2005-06-15
LYNCH PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 15, 2005
Members attending included Liz Caputo, Joan Fairbank, Bruce Doig, Nick
Zarkades, Ginny Currier, Bob Griffin, Tom Clark and Nancy Clark.
Peter Seamans, representing the City of Beverly, was also in
attendance to explain the roof situation since a large amount of water
was discovered in the guild room in early December. Architect Jeff
Hoover of Tappe had hired Peterson Associates to oversee the roof work
being done by Greenwood; their representative inspected the leak with
Peter.
They concluded that the roof work, aside from 12 feet of flashing that
had yet to be applied on the ocean side, was adequate and that the
leak was probably coming from the upper wall over the entry ramp,
where there are a boarded-up window and sealed door.
Both the flashing around the chimney and skylight still needed work
which was to have been completed by Greenwood. Campbell Construction
Group, general contractor, applied for an extension. Peter said no
payment had yet been made as of this meeting.
A discussion about the structural integrity of the building concluded
that a new evaluation was needed of the entire envelope. Bob Griffin
volunteered to seek the Building Commission’s opinion on what the next
specific phase of the project should entail.
Nick reported that one local architect he talked to would charge $13K
for exterior drawings only, should LPAC decide to go local. Peter
cautioned that a local architect might not be up on all the
intricacies of historic restoration.
He also pointed out that the building had to have a higher usage value
than Public Works Department storage for the city to invest even a few
thousand dollars in its repair. This led to a discussion of a business
plan, which Tom Clark will pursue with Jack Good of Beverly National
Bank, to outline specific ways in which the building can generate
income as soon as possible.
A preliminary RFQ for the next phase of work was written by Rich
Benevento and distributed to all attending members.
As soon as the Essex National Heritage grant applications go online in
January, LPAC members will be asked to contribute their expertise in
providing information and choosing a project.
Joan offered to put a listing for volunteers in the In Service column
of The Citizen, and also to work on a gathering of Recreation
Department alumni to get younger residents involved in the
rehabilitation
of the carriage house (see below).
The next meeting will be January 19 at 7 p.m., Beverly Library.
Respectfully submitted by
Recording Secretary Nancy Clark
ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE GRANT CATEGORY FINALLY DEFINES OUR PROJECT
Since the March of 2002, we’ve been debating how to proceed with
getting grant money without hampering usage of the carriage house.
Of the five categories of matching grants offered by ENHC, we’re going
to apply for Category 3, Heritage Preservation and Resource
Stewardship, which offers grants ranging from $1,000 to $15,000.
Since the applicant has to have enough money in its treasury to
complete the project alone, the maximum we can apply for at this time
would be $6,500, which would give us $13,000 if we wanted to shoot our
wad altogether. While they prefer larger requests rather than smaller,
all we can do sensibly is aim for about $5,000 for a $10,000 price tag
on the entire project. Thursday we have to pick one.
Of their four subcategories, Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration
and Reconstruction, we’re going for No. 2, defined as follows:
“If the building requires more extensive repair and replacement, or if
alterations or additions are necessary for a new use, then
Rehabilitation is probably the most appropriate treatment.”
“Rehabilitation emphasizes the retention and repair of historic
materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is
assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work….standards
focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features,
finishes, spaces and spatial relationships that, together, give a
property its historic character…Many historic buildings can be adapted
for new uses without seriously damaging their historic character.”
Since we’re not trying to preserve, restore or recreate a barn for
horses and carriages, that’s the category most fitting for us. It also
applies to grants further up the ladder, since this is the first rung
of getting on the National Register.
---