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.