2013-05-22CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Approved
BOARD:
DATE:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
441 Hale Street — On -site meeting
Historic District Commission
May 22, 2013
Bill Finch, Jim Younger, Wendy Sue Pearl, Martin Lian
N/A
Kirk Baker
Kirk Baker
The meeting begins on the second -floor, in the proposed master bedroom area located on the
southeast corner of the house above the first -floor parlor.
Pearl calls the Beverly Historic Districts Commission's ( "the Commission ") May 22 site
meeting to order. Present at the meeting are the above -cited Commissioners, the property owner,
and the applicant, Ms. Helen Greiner, and her design team consisting of the Architect, Mr. John
Margolis, and the Landscape Architect, Ms. Laura Gibson.
Pearl thanks Ms. Greiner and her design team for meeting with the Commission to further
attempt to resolve issues which led to the imposition of two demolition delay periods, the first on
November 15, 2012 and the second more recent decision issued on April 29 2013. Pearl
requests that Ms. Greiner give the Commissioners an overview of her intent and priorities for the
project. Ms. Greiner states that she is looking to have a home that she wants to live in and that,
in her view, the keeping of the structure as depicted in the first demolition delay application in
November 2012 was her attempt at mitigation. She states that a major benefit to removal of the
c.1906 western wing of the house is that it will create a new opportunity for additional
landscaped garden space. Moreover, she plans also to keep and restore the existing dining room
fireplace (the Inglenook). She states that the previously proposed pool has now been dropped
from the plan. The Commissioners agree that this modification is a positive new direction for
her proposal.
Ms. Greiner then states that the new design does retain the two -car garage which is physically
connected to the main house, but also points out that the side of the house where the garage is
located (the north side) is in no way visible from any public way. Finch agreed with this
assumption and expressed that, because the proposed new driveway and garage is located at the
front of the house, it is therefore well concealed from public view, and will not be a concern for
the Historic District Commission.
Ms. Greiner leads the Commission outside to look at the southern elevation. She notes that she
plans to restore the wall stairs located on the existing western elevation. She further indicates
that part of her current plan is to preserve, as much as possible, the retaining wall that holds the
building perched high above the dense wooded shoreline area to the east. However, she notes
that the retaining wall is unstable at the southeastern corner of the house where the proposed
double level porch is intended to connect. A repair of this portion of the retaining wall would
move the existing wall foundation out an additional 10 feet, serving as a foundation for the
proposed porch. Finch points out that the current location of the retaining wall was a probably
good reason why a porch was never installed there in the first place.
Pearl states that the location of the current ledge can be an opportunity for compromise. She
states that the applicant can forgo the installation of a two -level porch but still have a single level
porch. Ms. Greiner expresses a dislike of this idea stating that she would like to have a second -
floor access to an outdoor view of the seaward side of the house.
Younger brings up the issue about impact of the porch installation to the composition of the
ledge from which a large, natural rock out - cropping transitions from the house's foundation into
its first -floor stone base exterior. Mr. Margolis, states that the rock outcropping will most likely
be impacted during the repair of the retaining wall in its vicinity in order to wrap the porch
around southeastern corner of the house. Finch questions the effect of the proposed
improvements to the transition from stone into the bed moulding, contending that it is most
definitely an essential historic detail that should be preserved. The Commission also expresses
concern about the awning- covered bench over - looking the southern seaside view from the house.
John Margolis states that he understands the problem posed by the alteration to the ledge and the
rock outcrop, but he isn't sure at this point in time how he would reconcile that feature with the
proposed design. He then states that he would give the matter consideration and get back with
the Commission with a solution at a future time. Mr. Margolis indicates, however, that they do
intend to preserve the covered - bench.
The discussion then turns to the fanlight. The Commission makes clear that the features of the
southern elevation, although it is visible only from the seaside, is part of the original 1881
Emerson designed structure and is essential to the historical character and significance of the
house. The meeting moves to the interior hall where the fanlight is located. Ms Greiner indicates
that she is still proposing a two -floor scale fanlight to allow someone standing on the second
floor can look straight out and see the shoreline view. She further states that she does not feel
that the current fanlight is part of the original house design due to historic drawings of the house
in which the fanlight appears to be larger than it is now and to have different details. The
Commissioners disagree with Ms. Greiner's assertion and state that all the evidence points to the
fanlight being part of the original design. The Commission asserts that the fanlight is one of the
essential elements of the south elevation that should be preserved. Ms. Greiner contends that she
feels that it is her house and that she should be able to do what she feels is necessary with the
house.
Due to time constraints Mr. Margolis requests that the meeting move to the piazza located along
the northeastern first -floor elevation. Ms. Greiner states that she has changed her mind in
regards to this feature and will seek to preserve it, although it will require significant repair of the
flooring which has deteriorated to a large degree. The Commission is pleased that the applicant
has reconsidered her original proposal to alter the piazza. Ms. Greiner states that she would hope
that the Commission would give her credit for this concession and that it should consider being
more lenient with the other features which are in dispute. She expresses a hope that the
Commission would consider lifting the existing Demolition Delay decision at that night's
meeting.
The Commissioners each indicated that they felt it necessary to take time to reflect on the
night's discussions and that they would respond officially in writing sometime by the end of the
next week. Once the letter is issued to the applicant, the Commission stated that any further
consideration of lifting the current Demolition Delay period(s) shall require updated conceptual
drawings that reflect the most current the project design proposal.
Ms. Greiner and her design team stated that they understood this and would await an official
decision letter from the Commission.
Adi ourn
Finch makes a motion to adjourn the meeting. Pearl seconds the motion.
Members vote unanimously (4 -0) to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 p.m.