Loading...
2000-05-18 Beverly. Historic District Commission 5/18/00 Meeting Minutes Page 1 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Historic District Commission DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: May I 8, 2000 Chairman Bill Finch, John Condon, Alan Synenki, John Frates, James Younger None BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Bill Finch calls the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Certificate of Appropriateness - 38-40 Front Street. Dennis and Katie Corbett Mr. Finch stated that the owner of 38-40 Front Street had recently installed a wood fence between his property and 36 Front Street that was visible from the street without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness for it. He observed that while the new fence was the same design as the existing fence along Front Street, it was a significant visible change to the property that therefore was within the jurisdiction of the Commission. He distributed photographs of the property to the members for their information. He also noted that the owner of the abutting property had filed an objection to the installation of the fence with the Building Department claiming it was erected on his property and that a Fence Permit had not been issued, and had also raised the issue of the lack of a Certification of Appropriateness from the Historical Commission. Mr. Finch then stated that the Building Department had recently issued a letter to the Corbetts which he then read aloud. The letter stated that a Fence Permit could not be issued for the fence because according to a certified plot plan filed by the abutter it was located on the abutter's property. The letter further ordered the Corbetts to remove the fence. Mr. Corbett stated that he had not yet received a copy of the Building Department letter (which had been sent certified), and requested that he be provided with a copy of it. Finch stated that the Commission had several procedural options to consider in addressing the issue. It could proceed to hold a hearing and make a finding on a CA on the basis that a CA was normally issued before a building permit was issued, or it could find it could not issue a CA based on the fact that the Building Department had already stated that a Fence Permit could not be issued for the fence as installed. There was considerable discussion by the members regarding the procedural options. John Frates suggested the Commission should hold the hearing and make a finding on a CA based on the concept that a CA was issued prior to a Building Permit, and it was therefore normal to issue a CA without knowing whether the proposed work met the requirements of the Building Department or other city ordinances. Alan Synenki observed there was a difference between not knowing because a proposal had not been yet reviewed by the Building Department, and having a formal finding that a proposal did not meet other applicable City Ordinances and Codes. He did not see how a CA could be issued in the latter instance. After further discussion a motion was made by Synenki and seconded by Jim Younger that the Commission not act on the matter of a CA for the fence at this meeting because the Commission had been informed by the Building Department that a Permit could not be issued for it as currently constructed, Beverly Historic District Commission 5/18/00 Meeting Minutes Page 2 and that an application by the owner for a CA would be considered without prejudice following resolution of the issues brought up by the Building Department. The motion was carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Finch obstaining. Certificate of Appropriateness - 36 Front Street. Sean and Michele Devlin Mr. Finch summarized the application and related concerns as follows. The application as filled out was for painting the property using specific Bejamin Moore colors shown on the paint chips that were also submitted. Clapboard color: Trim color: Sash: Concord Ivory HC-12 Fairmont Green HC-127 Garrison Red HC-66 The colors and their proposed placement were very similar to the house on the southeast corner of Lothrop and Hale Street. Finch also stated that an additional issue that had been brought to his attention by Katie Corbett of 38-40 Front Street was not described in the application but was also before the Commission for consideration relative to a Certificate of Appropriateness. This concerned changes made to the garage on the property without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Devlin had installed a new 1/1 vinyl window on the Front Street side within a former window opening that had been bricked up for a number of years, and had replaced a deteriorated door on the east side with a door of different design. Finch stated that Devlin had assumed that because the garage was relatively modern (it probably dated to the 1930's) alterations to it did not require a Certificate. Finch explained that all structures within the District were within the jurisdiction of the Commission regardless of their age or their relative historic significance. In the case of structures like the garage that had little or no historic significance, or for new structures, the Commission's review should concern the effect of the changes on the setting and visual character of the District rather than the strict preservation of the features being changed. Finch then distributed recent photographs of the property to the members for their information. Finch asked the applicant if they wished to say anything further regarding their application, and then opened the meeting to hear comments from the attending public either for or against the application and the changes to the garage. Dennis Corbett of 38-40 Front Street stated he finds himself in a position that he has to make a lengthy statement about this issue. He states he has been before this board three times in the last five years and has gone to Bill Finch a number of times to pick his brains about alterations he was going to make at his house and the need to come before the board. In addition, on many occasions, he and other neighbors have brought up alterations in the neighborhood that they thought were historically inappropriate. He states they brought up the door and window because they thought it was historically inappropriate. However, he states it had been suggested that somehow they were doing this to pursue some private agenda. He asserts that is not the case. The door and window, by their estimation are historically inappropriate. Michael Gaudet of 3 South Street stated if there was a building permit issued to replace the window and put the door in, he has a big issue with the building department. He asked how a permit can be issued to replace a window without informing Mr. Devlin that he should seek a Certificate of Appropriateness? Gaudet stated the same person who issued the permit would have an issue with Beverly Historic District Commission 5/18/00 Meeting Minutes Page 3 replacing the fence that is identical to the fence that has been there for dozens of years. He states it is a waste of the Historic Commission's time and the Building Commission is not doing its job. Gaudet recommends the Historical and Building Commissions get together. He states there was a beautiful set of granite steps on Front Street that were replaced with ugly, precast concrete steps and there was no Certificate of Appropriateness for it. Gaudet states that when he was planning to build a fence, he asked for a building permit because he did not trust Mr. Jennings when he told him that he did not need a permit to put a fence on his property line facing the historical district. He states if the Building Commission does not know that a door or window in a historical district neighborhood requires an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, then there is an issue. Finch responded that regarding the building inspector, there indeed has been a long-term problem with recognition that the law states that obtaining a building permit within the Chapter 40C Historic District must be preceded by obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission. He had recently talked with Mr. Jennings specifically on this topic and they resolved that the Historical Commission would provide a list of properties that are within the district to the Building Department. He also noted that in the past the Building Department has had a map that is very clear in showing what is in the district. The Historic Commission members are concerned about this issue and they will try to remedy the problem. Finch further observed that the Commission does have jurisdiction over some changes that do not require building permits. The matter of the steps referred to earlier would not have required a permit. Finch also stated that the previous steps that existed at that location were deteriorated plywood rather than granite as stated by Mr., Gaudet. Mr. Gaudet commented that the gentleman would have needed a permit to remove the steps. The applicant, Sean Devlin, stated that if the members felt the window and door he installed were not appropriate, he would change them. Mr. Finch closed the hearing and requested comments on the issues from the members. John Frates commented that it was important for changes of this type be brought before the Commission for review and discussion. As Devlin did not follow normal process, he should file a formal application for the changes to the garage. Alan Synenki commented that he had a problem with both the door and window as installed, and that he could not support a motion to allow the changes as installed. Jim Younger asked where the door came from, and Devlin responded it was a window he found it in the trash and modified it to fit the opening as a door. Frates states the Historic Commission had taken great pains to work the owners of other buildings in terms of windows, etc. and even though the garage is a building that has no historic value, the finishes on the building do impact the visual character. He would like to see the owner come back with a sketch showing improvements to the door. Synenki responds he would recommend the owner come back with a door that appears solid and a window that has real through muntins. The matter of paint color was also discussed. the members did not have problems with the colors as proposed, but raised questions about how the garage was to be treated. Devlin stated that the Garage was to be panted as well. After discussion the members resolved that all features of the garage including the garage bay doors should be painted in the body color, except that the double hung windows and east side entry doors could be picked out in the sash or trim colors if desired. Synenki made a motion that the Historic Commission require that the applicant come back with a definitive plan for replacing both the window and door recently altered in the garage with more Beverly Historic District Commission 5/18/00 Meeting Minutes Page 4 appropriate items. The window is to be wood with through muntins and fill the entire previous masonry opening. The paint colors for the house are approved as per the Application, except that the garage is to be painted entirely in the body color except that treatment of the double hung sash and east facade entry doors with the secondary colors is optional. Seconded by Younger. The Motion carried 5-0. Certificate of Appropriateness - 50 Front Street. William Finch and Carol Rose Mr. Finch stated that he was stepping down as a member to present his request approval of a modification to the design for the ell at his property that had previous been issued a CA. He stated the certificate was issued for a double door and he would like to change that to a single door, which is more similar to what had previously been there. He presented a drawing showing the facade with. the change. Younger made a motion to accept the applicant's revised application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with a single 3' wide door. Seconded by Conden. The motion carried 4-0. Jake Conden made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Younger and passed 5-0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:10 p.m.