Loading...
2003-05-21Historic District Commission May 21, 2003 – Minutes Page 1 City of Beverly Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: William Finch, Matt Lewis, James Younger and John Condon BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: John Frates OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Cheryl Lamont Chairman Finch called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. 1. Certificate of Appropriateness - 63 Front Street - Mary and Christopher Kaddaras Mr. Kaddaras appeared before the board and stated that he was having some renovations made and has replaced two windows. Chairman Finch introduces the case stating that it had a fairly long history dating back to last fall. The owner of the other unit sharing the east facade chose to file an appeal of the Historic District Commission decision regarding the replacement of windows in his unit. Chairman Finch stated that Mr. Kaddaras replaced two existing windows during a recent kitchen renovation, at which time he was informed by the Building Inspector, and subsequently by the Commission, that he was required to file an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, as well as for a building permit, specifically for the windows. A permit had been issued for the kitchen work, but that permit did not include the window replacement. Chairman Finch stated that Mr. Kaddaras eventually informed the Commission that he intended to continue with the work without coming before the Commission, and that he would deal with the consequences, whatever they might be, pending the Court decision on the appeal of the other unit owners. With that appeal having been heard and a determination having been made by the court in favor of the City, the Commission asked Mr. Kaddaras to file for a Certificate of Appropriateness and appear before the Commission relative to the windows he had already put in. Chairman Finch also stated that following the decision of the Court, the Commission had issued a letter to the other unit owners requesting that they conform to the conditions of Historic District Commission May 21, 2003 – Minutes Page 2 their Certificate within a six-month period, or if they had some other thoughts as to another appropriate solution to come in and present that to the Historic District Commission for consideration. Mr. Finch also observed that the replacement windows were vinyl 4’x4’ double glazed sash having a single fixed sash with a muntin grid installed on the interior side of the sash, and the windows they replaced were traditional double hung 6/6 paned wood sash approximately 36 inches by 56 inches in overall size. Chairman Finch asked for board member comments and a decision on how they wish to proceed with this case. Mr. Kaddaras is asked if he would like to make any comments and he states that he would prefer to hear the Commission’s comments at this time. Younger commented that the case could set a precedent in the Commission’s efforts to maintain the integrity of their guidelines and standards, and notes that the Commission is trying to maintain a basic standard of not accepting vinyl replacement windows in place of wood windows. Younger stated he certainly recognizes the fact that the work has already been done, but feels that it would be very difficult for him to accept the replacement windows the way they have been installed. Lewis stated he is in agreement with Younger and that his major concerns are the use of vinyl instead of wood and the configuration and size of the replacement windows compared to the ones they replaced and the existing windows on the adjacent front facade. Condon stated that the window configuration seems to be on two different levels and does not seem to appear symmetrical with other existing windows. Chairman Finch stated that the Commission had tried to make it clear in the case concerning the other owner that the east façade on this building is not something that is sacrosanct in its design and had some awkward detailing by the original builder. The Commission therefore has remained open to possible changes subject to review within basic design parameters that were consistent with the original plan for the property as approved by the Commission when it was built. In this case, as with the windows installed by the other owner, the windows as installed do not follow any of these guidelines. This Commission especially does not want to set a precedent approving vinyl replacement windows and fake muntin grids. Chairman Finch stated he would have hoped that Mr. Kaddaras and his neighbor would have come before the Commission with a new unified design for the entire façade, which could then have then been reviewed, commented on, and provide some coordinated common ground to solve the problem perceived by the two owners and the Commission. Historic District Commission May 21, 2003 – Minutes Page 3 Younger stated that he feels that the same path has to be followed, especially with the potential precedent, that was taken with the neighbor, and give Mr. Kaddaras six months to install windows matching the original ones he took out or propose a new design change for review. He stated that he sees no other way around the issue. Chairman Finch added that the appeal of the case involving the other unit alleged that the Commission was not dealing on a level playing field relative to different cases, and observes this is precisely the reason that dealing in the same manner with these windows becomes very important. That the Court made a decision upholding the Commission’s ruling on the neighbor’s appeal underscores the need for a consistent decision in this case. Chairman Finch asked if Mr. Kaddaras would like to make any comments. Mr. Kaddaras stated that he wanted to make kitchen renovations and had no intention of replacing any windows until the contractor found that the previous windows were rotten and needed replacing. He then stated that he has spent $11,000.00 on windows and doors on his home, which was built in 1986 and has a difficult exposure and feels that wooden windows will, once again, need to be replaced in sixteen years. He stated he had taken out a building permit for the kitchen renovation. Mr. Kaddaras then asked how many historic dwellings there are in the City of Beverly and to simplify the question, how many with the plaques on them. Chairman Finch responded that there are probably several hundred in the City, but that is not germane to this case. The subject building involved new construction occurring within a historic district, and the normal administration of historic districts, throughout the Commonwealth, includes design review of new construction as well as existing buildings in order to maintain some degree of cohesiveness to the districts. Chairman Finch explained that this Commission has two separate charges. One is dealing with historic preservation matters for the whole City relative to State and Local legislation that governs it, and the other gives the Commission the authority and function to administer any Chapter 40C historic district within the City. Mr. Kaddaras asked how old the Commission is. Chairman Finch responded that it stems from the early 1970’s and that this district was formed at that time in part to try and save the neighborhood. He informed Mr. Kaddaras that his neighborhood was a heavily run down area known for drug dealing and landlords burning buildings and states that the property in question was actually the site of an historic building that was burned down in the late 1960’s. The City had slated the whole waterfront area to be torn down for Urban Renewal, but opted to set up the Historic District as a methodology to bring back the historic qualities of the district. Historic District Commission May 21, 2003 – Minutes Page 4 Mr. Kaddaras stated that he was not informed that his property was located in the historic district at the time of purchase and feels that this disclosure should have been made since it may affect the purchaser’s feelings of purchasing a piece of property under the confines of the Historic Commission. Chairman Finch stated that informing the buyer should have been the responsibility of the real estate agent and the attorney doing the closing to disclose this information to potential buyers. The Commission has no control in how an attorney or realtor does their homework in regard to notifying potential homebuyers within the district. Condon asked Mr. Kaddaras if a building permit was pulled for this work and Mr. Kaddaras stated that a permit was pulled for kitchen renovations. Chairman Finch stated that he understands that Mr. Kaddaras made a decision to add the windows to the job and that they were not part of the original design. Mr. Kaddaras stated that information is correct but that the windows were already changed by the time the Building Inspector made an inspection. Chairman Finch also added for the record that Mr. Kaddaras was present during the Commission’s hearing on the neighbor’s case; and therefore Mr. Kaddaras was certainly aware his property was within the historic district at the time he undertook the subject work. Mr. Kaddaras agreed. Younger made a motion that the Commission require the owner of the property be granted a conditional certificate of appropriateness based on the following conditions; 1. That the windows that are installed as shown on Exhibit ‘1’ and designated with the letter ‘A’, be removed and replaced with windows similar in size, design, and material to the original wood 6/6 windows as shown on Exhibit ‘2’, designated with the letter ‘B’, including the same 6/6 configuration. 2. The type of window shall be wood, single-glazed thru muntin sash windows and frames with a 6/6 light double hung sash. 3. The new windows shall be of the same dimension, height, and position as the windows that pre-existed at these locations. 4. That any gaps left due to the difference in size of the window openings are filled with clapboards to match the dimension of the existing clapboards. 5. The installation must be completed within six months or 6. The Owner could come back to the Commission with an alternate proposal for review and discussion within the six-month period. Lewis seconds. All in favor. Motion passes. 2. Meeting Minutes Historic District Commission May 21, 2003 – Minutes Page 5 Younger would like Zambernardi to e-mail him a copy of the minutes of March 19, 2003 so that he could make changes and a vote on the amended minutes will be taken at the next meeting. The minutes are tabled until the next meeting. 3. New or Other Business Chairman Finch states that the Commission holds a preservation restriction on Montserrat College of Art and they have come in requesting to take out the existing windows and put in double glazed, large paned aluminum windows with a grille on them. Two sample windows have been put in. Chairman Finch has met informally with the facilities manager and with the facilities board of trustees and examined the sample windows. Chairman Finch suggests a meeting be set up for a site meeting for board members to view the two samples before the meeting. 4. Adjournment Condon makes a motion to adjourn. Lewis seconds. All in favor. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.