Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-05 Historical Commission Minutes RECEIVED Town of Reading TOWN Cl E-RK ` Meeting Minutes`` .1 A.. K ,v� Y ; ,, s 23 AM 9 49 V Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 1 Historical Commission Date: 2020-11-05 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Open Session Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Virginia Adams, Associate (VA) Jonathan Barnes, Chair (JEB) Samantha Couture, Member (SC) Pino D'Orazio, Associate (PD) Amelia Devin Freedman, Secretary (ADF) Sharlene Reynolds Santo, Member (SRS) Jack Williams, Treasurer (JW) Members- Not Present: Ron Weston, Associate Others Present: Chris D'Ambrosio (CD) Sue D'Ambrosio (SD) Julie Mercier (JM) Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amelia Devin Freedman Topics of Discussion: JEB called the meeting to order at 7 PM. IM asked SC if she needed any technical help getting the meeting started. When she did not, JM left the meeting. SC described the rules for the Zoom meeting. She advised attendees that the meeting was being recorded and that it might be live streamed by RCN, either on television or YouTube. JEB began by thanking the owners of 420 Franklin Street, CD and SO, for attending the meeting. He summarized the reason for the"emergency meeting,"as follows: the RHC became aware that the owners, whose house is on the Historic Inventory and has a Preservation Restriction Agreement (PRA), had made changes to their house which are subject to provisions of the PRA without contacting the RHC in advance as required by the PRA; he and VA had contacted the owners two days ago; the owners advised they had been unaware of the existence of the PRA. JEB and VA asked the owners to pause their repairs until the RHC could meet, and to submit a written summary of the changes they have completed and those they are planning. JEB reviewed the portions of the PRA relevant to the situation at hand, as follows: that some maintenance and repair (namely, that made with "in kind materials and colors, applied with workmanship comparable to that which was used in ... construction") can be Page 1 1 done without the RHC's prior notification and approval; that maintenance and repair which change the house's"appearance, materials, and workmanship from that was existing prior" must be approved by the RHC in advance. JEB noted two other important requirements of the PRA, namely, that (1) the RHC is entitled to inspect the property every five years to ensure it remains in good physical condition, and (2) the owners must notify the RHC prior to putting the house on the market so that the Commission can review the PRA with potential buyers. JEB asked the owners to describe the changes they had made and were intending to make, as he had not received their written statement. CB said he had emailed JEB as requested. Upon inspection, however, CD realized he had emailed the proposal to himself instead of to JEB. During the meeting, CD transmitted his earlier email to JEB, which was received and shared with RHC members. SD described the repairs they have been making and the reasons for them. She said that the shingles on the addition have been replaced with cedar shakes because they were flaking, chipped, and rotted. She said they have replaced some of the windows on the front fagade of the original half-house because they were painted shut, molded, and rotted; the upstairs windows have already been replaced but the first-floor windows have not. She said they painted the previously red half-house white because they liked the color. SD concluded by saying that they are proud to own their home since 2012 and they want to maintain its historical integrity. JEB invited the Commission to ask questions about the owners' proposal. JEB began by asking them to confirm that the windows being replaced were themselves replacement windows, not the windows original to the house. SD said yes. VA asked if the windows they were replacing had internal ropes and weights. SD said they did not. VA said that this confirmed that they were replacement windows. SC asked about the material of the replacement windows. SD said that they are vinyl clad wood on both sides (i.e., on the interior and exterior of the house). JEB asked the owners to send the construction specifications for the windows to the Commission for their review. VA gave a history of the past efforts to save the house, which led to the PRA in 2006. The Commission imposed a 12-month demolition delay when a previous owner wanted to demolish the house and put up three new houses in its place. They searched for a new buyer who would be willing to renovate rather than demolish the house by placing a notice in several national magazines and by producing a video about the house that ran on RCN. They worked with the Conservation Commission. They had the house designated a "Historic Homestead"through the Massachusetts Historical Commission because it had been owned for more than 100 years by the same family. They commissioned a study by BU to determine the house's age based on the features of its construction; this study was inconclusive. In short, she said, the RHC has a lot invested in the preservation of this house. ADF asked why the owners had changed the color of the house from red to white. SD said they had done a good deal of research into historic colors and decided they liked white. ADF noted that the house's red color dates to at least 1947 and that it is noted in Walkable Reading's entry on the house. She suggested that the red color should be maintained; she likened the situation to that of the Depot, which also has a PRA and which the Commission maintains should remain painted its historic colors. JEB suggested the two situations were not analogous for two reasons, as follows: (1) the Depot building is a public, "iconic" structure and not a private home, and (2) that the colors of the depot are those of the Boston & Maine Rail Road which constructed the building. SC asked what the colors of the various parts of the house are currently. SD said that the half-house is white, the addition is natural, and that the garage, which the current owners constructed, is red. SC asked if all three parts of the house are connected. SD said yes. JEB said that only the house and the addition, but not the garage, are subject to the PRA. Page 1 2 SC asked if the original half-house would have had shingles or clapboards. VA said that early houses had both, and that she wasn't able to say with certainty what was original. She continued that the homestead family were carpenters and builders, who probably did most of the construction themselves. She suggested the RHC might look back on the BU study to answer this question. JW returned the discussion to the windows. He asked if the owners were going to retain the nine over six light design of the first-floor windows. SD said no; the upper sash will be sized down so both sashes are the same, and the new windows will be 6 over 6 lights. JW pointed out that this would change the appearance of the front facade. He said that he'd like to see a rendering of what the new windows would look like in place. SD said she didn't think anyone would notice that change; JW said he would. SRS asked whether the owners had already paid for all the windows that they intend to install. SD said they had. SRS asked whether the RHC has "any business" concerning what windows the home owners use, since they had already been purchased. JEB advised that the changed windows would remain subject to RHC review/approval per the PRA. SC asked whether the lower windows had always been nine over six lights, because that could be significant to the current discussion. SD displayed an 1865 picture of the house that showed the first-floor windows having 6 over 6 lights. JEB asked the owners to email that picture to the RHC. SD said she would. SC said that, given the fact that the picture shows the windows were 6 over 6 in the past, she has no objection to the owners returning them to that configuration. VA asked if the owners need a building permit to replace the windows. JEB said he had been informed by JM that they did need a permit. SD said they were unaware of that fact, having trusted their contractor to pull permits if necessary. When they "confronted"the contractor, he admitted that he knew he should have applied for a permit before beginning work. JEB said the owners have now submitted a permit application to the Building Department. JW said he had no issue with the changes the owners propose. SC said she might have preferred different design choices had the owners known to contact the RHC in advance; the fact that they had not done so seemed to her an innocent mistake. ADF asked VA if she knew what color the house had been in the past. VA said she remembered that the house was red when she was a teenager, but she had no objection to the owner changing the color because paint can always be changed; she noted that it is a principle of the Secretary of the Interior's"Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties"that any change that can be reversed is acceptable. Motion: That the RHC approve the owners' written application, submitted on November 3 in accordance with the Preservation Restriction Agreement, to reshingle the house at 420 Franklin Street with cedar shingles, and to install replacement windows; and that the RHC approve the owners' request to change the exterior color of the original half-house from red to white and the carriage house addition from red to unpainted natural cedar shingle, although this request was not in the written application; and further that the RHC gives this approval despite the fact that the owners did not contact the RHC for approval at least 30 days in advance, as required by the PRA. JW motion, JEB second; vote 4-0-1. JEB asked the owners again to send the 1865 photo and the written proposal that was not sent to the RHC in error. VA asked that the owners contact the RHC the next time they would like to repair their house. She also asked the owners to save an example of any architectural feature they remove while renovating, so future owners will know what was there. ADF asked the owners to make sure they provided the PRA to any prospective buyers. Page 1 3 SD asked whether she would need to contact the RHC when she paints the front door. JEB said yes. JW noted that the need to request permission to change the color of a house is unusual. JEB agreed but said both parties must abide by the terms of the PRA as written. )EB noted that the RHC's historical plaque, which is on the addition, should technically be on the half-house since the addition is later than 1711. JEB again thanked the owners for stopping work when requested and for attending the meeting. CD thanked the Commission for convening so quickly, so that they could continue the work on their house in a timely fashion. CD and SD left the meeting. Motion:To adjourn. JW motion, JEB second; vote 5-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:43 PM. Page 14