Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-2-12Minutes for February 12, 2015, adopted Mar. 10 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 2 Fairgrounds Road Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www.nantucket-ma.gov t- ma.gov Commissioners: Linda Williams (Chair), Dawn Hill- IIoldgate (Vice- chair), John McLaughlin, Diane Coombs, Raymond Pohl Associate Commissioners: lascin Leonardo, Abigail Camp, Kristine Glazer Staff: Mark Voigt -- MINUTES -- Thursday, February 12, 2015 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room — 1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:06 p.m. Staff in attendance: K. Bedell, Administrative Specialist; T. Norton, Town Minutes Taker - Attending Members: Williams, McLaughlin, Coombs, Pohl, Leonardo, Camp, Glazer - Absent Members: Hill- Holdgate Late Arrivals: None Early Departures: Leonardo, 3:28 p.m. Agenda adopted by unanimous consent Williams set the rules for the public hearing. 1. Maitino, Michael 29 Tot. �6erty reet move off a;ap /bai OS486 Westbay Dev. Sitting Williams, McLaughlin Pohl, Coombs, Camp Alternates Leonardo, Glazer Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation. A hard copy of the PowerPoint® presentation. Representing Jeff Kaschuluk, Westbay Development Sue Ellen Delacort, Westbay Development Irina Djerdj, Westbay Development Jonathan Fitch, Sally and Fitch LLP Public Margot & Tom Montgomery, 33 North Liberty Street Bary Berman, 28 North Liberty Street Lucy Dillon, 37 Liberty Street Kevin Kuester, 83 Main Street Michael May, Nantucket Preservation Trust (NPT), 55 Main Street Stephen Cohen, Cohen & Cohen LP, self Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C., for Berman, Hoyt, Montgomery Discussion Motion to Incorporate the previous file for 29 North Liberty Street into this file. (Coombs) Carried unanimously Fitch Introduced the PowerPoint@ slide presentation that addressed issues that came up before the Board of Selectmen to be discussed in the remand. Delacourt Reviewed information on the age of the structure in question: documentation on the interior materials of the structure, maps and aerial photos. Djerdj Continued the PowerPoint® presentation which detailed structures already approved for move -off or demolition or substantially altered. As reflected in the presentation, reviewed the depth of her research on demolitions and moves off of structures in the Old Historic District (OHD) approved over the last 3 years, 2012 to 2014. Explained that the presentation compared the "in- office survey" to the 2011 Survey both showing in some cases conflicting designation of the structure as contributing, non - contributing, and individually significant. Went through the presentation address by address. Presentation lasted 18 minutes. Delacourt Explained the process she went through to find her data then presented evidence in regards to HDC decisions that involved changes in streetscape along North Liberty Street. Described the research she did in relation to the two surveys and noted that the information on the property is incorrect and that the assessor's information is incorrect in regards to construction date. Explained her research into the validity of the 2011 survey: who did the survey, how was it put together, and who would be contacted in regards to information on the survey. Stated she was told that any structure 1975 or older was given a contributing status on this survey. Reviewed in depth, the 2011 survey on the "barn" at 29 North Liberty Street, which she contends in incorrect. In her research, she found that every condominium structure in Tristram's Landing is classified as contributing. Stated that led her to research Building with Nantucket in Mind which references those structures as the reason the entire island was made a historic district and HDC's authority expanded to include the entire island. Presentation lasted 15 minutes. Fitch Emphasized for the record that the board has been dealing with conflicting information in respect to this property. Reiterated that the 2011 Survey lists everything built prior to 1975 as listed as at least contributing regardless of its architectural aspects or significance. Page 1 of 4 Minutes for February 12, 2015, adopted Mar. 10 Kaschuluk Reviewed the structural engineering report on the warehouse structure. Presentation included photos of damage and Page 2 of 4 that the structure is sloping toward the wetlands. The structure is entirely within the 50 -foot buffer to the wetlands. McLaughlin Contends a photo showing the slope of the structure was taken at an angle. Delacourt Explained that using a laser to measure, from front to back there is a 63/4 -inch drop. The foundation is cracked 2 inches with a 2 -inch drop. Kaschuluk Continued his review of the structural engineering report, which describes a failing foundation and the environmental engineering report that explains how difficult it would be to get equipment in to repair the foundation due to the proximity of the wetlands. Explains that he does not believe he could get Conservation Commission approval to bring in machinery to make those repairs. Reviewed approvals for demolition of historic structures due to structural reasons as recently as 2014. Delacourt Noted that in regards to streetscape no structure was present in the location of this warehouse between 1891 and 1976. Kaschuluk The assessors listing classifies this structure as a commercial warehouse attached to the adjacent commercial building. Pointed out that he is looking to remove all commercial use of this property in a residential area. Fitch The research since the last hearing shows that in the last 3 years that the commission has a record of consistently allowing structures to be moved if not demolished and that many of those structures were over 100 years old. The found only one instant of a structure younger than this one that was approved for a move or demolition. Based upon the presented evidence, contends that the 2011 Survey should have no weight whatsoever in the HDC's determination if the structure contributes historically to the Town. It has no historic significance. The owner is in the position with this structure that it is sinking and the fact is that the owner could not get a building permit to fix the foundation. He respectfully submits it would be arbitrary of the commission not to permit the relocation of this structure. May Stated that the 2011 Survey is being misrepresented as in error. One reason Nantucket is a National Historic Landmark is because of the way its industry, buildings associated with that, the resort industry which began in 1840s, and preservation. Nantucket is a leader in preservation. NTP looked at 1955; also looked at the date of Walter Beinecke's influence on Nantucket preservation. The National Park Service chose 1975 as a better date than 50 years. Pointed out that over 20 years, buildings considered contributing are going to be added. The label contributing should be a "red flag" to HDC to look at the structure more carefully. Regardless of the date of construction, contends HDC should look at its setting, whether or not it contributes to the historic character of other historic resources around it, and what the relationship is of the building to those historic structures. In his opinion, the relationship of this structure to the Seth Ray house should be persevered. Boston Associates did the 2011 survey; they have done updates on all the national historic districts in Massachusetts. Referenced two structures built in the 2011' century in'Sconset that are considered iconic and are painted by artists. Pointed out that in regards to the survey, they looked at the whole Beinecke redevelopment of the harbor. Reviewed some inconsistencies he found in the applicant's presentation in regards to change: 56 Centre Street, 38 Mill Street, 28 Easy Street. Pohl Everyone agrees that Tristram's Landing structures are not historically significant but they are on the 2011 survey. It is fair to say some buildings in that survey are worthy of discussion and others are not. May Stated that usually a Survey B would be done on structures going into more detail about a structure. Pointed out that some newer structures in the OHD are worthy of discussion and this is one of them. Pohl The photo of the other "iconic" building which dates from 1990 is a great building and successful, but does that mean it can't be moved or changed. Also who is the arbiter of what is iconic or "ftulky" such as Codfish Park. May HDC's role is to be that arbiter. The role of the HDC is to protect historic resources and ensure new buildings fit in. Williams Claimed that Town Counsel doesn't agree with that at all. Beinecke's improvements were mentioned and referenced as the reason for the 1975 date; in fact his improvements were early to mid 60s. May Pointed out Walter Beinecke established the Historic Trust and Preservation Institute of Nantucket (PIN) program. The 1975 date goes back to his influence on the Island and historic preservation. That is the reason Nantucket is a National Historic District. Cohen The conversation about preservation is the crux of this whole thing. HDC is only allowed to demolish structures under the standards stated in the statutes: whether or not a structure is architecturally or historically significant. This building is neither. He is concerned that "other considerations" are now being used in reviewing these applications. It can be historic and architecturally important without being old; the 50 -year mark is irrelevant. Cited some modern examples. Another question is if it would be a detriment to the public interest if this structure were demolished or moved. This is a building that is really nice and fits in; every building approved by the HDC should meet that criteria. That is not a reason for it not to be moved or demolished. The only argument seems to be that it looks nice where it is and no one wants to see it moved. Popular opinion is irrelevant to an HDC decision. Alger Submitted into the record a copy of the previous file. The HDC made the right decision after careful consideration. She sees nothing to support HDC changing the decision. Mr. May's presentation was spot on in the context of streetscape. The HDC is the arbiter of what is and is not important. Believes we can argue that this building is historically and architecturally significant and its removal would be a detriment; enumerated reasons to support her argument. The streetscape with two old structures as viewed by people walking down the street. This structure has developed importance since it was built in 1975. HDC argues each application is unique and precedent is not binding. In prior demolition cases the HDC knew what was going in its place. Addressed the recent historic survey being discredited. She would ask the HDC reaffirm its decision. Page 2 of 4 Minutes for February 12, 2015, adopted Mar. 10 T Montgomery Submitted a packet of the history of this area at the table and reviewed structures referenced in the packet. Read his Page 3 of 4 letter into the record. Asked the HDC to vote against the move. Berman 28 North Liberty Street — Submitted historical survey and applicant's note at the table. Defended the 2011 survey labeling the barn as significant. Alger The reference to an "Incorrect survey" is the language of the application. Berman The point is that the 2011 survey is not incorrect. The only place that it says "1938" is in talking about the Seth Ray house. These are architectural note. The survey is not invalid. Williams We all know that there is different language between the two surveys and the building was built in 1975. Berman Continued reading his letter in support of the previous HDC decision 11/13/2014 not to permit the move or demolition of the ancillary structure. M Montgomery There are professionals who specialize in doing foundation without being invasive into sensitive areas, cited the Seth Ray house. It wouldn't be arbitrary not to consider this structure with the Seth Ray house; it was built to be in harmony with the Seth Ray house. Asked about whether or not it is a commercial zone. Kaschuluk This is definitely shown as a commercial warehouse. Fitch There has been some discussion about considering what will happen to this site once the structure is removed; that is not proper. The HDC should be considering only whether or not it can be moved. The applicant is not required to present a proposal for this location at the same time the removal is being considered. What has not been presented is a case where the HDC denied moving a structure in the OHD. We have presented an abundance of evidence where structures were moved or demolished. IT is an extreme departure from handling of these applications in the past. Alger She did not say the applicant is required to present the replacement proposal. She did say that in most cases shown in the presentation, the HDC was provided with an application of what was going in its place. The HDC asked and was provided that information. There could be a situation of a missing structure which would be disruptive to the street scape. Williams Those were all primary buildings; this is the first ancillary structure being moved. On Gardner street at this time there is a garage removal application that is being held up because it is being replaced by a house. Alger Bill Liddle's property on Mill Street his structure was falling down and HDC required him to renovate and repurpose. Williams That structure was 100 years old. Alger That speaks to her point that every case is unique. Coombs The Land Bank barn on Union Street at Consue Springs, HDC denied moving it. Williams That was a house that went back to being a barn. Coombs Her point is that the removal was denied. McLaughlin Mr. Fitch made a comment that all applications are contributing regardless of style and architecture. This is a situation where that comment is very true. Stated he was on the HDC when Mr. Maitano came to the HDC to build the structure and his plan was to match the existing building so it would fit in. Reviewed his argument against the 50- year, which was made by a board member 8 or 9 years ago and carried forward by him; the original Act states that judgments will be made on structures of 1894 or before. Reviewed areas of newer construction that has been maintained. Pohl He feels it would be counter to the HDC policy to deny this move. There is ample precedent to move historic buildings regardless of iconic streetscape. The rationale being pushed by the opposition, that because something is fine the way it is, that is the end of it. That handicaps people from doing things if they happen to have an attractive building. The idea of seeing the alternative; he isn't interested in that because if nothing goes in, it is a gap no different that the Lily Pond. There is the opportunity to build a structure that fits well with the streetscape. He doesn't think the structural situation is germane. Camp She looked at the cracks and how it is settling; her original thought was that it could move forward to get off the wetland setback. She supports the move because she is confident the HDC will permit an appropriate building in its place. She agrees with Mr. Pohl. Coombs She has seen the building and the cracks inside and out. She does not like to see buildings moved. Of the 26 buildings presented as moved since 2012, some had to be moved. She thinks this structure does have continuity in the streetscape. It concerns her about where it clips off the land going down to the Lily Pond. She would as a last resort agree to have it moved; but if there is anything else that can be done for it in place, she would prefer it. It can be structurally repaired. Williams Agrees with Mr. Pohl and Ms Camp. She doesn't think moving forward would be architecturally appropriate. That lot was empty for about 82 years. The original was a lean -to barn. HDC approved moving the structure on Caton Circle to allow subdivision of a lot which had been sitting in its original position. Craig's Barn on Main Street was allowed to be moved right for subdivision. Moving structures is part of Nantucket. Referred to the criteria of moving structures that could suffer damage by remaining in their present location. Reviewed structures that moved off or moved on site along North Liberty Street. In her mind HDC not permitting the move of this structure cannot be justified. There are 3 members in favor of the move. Asked Ms Coombs how she would vote. Coombs It doesn't matter. It is a hard decision. Williams Asked 11r. McLaughlin Page 3 of 4 Minutes for February 12, 2015, adopted Mar. 10 McLaughlin Always consider the immediate surroundings. He feels the photos from '/z mile away don't have anything to do with this structure. In contribution /non - contributing structures, of the photos submitted, half were built since 1955 and half before. Camp This has been a very hard decision. Motion Motion to Approve the request for relocation of this building based upon the original "in favor" document to be supplemented by comments made today. (Pohl) Vote Carried 3 -2 /McLaughlin & Coombs opposed. Certificate # 63184 2. Bartlett Road NT 12 Bartlett Road Move on 67 -116 Westbay Dev. Sitting Williams, McLaughlin, Coombs, Pohl, Camp Alternates Glazer Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation. Representing Jeff Kaschuluk Sue Ellen Delacort Irena Djerdj Jonathan Fitch, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Michael Angelastro Public None Concerns (3:27) Williams - Need a picture of the back of the structure. Coombs - Asked about screening from the bike path. Kaschuluk - The siting is based upon a special permit issued by the ZBA. Angelastro -The Zoning Board of Appeals will insist on screening of a commercial structure from the road. Discussion about the type of screening along the site path, year -round vegetation. McLaughlin - Feels this is not harmonious to the neighborhood Motion Motion to Approve the move on through staff with year -round vegetation along the bike path and a photo of the rear. (Camp) Vote Carried 4 -1 /McLaughlin opposed Certificate # 63185 Motion to Adjourn: 3:38 p.m. Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 4 of 4