DPW Street Sweeping Schedule
Document Actions
Minutes for Historic Board on September 13, 2010, 06:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING
Arthur Hammar Conference Room, JFK Civic Center
September 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT
Rachel Edlund,
Chairman Franky Descoteaux , City Councilor
Peter
Aucella
Mark E. Goldman,
Adam
Baacke Jim Jozokos, Paul Davies & Associates
Richard
Lockhart
Kim Little, self
Martha Mayo
Rita M. Mercier, City
Councilor
Amie
Stevens
Alan Simao,
22 Fairview Street
Susan
Zacharer Paul
Simao,
Bob
Zapelli, self
Linda
Zapelli, self
Charles
Zaroulis, Attouney for Zapelli
Stephen
Stowell, Administrator
Kim
Zunino, Assistant Administrator
1. MINUTES
Motion by Ms. Mayo, seconded by Mr. Aucella, to:
approve the minutes of April 12 and July 12, 2010.
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
2. OLD BUSINESS
- BNHD-10-01:
Application
for a Historic Permit for construction of an approximately 3,800 +/- square
foot single-family residential structure on an existing vacant lot.
The
Chairman noted that the hearing for the project was closed for public comment and
that no one other than Board members will be speaking unless invited. She explained the reason behind the continued
hearing from April, stating that there were legal and zoning issues with the
property that needed to be addressed.
The Chairman recognized architect Jim Jozokos, of Paul Davies & Associates,
who is representing the applicants.
Mr.
Jozokos stated that the ANR for both lots had officially been accepted and
registered at the Registry of Deeds but there were changes to the
property. He explained the main
property,
Mr.
Jozokos also stated 75 square feet of the future basement has been removed or
filled-in on the house plan which brings the home down to an acceptable gross
square footage for the newly defined lot.
The Chairman asked if the floor plan of the building had changed and Mr.
Jozokos said it had not.
Mr.
Aucella asked Mr. Lockhart and Mr. Baacke if all of the other issues had been
addressed to the satisfaction of the Division of Planning and Development and
ZBA.
Mr.
Baacke stated that as he understood it, a new ANR plan has been submitted by
the applicant, endorsed, and recorded that addresses the “infectious
invalidity” issue that had been raised by an attorney of the abutters at the
last meeting. He said there are a number
of potential zoning issues that were reflected in the plans brought before the
Board in April. He said it would be helpful
for the applicant to go through and show how and if they have addressed these
issues and how they stand. Mr. Baacke
pointed out that nothing has been submitted to the Building Department or the
ZBA, but for the Board, it is only concerned with the how the resolution of the
issues affects the exterior design of the building. The applicants would still need to go before
the ZBA in the future and demonstrate they have LHB approval and how they will
comply with zoning requirements. He said
that if they do not then they may have to come before the Board again.
Mr.
Jozokos said the elevations as first presented showed the front of the lot
level, then it dipped to one side then both sides dipped to a slope. He said that an area needed to be provided
for the inhabitants of the house to enjoy the back yard and he did not have to
change anything in the elevation while adhering to the rule that said a certain
square footage of land couldn’t be more then 8% sloped.
Mr.
Jozokos also stated that the driveway design had a 30 foot set back with a 6%
slope and it would not exceed the maximum allowed pitch.
Mr.
Jozokos presented a chart that listed all the surrounding properties and their
floor area ratio. He said that the
average floor area ratio in the area is almost 70%, so the average building
gross floor area is in the 8000 sq. ft. range and the average land area is
12,000 sq. ft.
Mr.
Jozokos explained that although the 22
The
Chairman asked for the FAR for this property.
Mr. Jozokos said that the property has 10,623 square feet, not counting
the 20ft x 25ft corner piece.
Mr.
Jozokos also wanted to clarify that any illegal dumping that happened on the
lot prior to his clients purchasing the property is out of their control.
Mr.
Baacke asked about complying with the rule that 90% of the lot could not have a
grade of more than 8%. Mr. Jozokos said that there is no wetlands issue,
which goes with the other half of that rule.
Mr. Baacke said that per the rule they need 9,000 square feet of the
property to have less than 8% of a slope.
Mr. Jozokos stated he believes that the property complies with that rule
but that the determination will be made at a later date with the Zoning Officer
and Engineering when they go through storm water management.
Mr.
Aucella asked about the design of the proposed retaining wall to the rear of
the property. Mr. Jozokos stated that
his client did not have any proposed changes at this time and the existing
stone wall will remain as is.
Mr.
Baacke went over the previously discussed issue of documentation by the
proponents as to protect themselves and the abutters from possible claims of
damage to the surrounding homes as a result of the construction.
Mr.
Jozokos said that that would fall under the insurance of the builder. He said that whoever pulls the permit to
construct the house will have to show proof of insurance.
Mr.
Baacke explained that the insurance would be the resource but he was referring
to documentation of the existing condition of the abutting homes before an
issue arises. Mr. Jozokos said he would
refer to an attorney’s opinion but he is concerned about “what-ifs” that might
pop-up when going onto the abutting properties.
A
discussion ensued about the specifics.
Mr. Jozokos said it may be cost prohibitive if extensive documentation
is required.
Mr.
Aucella asked Mr. Baacke if he is suggesting that this be a condition to the
approved permit. Mr. Baacke said that it
would be in the interest of the Historic Board to protect the surrounding
historic properties. Mr. Jozokos wanted
to make sure that such a request did not hold up the permitting process or
cause undue financial strain to the owners.
Mr.
Baacke asked if it would be an issue if the Board required the applicants to
photograph the outside of the properties as well as the inside if they are
given permission to do so. Alan Simao
said that he would prefer to go the traditional route and leave the issue to
the insurance company.
Mr.
Simao asked who would be the one responsible for the documentation and the
extent needed. A discussion ensued and
Mr. Simao stated that if blasting was to occur, that this type of documentation
is standard. He feels although it would
be a good idea he would rather leave it to traditional insurance to take care
of such issues.
Mr.
Lockhart said that it is a good idea for the Board to take an interest in this
documentation to protect the surrounding historic properties. He stated he sees it as part of their
jurisdiction.
Ms.
Zacharer said that although she thinks it is a good idea she is unsure if this
would fall under the jurisdiction.
The
Chairman stated that she feels it would be very hard for the Board to monitor
the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings. At any time a number of things could lead to
the failure of structural integrity that has nothing to do with this project.
There
was a discussion about whether this documentation should be a condition of the
permit or not between the Board members.
The Chairman wondered if the Board needed to be that concerned. Mr. Simao stated that there is no need for
extensive excavation on this site which would minimize any damage. Ms. Mayo didn’t think it should be a
condition of the package and Ms. Zacharer agreed.
The
Chairman asked Mr. Baacke to think about the wording that might be used
regarding a motion that would include language referencing documentation.
Mr.
Aucella went over the wording of the standards for the neighborhood district
and went point by point to see what else the Board should be concerned with in
regards to this project.
Mr.
Aucella went over the materials aspect of the project and the Administrator
confirmed that the materials
used
would be consistent with the properties in the district. He also confirmed that the proposed structure
was consistent with the size, scale, and massing of other properties in the
district.
Mr.
Aucella stated that in reviewing the abutters’ concerns that were presented at
the April meeting, it appeared the abutters were concerned with the size of the
building. However, Mr. Jozokos had
previously stated tonight that the proposed structure would be in the
acceptable range of scale in regards to the surrounding properties.
Mr.
Aucella said that the orientation is in question, as he wondered why this
building would be set back further from the adjacent house. The Administrator said that it was as close
to the street as the current zoning allowed.
Mr.
Aucella then went over the section of standards that mentions landscaping and
removal of trees from a property. Mr.
Aucella recapped the meeting notes from April and said that the site was
cleared in 1995 and some earlier this year.
The Board’s response to the 1995 clearing was that the district had not
been created until 2005, but a certain amount of trees had been removed earlier
this year. He asked what the conclusion
to this was.
The
Administrator said that no trees were removed since the Board stopped the work
earlier this year. He stressed that they
only intervened because this went beyond landscaping and was obviously clearing
associated with an unknown, at that time, development. He noted they stopped immediately. Paul Simao said he cut smaller trees down and
only around eleven.
Mr.
Aucella said the options were that the Board could not issue any permits and
deny the project, allow the project to go forward with the trees gone, or they
could put a condition in to put trees back to replace the ones lost. Mr. Aucella asked for the Board members
opinions.
A
few options were discussed by the Board such as the problem of putting trees
back where sunlight blockage is a concern of the neighbors and if there would
be problems with the slope of the property.
Ms.
Mayo asked about photographic documentation of the stumps of trees
removed. The Administrator said there
was none.
A
discussion of tree grants was discussed and the possibilities were discussed.
The
Chairman asked about the two possible proposed conditions (trees and
documentation) and some phrasing.
Mr.
Baacke gave the suggestion that the documentation condition be phrased that
they would be required to document, using digital photography, the existing
exterior condition of the adjacent properties that are visible from the public
way prior to the start of construction.
The photographs would be given to the Historic Board Administrator where
they would be archived indefinitely.
The
Administrator worded a condition for the trees in that the applicant would work
with the Board, DPD design planner, and other agencies on the submittal and
approval of an appropriate landscaping plan and including the placement and
location of several trees. He asked if
it should be staff level approval or if the applicant has to come back before
the Board.
Mr.
Baacke thinks that there should be more clarity about what they are
asking. A discussion ensued and the
Board decided that that condition should be left off.
The
Administrator asked about the previous condition concerning the retaining wall
and it was agreed that the condition will state that if any changes to the wall
were to occur in the future it would have to come before the Board.
Mr.
Jozokos added that any trees remaining on the property are proposed to be kept.
Charles
Zaroulis, Esq., representing Linda and Robert Zapelli who live at
Mr.
Zaroulis insisted that there were things submitted during this portion of the
meeting, the FAR, that had not previously been submitted, so he and the public
had no opportunity to address them. The
Chairman said that there are no new materials and Mr. Baacke clarified that the
Board did not accept the FAR, as the ANR was filed with the City on behalf of
the Planning Board, not the Historic Board.
He said it is simply information the Board wanted to have.
Mr.
Zaroulis said that the issue of infectious invalidity was not resolved as it
only addressed the frontage of the 75 foot lot and not the sideyards and that
the buildings on the adjacent property there do not comply. He said his clients are afraid that when it
leaves the Historic Board, that it will never be addressed and his clients will
never receive notice. He said a garage
is only two feet from the property line.
Mr.
Baacke pointed out that the garage is ten feet away from the property line and
the two feet he is referring to is from an older property line not affected by
the ANR plan. The Board members
consulted the plan to see the lines discussed.
Mr.
Zaroulis said that the issue is that the 62 Fairmount lot has a non-conforming
building on it, so that lot needs a variance for the Fairmount lot so not to
infect the 22
Mr.
Baacke suggested that if people felt this is a problem then they can add a
condition to the permit. However other
Board members agreed this is implied when issuing permits.
The Chairman asked if there were any other
concerns that the member of the Board would like to discuss. She then asked if there was a motion on
the floor with the added condition.
Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by Mr. Lockhart, to:
vote to issue the Historic Permit for
construction of a single-family residential structure at
· Submittal, review, and approval of final design and construction details including, but not limited to,
specifications for door and window systems prior to commencement of work. Material and color samples will be required for paint, stone, metal, and shingles;
· Hardiplank siding and Azek trim to have smooth (not raised grain) surface. Sample of final selection to
be submitted for review and approval prior to purchase and installation;
· Any action or work proposed for the rear retaining wall and fence to be reserved by the Board at a future
Board meeting prior to commencement of work including the submittal, review, and approval of design, plans, and material samples. With regard to the site, care is to be taken to protect and retain any remaining large trees on the site;
· The applicant shall document, using digital photography, the existing exterior condition of the adjacent
properties that are visible from the public way with such photographs being submitted to the Board prior to construction start and the issuance of a Building Permit; and
· Submittal, review, and approval of any scope of work alterations and final details prior to commencement
of work.
The proposed project is consistent with the Design Review Standards of the Belvidere Hill Neighborhood District, in particular Sections 3.10, 3.20, and 3.30.
Approved, 6-0-1 (Ms. Stevens abstained as
she was not present when the hearing first opened)
Materials used in the review of this
application included:
·
Architectural and
site plans for
·
Board advance
meeting notes (4/12/10 and 7/8/10)
·
City Council
memorandum (4/29/10)
3. OTHER
BUSINESS
A. Enforcement/Violations Update
The Administrator said that no response
had been received from
Motion by Mr. Lockhart, seconded by
Mr. Aucella, to:
vote to send an Order to Appear to
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
The Administrator said that several other
Requests for Compliance have not been responded to. Board members agreed that staff should again visit Mama Lia’s Pizza (
Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by
Ms. Zacharer, to:
vote to send an Order of Compliance to
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
Motion by Ms. Mayo, seconded by Mr.
Aucella, to:
vote to send an Order of Compliance to Zeus Auto (
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by
Ms. Zacharer, to:
vote to send an Order of Compliance to
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
B. Administrator’s Report
The
Administrator said that FY11 permitting is running slightly behind FY10 but it
is important to note that FY10 was the busiest permitting year since FY05.
Amie Stevens (Board member
representing at-large historic preservation interests) was appointed by the
A letter was sent to the
Greater Lowell Bar Association (GLBA) seeking a nomination to replace Michael
Talty who resigned due to moving out of
The Board’s office relocation to City Hall will take place on September 15.
The Assistant
Administrator led a tour and gravestone cleaning workshop at the
The Assistant
Administrator continues working on various aspects of historic cemeteries in
The Assistant Administrator has been working with the City’s cemetery department on identifying missing grave markers and providing them with spreadsheets listing the burials in the non-active historic cemeteries.
The Administrator will be
attending the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual conference in
Staff continues to visit new and existing businesses, distributing informational packets including the Board’s “open/closed” signs.
The Board agreed that the next meeting should be moved to Monday October 18 due to the Columbus Day holiday falling on the regular monthly meeting date.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mr. Aucella, seconded by Ms. Stevens, to:
adjourn the meeting at 7:20p.m.
Unanimously approved, 7-0.
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Kim
M. Zunino, Assistant Administrator
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Stephen R. Stowell, Administrator
