Loading...
2005-08-03 CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS Public Meeting Minutes Board: Historic District Commission Date: August 3, 2005 (morning meeting) Members Present : William Finch, Matthew Lewis John Condon Members Absent : John Frates Others Present : Leah Zambernardi Recorder: Leah Zambernardi Mr. Finch called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. 1. 52 Water Street - Informal Review of Proposal to Renovate Dwelling Mr. Finch states that Section 6.3 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure allows members to meet with potential applicants at the early stages in the design process in order to advise them informally concerning the Commission's guidelines. Mr. Finch states that the members' discussion this morning shall not be construed as an approval or a disapproval and that advice given is not official or binding in any way. He states that all members received a copy of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Karen and Chris Tomkins to renovate the existing two-story structure. Architect Gary Corsetti presents the plans. He states that the house is not historic. It is a modern building built in 1966. Mr. Finch states that the house is a noncontributing building in the historic district. Mr. Corsetti states he will add a second level to the house and that he hopes to have a shingle effect using Hardishingles. The trim will be Azek trim boards. He states that maintenance is an issue for the homeowners and he feels the Hardishingle, which is a cement fiber shingle, looks better than vinyl. He states that is not wood, but that it is better than vinyl. He states that all windows are to be Marvin double hung with aluminum exterior cladding. He states that the one window on the rear of the building facing Front Street would be all wood. Mr. Finch states that we have to look at this proposal in a few different ways. The overall design reflects a traditional 1920s colonial revival concept that's been modernized. He states that the Commission must also consider the views of the building from Front Street and also from Water Street. He states that the Commission's greatest concern will be the materials being used. He states the Commission has a past record of allowing contemporary designs on the Water Street side of buildings. Artificial products, other than vinyl windows and contemporary designs, have not been used. He states that they'd Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 3, 2005 Page 2 of 3 like artificial siding, trim and windows. He addresses the windows (Marvin 2/1) and he states that the way in which you apply the muntins is an issue. He asks the Commissioners which materials it wants to allow. He asks Commissioners if they feel that we should still be making a distinction between treatment of buildings on the Front Street side and the Water Street side. Mr. Finch states that the Hardishingle is equivalent to asbestos siding a few decades ago. Mr. Finch asks if Mr. Corsetti has ever used worslit clapboards. He stated they are wood but they have a baked on finish that provides about a 20-year guarantee. Mr. Corsetti states he has not. Mr.Corsetti states that the hardiplank shingles have a slight grain effect. He states they will use an asphalt-based shingle for the roof. Mr. Younger states that he does not agree with the argument about maintenance of the siding. He states that wood shingles are traditionally used in seaside areas for maintenance reduction. He states that a good quality wood shingle that is properly stained will last. Mr. Finch addresses the Azec trim. Mr. Corsetti states the surface of the Azec is not as shiny as the other synthetic trims. He states that wood trim is preferred in the District but notes that it will not last long unless it is a good quality stock such as mahogany or Spanish cedar. Mr. Finch states that UV damage affects the longevity of such products. He notes that if painted, the paint will block the damage of the UV rays. Mr. Finch asks members about the muntin issue and precedent. He states that they could possibly take out the muntins from their proposal altogether. Mr. Younger states that we have to look at the site in relationship to the entire district. He notes there is a contributing building right next door to this house. He states that if this building and other newer buildings are to be treated differently, we have to define why that's so. Mr. Finch states that we have to provide guidance in general standards of what the Commission wants to see down there. We have to determine whether we should distinguish what's facing the water and what faces Front Street. We should also discuss any aspect of the design that generates concern. Mr. Younger states that he is not as concerned about the design so much as he is about the choice of materials. Mr. Finch states that the concept of using traditional materials is important. He states we would be creating a set of different appearances in terms of character. He states a contemporary design aesthetic with traditional materials may be more appropriate. Mr. Younger states his concern is over the wood siding. He states that to even consider approving something else, he would want to see a mock up on site. Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 3, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Finch states that the cladding of the window is not as significant as a true divided light. He states that metal is more appropriate than vinyl, but we need to determine whether metal should be allowed at all. Mr. and Mrs. Tomkins state they will think about what the Commission has had to say at this meeting and they may revise their application and invite the Commission for a site visit. The meeting is adjourned at 10:30 a.m.