Transcribed by AI from the city's PDF. Check the original before relying on it.
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Received and Recorded: City Clerk's Office, 2026 JUL -3
BOARD OR COMMISSION: City of Beverly Historic Districts Commission
DATE: April 29, 2026
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair William Finch; Vice Chair Suzanne LaMont; Wendy Pearl; Emily Hutchings; John Leahy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Christian Heath
OTHERS PRESENT: Shawn Mahoney, Fay Salt, Roger Herson, David Kaysar, Caroline Mason, Abby Battis, Jeff Dauzat
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning & Development Darlene Wynne
RECORDER: Kristan Patenaude
Call to Order
Chair Finch called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
- Citizen Presentation and Discussion: Suggested Updates to Chapter 168, Historic Buildings and Districts, including the City's Demolition Delay Procedures
Fay Salt, 66 Haskell Street, presented on behalf of the citizens group that was formed after a recent HDC meeting with the common belief that the current Demolition Delay Ordinance could be improved upon. She introduced the group's members. The request is that the Commission endorse the working group's proposed changes, with a goal of bringing it before the City Council. She adds that the Demolition Delay Ordinance was last updated 22 years ago in 2004. In just the past year, two historic properties were demolished after the one-year delay expired and there is currently one demolition delay in effect for the 38 Standley Street property. The current ordinance allows for only a one-year delay.
Salt continues that they believe the proposed language has already been tested in other areas and is workable for residents, owners, and the City alike. The group reviewed communities across the Commonwealth that have already modernized their ordinances. The most important change is replacing the procedures section, with a proposal to swap Beverly's procedures with a modern set taken from the Brookline ordinance. This includes adding a bona fide sale effort clause where owners must make a documented good faith attempt to sell before demolishing a property. This gives someone with a preservation bias a chance to obtain the property and take action. The proposed language also adds a new clause that resets the clock on a property sold during a demolition delay. The clock would start anew if there were a new owner, being called the wait-it-out clause. Another item suggested by the group is to require a sign on-site, supplied by the City, with a QR code containing information. Finally, the group proposes adding a severability clause, meaning that if one part is struck down, the rest still stands.
Hutchings expressed concern regarding the bona fide sale section. Building demolitions generally fall into three categories: the demolition of institutional buildings where the institution is no longer able to keep it or they want to do something different with the property and so there is a balancing of public benefits consideration; the demolition of smaller buildings in multifamily districts for the construction of new multifamily buildings which also leads to a balancing of priorities; and the demolition of single-family homes which are being torn down and replaced with other single-family homes. For the last category, it might be reasonable to insist on a bona fide sales effort before a demolition permit is granted. But it is unclear if this category can be separated out. She asked if there might be other policies and incentives that could better protect properties.
Pearl stated that it does not seem like the two-step process which currently exists, to determine Historic Significance and then discuss Preferably Preserved status, exists in this proposal. These items seem to have disappeared into the initial and final determination process proposed. This would be a real loss because the Preferably Preserved determination means that the Commission can determine that a project is significant based purely on historic integrity, value, connections to the history of the property, and relationship to the City. She opines that this allows for the decision to be split, where the proposal does not. There are also some terms, such as "substantial alteration," which are new and it is unclear how they fit into the procedures. This may lead to the Building Inspector making a determination on these terms. Finch explained that in Brookline, the determination of significance made by the Commission triggers the delay immediately.
Hutchings suggested maintaining the current process and potentially extending associated timelines in order to give the community more time to pursue alternatives.
Finch explained that it is the Building Inspector who determines whether an applicant is required, for a demolition permit, to file with the Commission. The typical threshold is that if an applicant proposes to demolish more than 50% of a building, a demo permit is needed. The Brookline ordinance defines "demolition" at length, and the Brookline Commission is the one that determines if someone needs to file a permit. Hutchings suggested that the Beverly definition for "demolition" follow the standard. The proposed definition describes architectural elements which could be a judgment call, ripe for appeal.
The Commission suggested identifying things that can be easily changed in the HDC's Rules of Procedure and considering other policies or reviewing the fee structure for the process. There was a suggestion to table the procedures portion of the suggestion and focus on the five goals provide by the citizen group through the lens of the Commission's existing procedures.
There was discussion regarding how public comment would factor into the proposed process. Wynne stated that she thinks the most appropriate process is for the proposal to ultimately come from the Planning Department, with recommendations from the group and Commission.
The Commission agreed that for the next meeting there would be further discussion to review the proposed items that could be considered for changes in the Commission's existing Rules of Procedure.
- Discussion: Update to Historic Districts Commission's Rules of Procedure
The Commission reviewed the proposed updates to the Rules of Procedure document made by Hutchings, which were primarily administrative, grammatical, or scrivener's. Hutchings requested that Wynne send the revised version to the Clerk's office for official documentation.
Hutchings: Motion to approve the proposed amendments, as edited and discussed.
Leahy seconds. Motion carries (5-0).
Hutchings asked for an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding whether staff or the Commission can establish a fee schedule for historic applications, both Local Historic District and Demolition Delay reviews, or if this requires an Ordinance change. Secondly, whether the Commission may require a physical sign on site, including regulations in the Rules of Procedure, or whether this would require an Ordinance change.
LaMont: Motion to ask the stated questions of the City Solicitor. Leahy seconds.
Motion carries (5-0).
- Status Update: Proposed Bills HD.4331 and S.1428 before the Massachusetts Legislature with proposed changes to MGL Chapter 40, Section 8d and MGL Chapter 40C.
The Commission tabled discussion on this item to a later date.
- Project/Committee updates, if any:
a. Update on Historic Resource Survey Project: Cabot-Rantoul residential neighborhood from Suzie LaMont, designated representative
LaMont stated that the property list for review has been reduced to the target goal of 110 properties.
b. Update from Community Preservation Committee representative Wendy Pearl
Pearl stated that the CPC approved all of the applications. The Housing Trust's request was voted at half of the amount requested.
c. Update from Design Review Board representative Emily Hutchings
Hutchings stated that the DRB reviewed 46 Federal Street which is a completely new building. The current design is more in line with the neighborhood character. The DRB recommended approval. The Planning Board voted to approve the application last night.
- New business, other business, or topics for future meeting agendas, if any
a. Essex Heritage Partnership Grant application
Wynne noted that this grant was not awarded to the City.
b. Correspondence: Consultation letter to MHC from Planning Department regarding new CDBG-funded Beverly Housing Rehabilitation program (BHRP) submitted pursuant to HUD Regulation 24, CFR Part 50 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (HUD required Environmental Review Process)
The Commission tabled discussion on this item to a later date.
- Approval of Minutes, as available
a. February 25, 2026
b. March 12, 2026
The Commission tabled discussion on this item to a later date.
- Adjourn
Pearl: Motion to adjourn. Leahy seconds. Motion carries (5-0).
Meeting adjourns at 9:30 p.m.