. Younger asks if and when the owner got approval by the Historic District Commission for those windows. Roberts states that he does not know. He adds that the weather conditions on the North side of the house are very bad. Vinyl windows are the best windows for those conditions. Younger asks Roberts if there are aluminum storms on the other windows. Roberts replies that there are except for the two vinyl windows, which have insulated glass. The new Anderson windows will not have storms. Finch provides a background of the construction of the property in terms of the buildings within the condominium complex. He states at the time the property was built (approximately 17 years ago) the concept that was approved by the Commission was that the building at 49 Front Street th was to be a direct reproduction of the 18 century house that was on that site previous to the fire that occurred in the 1960’s. The house at 61-63 Front Street was not to be a direct reproduction but the Commission required that traditional materials and detailing be incorporated on the elevations fronting Bartlett and Front Streets. The concept approved on the rear of both houses, which face the water, was a more contemporary modern design. The third building, the auto body shop, is contemporary on all three sides. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 3 Finch states generally the policy of the Commission and most Commissions across the state is to require true divided light wood windows or wood windows with internal grills or other combinations on newer homes within historic districts. This is not the same in terms of criteria for judgment of what can be done to an eighteenth century house, in the sense that you are not trying to preserve historic details and fabric in the literal sense. The applicant is here as a matter of the specifics on the windows and the question of whether the design is traditional in terms of the windows. This does not mean that there should be no change to the pattern of the windows. He states that he thinks everybody recognizes the fact that it is somewhat of a strange agglomeration of windows that have been installed there. The mission is what is appropriate in terms of placement. Younger states that in most cases, exceptions are granted for windows when they are not in prime view from a public way or if they are mimicking the fabric of the existing building. This is a re- creation. However, this elevation fronts a gateway to the District and this design does not lend itself to the District. He agrees with all of the structural issues but in terms of what is being presented, it is not appropriate. Mr. Roberts asks if the triangular windows are considered inappropriate. Younger responds that triangular windows in this composition are not appropriate. Mr. Roberts states that he could remove the triangular windows. Younger states that this could be an option. Mr. Roberts states that this configuration accentuates and articulates the stairway. Frates asks if the windows are all in the stairway. Mr. Roberts replies that one transom on the extreme right was in a closet. Frates states he is concerned about the design on the outside rather than the inside. Younger moves to recognize a member of the public for public questions, seconded by Lewis. All members in favor. Motion carries (5-0). Chris Kaddaras of 63 Front Street and President of the Condominium Association asks how the original configuration of windows was approved initially. He added that functionally, they are a nightmare. He states that any improvement would be better and that he supports the proposed design. Finch states he thinks everybody recognizes it is a somewhat awkward design and the Commission is open to a more rational design. Mr. Kaddaras states that he thinks this design is unique and he is excited about it. Finch closed the period of public comment and opens the regular session of the meeting. Lewis asks a clarifying question regarding the window configuration. Mr. Roberts explains the rationale behind the design. He states that he will slightly shrink the rough opening size of the window. The intent is to make it more even. The window openings will be either eliminated or reduced. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 4 Younger asks if Mr. Roberts found any rot or anything in the framing. Mr. Roberts responds that most of the rot was restricted to the windows themselves. He has spent, off and on, about two years trying to plug leaks and keep the rot at bay. Finch asks if it is safe to say that the problems are a result of the method of installation by the builder, not the windows themselves. Roberts states that the way in which the windows were put in was, in large part, a functional problem. Finch states that he does not think the intention of the design was to reflect the staircase so much as to provide something to fill the rather large void left inside. A strip of identical windows across at a given level might relate better. One of the problems with the original design is that it doesn’t bear enough relationship with the other fenestration on the house. Unfortunately, what is being proposed with the triangular windows, is yet another variance into the mix. He states what this house suffers from, from a design perspective, is the varying sizes and shapes of windows. He states he sees the challenge of providing a reasonable approach to solving the heat gain problems, that does it in a way that doesn’t introduce yet another set of varying elements that picks up on what is already here and keeps it in a traditional repetitive way that is comfortable for the building. He states he does not have the answer to that in his back pocket. He adds that the door does not line up to the top window. Younger states that it would be better to eliminate all of the triangular windows and put in a line of windows. Finch suggests that the scale can be dropped down to align with the other three windows. Roberts responds that the framing of the house would not allow this. Finch states that it is not totally out of the question that windows go across the structural floor slabs and in that context, he would not rule out having a window cross over the framing of the house unless there is a physical problem with the framing. Younger asks if the owner would consider just taking the triangular windows out. He notes it would be an improvement to some degree. Younger states that the windows are not appropriate in the configuration you have here for the context of this particular house. It is a very modern design and it is not in keeping with the character of the house and the characteristics of components of this house. Younger states that his objection is in relation to its configuration. It is not a traditional design. He states he would accept the design without the triangles. Frates states that even the three windows bother him because this is a historic district. He still Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 5 thinks that one window should be added that is symmetrical with the one on the right. The three windows create too much of a jumble. There is more discussion regarding the configuration of the windows. Roberts states that he was trying to stay within the existing frame so that there would be no framing changes. Younger states that they could offer some design changes that are appropriate. Maybe there is some way to simplify this and work something out that makes sense. Finch states that it is not the jurisdiction of the Commission to help design proposals. It can tell an applicant what it thinks is appropriate based on the criteria that the Commission judges it on. There might be a few things that the Commission can suggest, if the applicant is willing to listen to suggestions. Mrs. Papagelis says what she thinks she is hearing from the Commission is that the windows should be wood. Finch states that the Commission does not only want the windows to be wood, but also, when you take the triangle away, you still have a jumble of windows. All of the members are concerned about that. The Commission is suggesting that maybe there is some way you can simplify and still have ventilation and light. It will require more thought. Younger asks the applicant if the Commission found that the proposal minus the triangular windows were acceptable, is that something that would be acceptable to her? Mrs. Papagelis responds “yes.” Younger asks if the Commission still found the agglomeration unacceptable but found that placing a single traditional window in a traditional configuration, would that be acceptable to the applicant. Mrs. Papagelis responds “no.” Younger asks why that would not be acceptable to her. Mrs. Papagelis responds because the windows provide a great deal of ventilation in the back hallway. If you are in the back hallway on a hot day, it is extremely hot. Finch states the current design will be very noticeable and he believes the design without the triangular windows may still be a little jarring and not quite right but no worse than what is there currently. The triangular windows make it worse. The triangular windows simply do not have any relationship with anything on the building and are very rarely used in traditional structures. Younger states the other major issue is vinyl windows versus wood windows. Any decision the Commission makes tends to be viewed by other property owners in the district as precedent setting for their homes. It therefore becomes very hard to make a distinction on decisions based on this building, which is 17 years old and was previously somebody else’s building. Finch states there has never been a case since he has been on the Commission where a vinyl Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 6 window was approved. Mrs. Papagelis sites a neighbor who has vinyl windows. Finch responds that the Historic District Commission’s jurisdiction is confined to the limits of the Historic District and that houses nearby may have vinyl windows but they are also outside the District. Mrs. Papagelis states that this house is in the District. Finch states that this was then a violation and that the Commission has not approved vinyl windows during his time on the Commission. Younger states that the applicant stated that her neighbor had just done the vinyl windows and then all of a sudden, you can see already how it steamrolled. People have replaced windows in the District without seeking approval from the Commission and they are in violation. Zambernardi states that the Historic Commission has never had a staff person and they are a volunteer board. She states she has been with the Planning Board for three months and will be working with the people in the district now. She prepared a draft letter to send out to people to notify them that they are in the District and that they must seek approval from the Commission for exterior alterations. Hopefully this will help procedures become more organized and consistent. Finch states that when you buy property, full disclosure is required by the seller. The Commission understands that there is an information problem and it is trying to do what it can to resolve it. There are always going to be violations, to some degree, and the commission can’t accept full responsibility for always knowing at all times what is happening in the district. Condon states that vinyl is practical and it should be allowed. Finch states there are several options for this proposal. There are two solutions to the basic configuration: the single window solution and the stepped configuration solution. In terms of the vinyl window issue, the Commission has a lot of concern with that. There is a possibility that a Certificate of Hardship, could be issued on the basis of mitigating circumstances but the problem with that is that other people proceed to go forward without notifying the Commission of a hardship. It is really intended for people who are relatively impoverished and cannot afford the renovations. Mrs. Papagelis interjects that her husband is not working. She is the only one working and they have a financial hardship. Younger moves that the Historic District Commission accept a Certificate of Appropriateness, which includes the design as submitted without the triangular windows and that the windows that are proposed be Brosco, true-divided light windows, not vinyl windows. Discussion on the motion: Finch states that the Commission is basically voting for a denial of the application as submitted (triangular windows and the vinyl sash) but a clear statement that a Certificate is being issued for a revised application that shows the configuration that is on the drawing minus the triangular windows and using wood, true-divided Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 7 lite windows, such as those produced by Brosco without Low E panels, not vinyl. He added that aluminum storms are not at the discretion of the Commission and may be added. He explains that the applicant has the right to appeal the finding with Superior Court. Lewis motions to accept the motion made by Younger with Finch’s clarification. Motion carries 3-2 (Finch, Younger and Lewis in favor) (Frates and Condon opposed). Finch asks Frates and Condon to clarify why they are opposed. Frates states that only one window should be installed, not the agglomeration. Condon states that the vinyl would be appropriate. Robert Neiley – 26 Front Street – Egress hatch with a rear roof pitch Robert Neiley appears before the Commission. He states that on the third floor of his house he has two bedrooms that have not been used until now. He will be using them and he needs a form of egress in the form of a hatch. Finch notes that there are no members of the public to comment on this proposal and asks if members of the Commission have any questions. There are none. Condon moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a rear escape hatch at 26 Front Street, seconded by Frates. All members in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Minutes Younger moves to accept the minutes dated January 17, 2002, February 14, 2002 and June 13, 2002, seconded by Frates. All members in favor. Motion carries. New or Other Business Draft Letter The members review and discuss the draft letter Zambernardi prepared, which is to be mailed to the property owners in the Historic District. Members provide their comments. Zambernardi recommends addressing the letter to the individual owners and states she wants to periodically check with the Assessors’ Office to track when properties in the District change hands. Frates asks how the problem of the Building Inspector issuing a permit without a Certificate of Appropriateness is solved. Finch responds that he believes the Mayor may have gone a few steps in that direction. Beverly Historic District Commission - Meeting Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 8 Younger moves that the letter be accepted with the minor changes discussed, seconded by Frates. All members in favor. Motion carries. Ordinance Changes Zambernardi states that she spoke with Crystal Atherton, who is heading up the Ordinance Committee for the City that is reviewing Ordinances for all other departments. She spoke with Rob Valliere and Deb Hurlburt and they suggested this would be a very good way for the Commission to propose an amendment to Chapter 10 of the Ordinances. At the last Commission meeting, it discussed three changes and Zambernardi found one other area in the Ordinance that talks about Commission members and the number and affiliations of them. She suggests discussing this more. Zambernardi states in speaking with Crystal, she said that the Ordinance Committee is in recess for the summer and in September they will be moving ahead with putting the Ordinances into one complete package and then bringing it to City Council. That is when the public hearings will happen. When the public hearings happen, the Historic District Commission members could attend the City Council meetings to support and give reasons why the changes are proposed. People would be notified if they would like to attend the public hearing Finch states there were three items that the members agreed to change in the Ordinance: 1. eliminate paint colors and add it to exclusions, 2. eliminate the word aluminum siding from the list of exclusions, 3. change the number of members from 5 to 7 with up to three alternates. Zambernardi states with the change of the number of members, that also includes a change in the requirements for who the members are. She references Article 2, Section 126B. The members discuss this issue and decide to leave it. Zambernardi offers to draft something and present it to the members at the next meeting. There is discussion regarding penalties for violations of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Zambernardi offers to research what other communities are doing and to draft something for the next meeting to review and discuss further. Adjournment Condon motions to adjourn, seconded by Younger. All members in favor. Motion carries.