Loading...
2002-05-16 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes - May 16, 2002 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: May 16, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Matt Lewis, James Younger John Condon & John Frates BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diane Presutti The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Finch opens the meeting introducing Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director and Staff to the Historic District Commission. Ms. Zambernardi will oversee correspondence and comments from the public regarding HDC meetings and agenda. Mr. Finch continues to review the agenda, procedures of the meeting, and also states that any comments from the public must be directly related to COA Applications on this evening’s agenda. 1. Certificate of Appropriateness - Sean Devlin/36 Front Street/Fence Mr. Devlin approaches the Commission with a request to erect two fences. One will extend from the corner of his property to the garage. The other will extend from the front corner of the house to the garage. He also states that the latter fence will match the neighbors fence across the street. The first fence will match his abutter’s fence at 3 South Street. He submits photos showing these fences. These fences will be wood. Mr. Younger asks for a description of fence and location. Mr. Finch reads the description of the application prepared by Leah Zambernardi which states that the front fence will run 38 feet along the south perimeter of the property. It will have a gate and it will stand 4 feet high. The other fence will run 13 feet from the northwest corner of the garage to the northwest corner of the property line. It will have a gate for automobile access and will stand 6 feet high. The fence will match one of the colors of the Martin-Seymour Williamsburg color chart. 1 Mr. Finch opens the meeting to the public and asks if they wish to view photos. Dennis Corbett of 38 Front street approaches the Commission and states that he is not an adversary to the fences. He also states that there is a problem regarding the Building Department’s issue of permits vs. the HDC guidelines and that Mr. Devlin has refused to cooperate with guidelines in the past therefore, on this basis, he should be refused a COA. Linda Cross of 28 Front Street approaches the Commission and states that a COA should be granted to Mr. Devlin for the erecting of the fence for the safety of Mr. Devlin’s son. Michael Gaudette of 3 South Street approaches the Commission and reiterates that in the past, Mr. Devlin has shown lack of cooperation regarding HDC guidelines. Mr. Devlin approaches the Commission and states that HDC guidelines will be followed on past issues at a later date. Mr. Finch states that comments should relate to the current application. He states that a building permit should not be issued until the building inspector has a COA in hand. He also states that not all alterations that require a COA need a building permit. Mr. Finch concludes by stating that the HDC does not enforce building codes. Mr. Younger states that he has no objections to the proposed fences. He motions to grant a COA to Mr. Devlin for both fences. Seconded by Mr. Lewis. Motion carries 5-0. 2. Certificate of Appropriateness - R. Laughlin & C. Allen/2 Davis Street/Cont. from 1/17/02 Mr. Finch reviews findings of the prior meeting with the Commission. Mr. Laughlin & Mr. Allen were requested to revise their application to describe specific proposed repairs as summarized in a letter sent to Mr. Laughlin by Chairman Finch on April 9, 2002. Mr. Laughlin summarized the specific improvements. The applicants will: 1. Paint clapboards on front of house, replace old clapboards with pine clapboards where necessary. 2. Remove driveway side foyer (not original to building). 3. Replace existing deck with a matching deck except that the new deck will have pressure treated wood with railings and balusters. The balusters and railings to be painted. 4. Stucco two chimneys. 5. The windows on Stone & Davis Streets and along driveway will be replaced with true divided-lite Brosco Sashes. The rear windows facing the parking area will be replaced with vinyl. 6. The drive to be finished with a top coat of asphalt and kept same size. 7. Minor landscaping with mulch and plantings. 8. Rear roof and gutters on front to be replaced. 2 Mr. Younger asks Mr. Laughlin if he received the April 9, 2002, letter from Mr. Finch. He states that he would like to know if the list of items provided by Mr. Laughlin addresses each item in the list of requirements in the April 9, 2002, letter. Mr. Laughlin states he has received the letter and will follow all of the 3 recommendations made in that letter. He also states that renovations may take 2 to 3 years to complete. Mr. Younger states that he would like to see pressure treated wood only on posts if necessary. He notes that non-pressure treated stock could be used. Mr. Finch states that when visiting the house at 2 Davis Street he did make note that the foyer was not original. He also states that this is not a public hearing and is a continuance from the last HDC meeting. Mr. Finch asks for a motion to issue a COA with conditions reflecting the recommendations made in the April 9, 2002, letter. Mr. Condon motions to issue a COA with conditions; seconded by Mr. Frates. Motion carries 5-0. 3. Certificate of Appropriateness - Heather Pike/16 Front Street/Redo Front Porch/Paint Ms. Pike approaches the Commission asking for a COA to paint her front porch. The floor will be painted using Benjamin Moore & Co.’s “Platinum Grey”. The ceiling will be painted in “Little Boy Blue“. Mr. Finch opens the meeting to the public for comment. Mr. Gaudette of 3 South Street asks the Board to approve Ms. Pike’s request for a COA. Ms. Cross of 28 South Street also asks the Board to approve Ms. Pike’s request for a COA. Mr. Finch closes public meeting. He states that these colors are appropriate and reflect historic color treatment of porches in houses of this style. Mr. Condon motions to accept, seconded by Mr. Younger. Motion carries 5-0. 4. Certificate of Appropriateness - Linda Cross/28 Front Street/Erect Fence and Rear Deck Ms. Cross approaches the Commission with a request for a COA to remove a chain link fence and replace it with a 5’ cedar picket fence with lattice top. She also proposes to erect a 10’ x 12’ deck off her back door to the rear of the house. The floor of the deck will stand 10” above grade. The deck will have a 4’ high railing with a lattice design. Ms. Cross refers to photographs of the proposed fence and deck design. Both the fence 3 and deck will be of wood with a natural cedar stain. She also states that the fence is for the safety of her dog. Mr. Finch opens the meeting to the public and asks for comments. Mr. Gaudette of 3 South Street asks the Board to grant a COA to Ms. Cross. Mr. Finch closes the meeting to the public and asks for comments from the Board. Ms. Zambernardi asks if the fence Ms. Cross will construct is to look exactly like the fence presented in the photographs. Ms. Cross states that the fence will differ slightly. The pickets will be rough cut and the lattice will be set above them. Mr. Younger motions to accept construction of 10’ x 12’ deck and 5’ fence, seconded by Mr. Condon. Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Finch states for the record that all the fence designs at this meeting fall within the general parameters of other previously approved fences within the district. 5. Other Business Mr. Finch states to the Board that they will now discuss other business. Mr. Gaudette of 3 South Street approaches the Board and wishes to speak. Mr. Finch states that the HDC is in normal session at this time, not open public session and that they can allow Mr. Gaudette to speak only of they pass a motion for him to do so. Mr. Younger states that the Commission should continue with other business, but he would be willing to hear Mr. Gaudette’s comments at the end of the meeting. Mr. Gaudette states that he could not wait and left. Ms. Zambernardi distributes a packet regarding 44 River Street. The address is owned by Keyspan. She states that Keyspan has applied for a Demolition Permit for this building with the Building Inspector. Mr. Brennan has referred the application to the HDC for a determination because the building is over 50 years old. Ms. Zambernardi also states that the building is on a slab. She also states that a parking lot separates the building from the water. Mr. Frates states that this may fall under Chapter 91 regarding tide lands. He also suggests that Ms. Zambernardi speak to Ms. Hurlburt regarding Chapter 91 and requests that specifics of demolition be submitted to the Board. Ms. Zambernardi states she will speak to Ms. Hurlburt regarding Chapter 91. She also states that the contractor claimed that the building is not structurally sound. Mr. Finch states that the request of demolition has been filed. The HDC has 10 days to 4 sign off or to determine if the demolition application should be brought to public hearing for determination as to whether it is historically significant and whether it should be determined “preferably preserved”. If the HDC makes this determination, then a hearing within 20 business days must be set. Mr. Finch also states that Ms. Zambernardi’s research shows the building may have historical value and suggests the Commission members conduct a site visit. The Commission members state convenient times to meet at the site and Ms. Zambernardi agrees to notify the contractor of their visit. She also agrees to call all Commission members with a specific meeting time. Mr. Finch states to the Commission that Mr. Gary Corsetti wishes to present the previously requested details of 62 Water Street to the Board to meet the requirements of the conditional COA. Mr. Finch reminds the Commission that he is an abutter to 62 Water Street and that he will recuse himself. He also states that the Building Inspector has issued a building permit to Mr. Corsetti, despite the COA being conditioned to the submission of further details. At this point, the meeting is turned into a Public Hearing regarding 28 Lothrop Street. 6. Demolition Delay – Gregory Russell/28 Lothrop Street The public hearing was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Finch opens the Public Hearing regarding 28 Lothrop Street by asking if all interested parties have arrived. Mr. Finch continues by describing the Request for Demolition submitted by Mr. Gregory Russell. He starts by explaining that the Commission has two charges under the Demolition Delay Bylaw. The first is to determine whether the 1780 building is of historical significance. If so, they must then determine if the building should be determined to be “preferably preserved.” If the HDC determines that the building is both historically significant and “preferably preserved”, the Building Inspector delays issuing the permit for demolition for 6 months. Mr. Finch also states that the HDC has the right to reduce the delay times if it determines that plans for the property provide sufficient mitigation for the demolition. If the HDC determines that the building is historically significant but not “preferably preserved”, the Building Inspector can issue a Demolition Permit without delay. Mr. Finch shows photos of Mr. Russell’s house to the Board. He states that the house has a new roof, modern exterior materials and a gutted interior. The second floor was the th original 18 century home, which was later raised and another story was built underneath th around 1900. There is a certain amount of 18 century material on the second floor. Mr. Finch asks Mr. Russell if he would like to make statements further explaining his proposed demolition. Mr. Russell states that the current structure has no foundation, just loose stone. He also 5 adds that the clapboards hide many structural problems. He wishes to replace this house with a single-family home. He does not have plans for the new house yet. Mr. Finch opens meeting to public comment. Ms. Lori Young of 32 Lothrop Street approaches the Board and states that she likes the existing house. She voices her concern over not knowing what type of house will replace the existing house. She also asks Mr. Russell to consider the existing styles & scale of homes in the neighborhood when establishing plans for a new home. A letter is read from Mr. D. Wesley Slate, Jr. and Georgia Leigh Bills of 26 Lothrop Street. In short, the letter asks the Commission to consider issuing a 6-month delay so that Mr. Russell may develop a more concrete plan for the new house or explore ways to preserve the existing house. (see attached) Mr. Finch asks Mr. Russell for any further comments in response to the comments made by the public. There being no further comments from the public, the meeting is closed to the public. Mr. Finch asks the Commission members for their comments. Mr. Younger suggests to the Commission that they consider whether the house is historically significant and whether it should be determined “preferably preserved” th keeping in mind its 18 century frame. Mr. Finch states that this is an unusual case where a homeowner has no future plans for the property to present to the Commission. Mr. Younger clarifies that the Commission cannot comment on the design of new structures. Mr. Finch states that the Commission’s decision tonight is only based on whether the existing house is historically significant and whether it should be determined “preferably preserved”. He adds that the only instance by which the Commission can comment on new plans is if they are presented by the owner with a request to reduce the delay period. Mr. Frates asks what urgency Mr. Russell has and if a 6-month delay would impose an inconvenience. Mr. Russell states that a 6-month delay would probably not impose any inconvenience. Mr. Condon asks if the house could be moved. Mr. Russell states that the house could possibly be moved according to Building Inspector Bob Nelson. Mr. Finch asks Mr. Russell if the house was moved there. Mr. Russell is not sure. 6 Mr. Younger states that approx. 70% of the frame is of historical significance. He adds th that the architectural form reflects what this area may have looked like in the 18and th 19 centuries. Mr. Lewis agrees with Mr. Younger. Mr. Finch asks the Board for any other questions or comments regarding historical th significance. He also states that the house does reflect historically significant 18 century construction methods in the structure of the second story. He reminds the Commission that the original home was a cape, not a 2-story home. Mr. Younger motions that the HDC find 28 Lothrop Street to be historically significant. th The home has significant 18 structural fabric within the second story and significant architectural expression and form in items of its placement on the streetscape. Motion seconded by Matt Lewis. Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Finch asks the Board to determine if the property should be designated “preferably preserved.” th Mr. Younger states that the integrity of the building in terms of the 18 century structure on the second story and exterior architectural form merits a 6 month delay period. Mr. Condon motions to determine the home “preferably preserved” and to impose a 6- month delay for the issuance of a demolition permit. Seconded by Mr. Frates. Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Finch asks Mr. Russell if he has any questions regarding the 6-month delay. Mr. Russell has no questions as this time. Mr. Finch adds that Mr. Russell may return to the Commission with future plans to request a reduction in the 6 month delay period if he wishes. Mr. Finch states that Building Inspector Tim Brennan cannot issue a Permit for Demolition for 6 months. He also states that moving the building would constitute a demolition, therefore, such plans would have to be presented to the Commission for review. Mr. Finch also states that the Commission will issue a Demolition Delay By- Law Determination to the Building Department with a letter stating reasons for the Commission’s determination issuing a 6-month delay (10/31/02). The forms will be mailed to the Building Inspector’s office, the applicant and to the Planning Department for filing. Mr. Condon motions to adjourn from the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Lewis. Motion carries 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 7 8