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.