2002-06-13Historic District Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2002
Page 1
CITY OF BEVERLY
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Historic District Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: June 13, 2002
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Matt Lewis, James Younger
John Condon
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: John Frates
OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi
RECORDER: Diane Presutti
Mr. Finch, Chairman, calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Finch begins by stating that this Public Hearing is for the demolition of an accessory
building at 44 River Street owned by Keyspan. He also states that the purpose of the
Historic District Commission tonight is to determine if the building is historically
significant, and if so, should the building be designated “preferably preserved“.
1. Tim Martin - Keyspan/Accessory Building at 44 River Street/Demolition
Mr. Tim Martin approaches the Board with plans of the building. He states that the
building is unsafe and is currently not in use. Keyspan has no plans to remove any of the
other buildings. He also states that Keyspan plans to demolish the building strictly for
safety issues.The building is not visible from River Street; there is another building that
blocks its view. He states that he is unsure of the date of the building.
Mr. Finch states that the building was erected between1900 and 1916.
Mr. Martin continues to explain that the building has been slightly modified. It has been
used in the past as a regulator building for gas pipes. Keyspan has decommissioned the
building, and there are no live utilities. The building has a slate roof. Some pieces of
slate have fallen off, causing a safety concern. He also states that the Keyspan yard is
very active and they wish to prevent any injury.
Historic District Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2002
Page 2
Mr. Finch states that there are no members of the public present to comment and closes
the Public Hearing. He opens the regular meeting for discussion.
Mr. Younger asks Mr. Martin if there have been any injuries as a result of the condition
of the building.
Mr. Martin states that there have been no injuries.
Mr. Younger also states that the slate roof appeared to be intact when he conducted a site
visit. The roofing system is composed of simple, exposed, steel frame trusses with steel
purlins. The slate is directly tied onto this frame. It is an unusual system that was used
on commercial and industrial roofs for fire-proofing. He stated that it would not be
difficult to secure the slate tiles.
Mr. Lewis states that there were only 3 or 4 slates missing when he visited the building.
Mr. Finch states that the building’s condition is the result of a lack of maintenance over
time. He states that periodic maintenance of the building would keep the building in a
condition where Keyspan or someone else may use it in the future. Mr. Finch states that
delayed maintenance occurred and that it is common to replace damaged or defective
slates every four to five years. He states that the mortar has eroded and needs repointing
although that does not necessarily mean the walls are unstable. Mr. Finch raises the
question of the possibility of maintaining the building to a level that eliminates any safety
concerns so that options may be available for future uses of the building.
Mr. Martin states that demolition is a one-time expense, whereas maintenance is a
continuous expense.
Mr. Finch continues by stating that the slate on the roof appears to be Munson Slate,
which is no longer available. It can last for one-hundred years or more. This type of
slate was used on the State House and buildings at Harvard. He also states that the area
along River Street has been identified in the City’s draft Master Plan as one with a lot of
potential for mixed-use development. The partially completed National Register
nomination was done in hope that the property could be rehabilitated using tax credits.
Tax credits may still apply, although integrity of buildings is a criteria for eligibility,
therefore the loss or alteration of more buildings may affect the site’s eligibility for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Martin states to the Board that Keyspan may be there for the next 100 years and that
he is not a preservation expert. He also states that the building is not visible from the
street and asks if that would be a factor. Mr. Finch responds that if the Commission was
to pursue a National Register designation for this property, eligibility has to do with
questions of integrity and the number of buildings lost affects this. The City’s
Demolition Delay Ordinance is not subject to public visibility issues but to the National
Historic District Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2002
Page 3
Register criteria of “historical significance” and “preferably preserved”. It deals with
issues of public benefit, and visibility is not necessarily a component of this.
Mr. Finch addresses the Board and states that if the Board determines that the building
should be “preferably preserved”, it would instate a 6-month demolition delay. He asks
Mr. Martin that if the Board determines that the building should be “preferably
preserved”, to rethink their decision of demolition.
Mr. Martin addresses the Board by stating that if the Board determines that the building
should be “preferably preserved”, would the Board draft a decision to guide Keyspan?
He noted that some of their decision makers have never been to Beverly. They look at
the project from a corporate perspective, not a local one. However, they are cognizant of
communities because they are a utility company, therefore they value keeping a good
relationship with the City.
Mr. Finch addresses the Board for any further comments or questions. There are none.
Mr. Finch asks the Board if there is a motion to designate the building at 44 River Street
“historically significant”.
Mr. Younger motions to designate the building at 44 River Street “historically
significant”. Seconded by Mr. Condon. Motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Finch asks if there is a motion from the Board to designate the building at 44 River
Street as “preferably preserved”.
Mr. Lewis motions to designate the building at 44 River Street as “preferably preserved”,
stating that the whole complex works together. He notes the importance of the situation
of the buildings on the site. Seconded by Mr. Younger. Motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Younger states that the doors are open to Keyspan should the company require
assistance in identifying its needs and that he hopes the company will work with the City
on the Master Planning effort. Mr. Martin states that Keyspan recognizes the Board’s
concerns.
2. Certificate of Appropriateness - Gary Corsetti/62-64 Water Street/Review
Revised Drawings
Ms. Zambernardi states that Gary Corsetti, Trustee of Atlantic Realty Trust received a
Conditional Certificate of Appropriateness at the April 26, 2001 meeting of the
Commission to renovate the existing building at 62-64 Water Street to include 3
residential units and commercial space. Mr. Corsetti was to come forth at this meeting
with revised drawings for review and approval by the Historic District Commission. Mr.
Historic District Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2002
Page 4
Corsetti withdrew his review for tonight, stating that he was not yet prepared to present
new drawings.
3. Approval of Minutes
A. Minutes of May 16, 2002.
Mr. Finch states that he has submitted revisions to the May 16, 2002 minutes.
Mr. Younger motions to accept the minutes of May 16, 2002 with Mr. Finch’s revisions,
seconded by Mr. Lewis.
Motion carries 4-0.
B. Minutes of September 13, 2001 & October 11, 2001
Ms. Zambernardi addresses the Board that these particular minutes have not yet been
approved by the HDC. Mr. Younger motions to accept the minutes of September 13,
2001 and October 11, 2001, seconded by Mr. Lewis. Motion carries 4-0.
4. New or Other Business:
A. Draft Letter:
Ms. Zambernardi distributes copies of a Draft Informational Letter to Property Owners in
the Fish Flake Hill Historic District.
Mr. Lewis suggests adding drawing requirements and application procedures.
Mr. Finch suggests including in the letter typical requests and what is required for
presentation.
Mr. Younger suggests keeping the letter as friendly as possible. He also states that he
likes the map included in the letter and states that the procedures be separate from the
letter.
Mr. Finch agrees with the “friendly” wording in the letter. He also suggests stating more
history of the District and that the HDC was formed to improve and protect the historic
district of Beverly.
Mr. Younger asks that Ms. Zambernardi redraft letter with insertions stated above.
B. Review of Beverly Historic Districts Ordinance:
Historic District Commission
Public Meeting Minutes
June 13, 2002
Page 5
Mr. Finch addresses the Board regarding a letter the HDC received from Robert Valleire
requesting a review of Historic District’s Ordinance and any amendments necessary. Mr.
Finch begins by reviewing quantity of members. The Ordinance states that 7 members are
required with 3 alternates. He states that M.G.L. Chapter 40C allows that Commissions
have no less than three and no more than seven members. He notes that the Fish Flake
Hill Ordinance could be amended to 5 members and up to 3 alternates. He also states
excluding the word “aluminum siding” from the list of exterior architectural features that
are excluded from Commission review would update the Ordinance because aluminum
siding is no longer common. He also states that eliminating the paint color requirement
should be considered. The color charts from the Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia
Historic District are neither current nor explicitly representative of specific time periods
of buildings in the District.
Mr. Younger suggests tabling the discussion until the HDC can determine the correct
process of making changes to the Ordinance.
C. Other:
A brief discussion took place among the HDC members regarding presenting an award
during Preservation Week to a Beverly resident for outstanding restoration, rehabilitation,
conservation or preservation of a historical building. Mr. Finch asks Ms. Zambernardi to
draft such an advertisement.
5. Adjournment:
Mr. Condon Motions to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Lewis.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.