|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Roman Polaski
Marie Troiano
Lilllian Troiano, Alternate
Sonja Dean, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
HDC #335: Richard M. Tatoian, 1106 Enfield Street. Install a vinyl privacy fence. EHDO Section 8.
Ms. Lillian Troiano was appointed Acting Secretary for this evening. Chairman Tatoian turned the meeting over to Mr. Meyer as he is the applicant.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the legal notice went in with vinyl but wood is proposed. Mr. Meyer asked that Mr. Tatoian state where the fence presently is and what he proposes.
Mr. Tatoian stated the fence that exists is a fence that runs along the south side of the property from the entrance to his driveway on the south side along Frew Terrace. It goes from the south side of the property from the driveway entrance approximately sixty feet along Frew Terrace and then it stops. The fence is located behind a row of hemlock trees that are about fifteen feet high that run along the south side of the property from the driveway entrance up to Enfield Street all along Frew Terrace. The trees were trimmed within the last month or so because they were overgrown and were blocking some of the sight line as you come up Frew Terrace to go to Enfield Street. Some of the traffic signs were blocked by that overgrowth. They were trimmed and the hemlocks are about fifteen to eighteen feet high. The lower seven or eight feet of the hemlocks were completely trimmed off. That exposed the property where there was not a fence to the street view.
Mr. Tatoian stated the proposal is to extend the cedar fence that is approximately fifty or sixty feet from where it stops all the way up to Enfield Street all along Frew Terrace. It would be a cedar fence like the one that exists now. The new fence is going to be along Frew Terrace for about forty-eight feet. Then when it intersects with Enfield Street, there would be one more panel along Enfield Street of eight feet. The height is going to be five feet which is the height of the present fence. The fence is cedar wood which will weather with time as the other one has. The fence is located behind the hemlocks which are all along Frew Terrace but it will be visible from Enfield Street and Frew Terrace because of the fact that the lower seven or eight feet of the hemlocks have been completely trimmed.
Mr. Meyer asked if the fence posts would be the same as the existing fence. Mr. Tatoian stated they would and there will be a post about every eight feet.
Mr. Meyer asked if the existing fence has exposed posts so that the fence butts into the post or are the posts hidden. Mr. Tatoian stated the posts are exposed.
Mr. Meyer asked if the extension along the east face of the property will meet with the existing fence on the other side of the sidewalk. Mr. Tatoian stated it will.
Mr. Meyer asked what B and F stands for on the drawing by GMH Fence Company. It was the consensus that it stands for back and front.
Mr. Tatoian noted the present fence is pressure treated material.
Mr. Gwozdz asked if the hemlocks will remain where they are. Mr. Tatoian stated the hemlocks will stay. Along Frew Terrace there are the hemlocks but there is no sidewalk on the north side. On his side there will be the hemlocks and then the fence. Then along Enfield Street there will be that eight foot section. Along Enfield Street there are hemlocks all the way along the east side of the property and those have not been trimmed. This fence will be behind the hemlocks so along Enfield Street you won’t see the fence.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if Mr. Tatoian will be doing any under plantings. Mr. Tatoian stated earlier this week he had mulch installed along Frew Terrace. He does not intend to plant anything and he will have the hemlocks and the mulch all along the road.
Mr. Meyer noted the fence which is being proposed, once it is weathered, will look similar to the fence now existing. Mr. Tatoian confirmed that to be the case. It is really an extension of what is there.
Mr. Meyer opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Mr. Meyer closed this public hearing.
Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install cedar privacy fence sections to close the hole in the existing fence on the east and south corner of the property as shown on the contractor estimate site plan submitted by the applicant with this application.
Said fencing as detailed by the applicant is to be installed as described and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC#335.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian not participating and Alternates Lillian Troiano and Raymond Gwozdz voting.
The reasons for approval are it was determined that the fence is being expanded with ‘in-kind’ materials and design; and because of the proximity of the fence to the street, the mature hemlocks create a satisfactory buffer between the two.
HDC#336: Lance Campisi, 1356 Enfield Street. Install a vinyl ‘split rail’ fence. EHDO Section 8
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the legal notice is somewhat different than what is proposed this evening. Originally the fence was only to be on the west side of the arbor 20 feet away and going west to a pin (227’). The applicant changed the starting point to five feet from the west side of the arbor and included another section of fence starting five feet from the arbor on the east side and going to the pin at the state right of way.
Lance Campisi appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Campisi stated he and his wife feel to more clearly define their property line, it makes sense to put up a fence. When you go down the driveway, it looks like they are on a back lot. He is tired of people asking who does that property belong to. They feel the fence proposed is a very attractive fence.
Chairman Tatoian stated this is the New England Diamond style of fencing.
Mr. Campisi stated the fence would run on the northern property east of the arbor and then on the other side of the arbor about five feet off the arbor and to the right of way.
Chairman Tatoian stated as you drive from Enfield Street to the property, on the south side there is an arbor and he asked how old it is. Mr. Campisi stated over one hundred years. Chairman Tatoian noted the Campisi property was carved out after the arbor was erected and when the property was carved from the large piece, the lines just ran where part of that arbor was on his property. Chairman Tatoian asked if the fence that is proposed affects the arbor. Mr. Campisi stated they will be far enough away from the arbor where it won’t interfere. What they are proposing is they have the fence on both the east side and the west side of the arbor but far enough away from the arbor so that it won’t be a distraction. Mr. Campisi stated everyone he has talked to feels the fence will enhance the property.
Chairman Tatoian stated the fence will be before the arbor.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the original application was to begin beyond the arbor and then it was amended. The Commission will have to vote to change the agenda for the location. Mr. Campisi is proposing now that it begin at the iron pin at the right of way and then travel west to within five feet of the arbor and then begin again five feet beyond the arbor. There won’t be any fence along the arbor.
Chairman Tatoian noted the fence is going to run along the property line along the north side which is five feet over from the arbor. Mr. Campisi stated that is where the fence will run but the property goes up to the state right of way. Chairman Tatoian asked if the driveway is a shared driveway. Mr. Campisi stated it is and it is shared with the other house to the south of his home. Chairman Tatoian asked if the neighbor has a right of way over the driveway. Mr. Campisi stated it is a shared driveway and if you look at the map, it looks like his property line goes right down the middle of the driveway.
Chairman Tatoian stated it looks like the driveway is shared between the two properties. Some of it is on the Campisi property and some on the neighbor’s. Mr. Campisi stated as you go down the driveway, everything to the right belongs to them and everything to the left belongs to the Ruggiero’s. The fence would be entirely on Mr. Campisi’s property and will more clearly define their property. Without the fence it looks like they are in a back lot.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there is a fence on the south side. Mr. Campisi stated there is and it is a split rail. The one he is putting up is similar and also the same color white. Chairman Tatoian asked about the fence on the south side. Mr. Campisi stated that belongs to the Ruggiero’s.
Mr. Polaski noted Mr. Campisi is going to install 227’ of fence.
Ms. Marie Troiano asked where the fence will end. Mr. Campisi stated there is a pin which designates the right of way to the Tracy’s, the neighbor to the north.
Ms. Dean asked what material is the arbor. Mr. Campisi stated wood. The address sign post is vinyl.
Mr. Campisi asked about the age of the arbor. Mr. Campisi stated it is well over one hundred years old. When he and his wife were doing some landscaping, they uncovered a Victorian garden. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Victorian garden doesn’t show up on the 1930 Route 5 right of way map. The arbor predates that. The garden must have been buried for decades. When they checked into the design of the garden with a garden historian, he couldn’t date it much earlier than around 1880. Further discussion followed on the evidence of the garden. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there were stones, there were beds, and the bricks were laid out as walking paths. There were rougher stones and there was a raised bed in the center with surrounding beds. The surrounding beds were sectioned so it was a fairly typical design that the garden historian was able to place around that time.
Mr. Meyer asked how old is the original house. Mr. Campisi stated it was built in 1960.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how far this proposed fence will be from the fence that is existing. Mr. Campisi stated maybe 200’. Mr. Gwozdz asked why Mr. Campisi is proposing vinyl instead of wood. Mr. Campisi stated the diamond shape will be more attractive than a wood horse fence.
Ms. Dean asked about the texture of the vinyl. Mr. Campisi could not answer this but he saw one recently and it is very attractive.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if there will be any plantings along the fence area. Mr. Campisi stated none are proposed.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install vinyl, ‘split rail’ – type fence sections along the north property line at 1356 Enfield Street.
Said fencing as detailed by the applicant in the product sheet submitted is to be installed as described in the submitted site plan titled “Property of Margaret M. Fitzgerald, 1356 Enfield Street…” and dated August, 1990, and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC#336.
Ms. Dean stated she thinks the applicant’s comment on choosing the diamond style as opposed to a flat rail is a very good idea. She thinks the attempt to try to match it to what is on the other side is admirable. The two things she has concerns with are the issue of vinyl versus wood and the appearance of that. Having seen many vinyl fences, some of them can look like plastic when the sun hits them and that is a concern being so close to a historic arbor that is wood. Ms. Dean stated the other issue she has a concern with is the proximity to the arbor and wanting to make sure it doesn’t detract from that arbor. She wonders if starting the fence prior to the arbor would detract or if it would be better to start it after the arbor and allow the arbor to take center stage for that part.
Mr. Meyer asked if Ms. Dean wants to amend the approval. Ms. Dean stated she is curious to know what the other Commission members think. Her desire if it was her choice alone would be to ask for clarification on the finish of the fence and she would like to amend it to start past the arbor.
Mr. Meyer stated he feels what is proposed sounds like the way to go. He doesn’t like vinyl fencing but in this particular case because the house is a 1960 house, vinyl was available in 1960. He doesn’t think it will deter from the attractiveness of the neighborhood to have a vinyl fence. If it were older, he would prefer to see wood.
Ms. Dean stated her concern is the fence sandwiches a one hundred year old arbor within five feet on each side. It seems to her the result would be a modern material in close proximity to something that is over one hundred years old.
Mr. Alsbaugh corrected Mr. Polaski and stated there was a change to the application and five feet is proposed on each side of the arbor not twenty feet. Mr. Polaski stated the arbor will look old no matter what type of fence is installed near it. Further discussion followed on the arbor with vinyl fencing.
Mr. Campisi stated the vinyl fence is three times more expensive than a wood fence. The quality of the fence is such that it will enhance the property more so than wood. The Commission already approved the sign post and it is the same high quality vinyl.
Ms. Marie Troiano stated she would support having a fence start behind the arbor and having the visual from the street be the arbor without having a fence in front of it.
Chairman Tatoian asked the length of the fence before the arbor. Mr. Alsbaugh stated thirty-five feet. From Enfield Street, there would be 120’ to 140’ to the arbor itself. From the pin to the street it is probably 100’. The fence would start as proposed 100’ from the street and a good 30’ beyond the sidewalk. Where the pin is at the right of way it would then go within five feet of the arbor or whatever the Commission decides. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the balance issue was brought up by the fence installer who thought it was better to have a fence on both sides of the arbor. That was their reason for changing the original proposal.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has to come to an agreement if any changes have to be made and then make a friendly amendment to the motion.
Chairman Tatoian asked east of the arbor what is the length of the fence. Mr. Alsbaugh stated approximately thirty-five feet. There would be 100’ from the street pavement to the beginning of the fence.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how far from the road is the existing fence. Mr. Alsbaugh stated thirty feet south of the existing driveway or a good seventy to eighty feet away. Mr. Gwozdz asked if the Commission approves this, will it be balanced with the fence on the south. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the fence begins east of the arbor. Some discussion followed regarding the specific location. Mr. Alsbaugh did not know for certain if Mr. Campisi’s fence if approved as proposed would begin forward of where the south fence is.
Ms. Dean asked where is the sign post in relation to the driveway. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is in front of the sidewalk. Ms. Dean stated her biggest concern is the appearance that a fence on both sides coming so close to the arbor is going to bisect the arbor. She wonders how that would look.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can amend the motion so that the ends of the fence are farther back from the arbor so that you don’t get that truncation effect. The Commission can decide whatever is appropriate.
Ms. Dean asked if the arbor is approximately twenty feet in width. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it may be 16’ or 18’.
Some discussion followed on procedure. Of the five voting members, four need to agree to the amendment as it was presented.
Mr. Meyer made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to change the proposal to position the fence within five feet of either side of the arbor and to the east up to the pin designating the right of way. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lillian Troiano voting.
Ms. Marie Troiano stated she would like to see a larger gap between the fence and the arbor.
The main motion, as amended, was approved by a 4 – 1 – 0 vote. Ms. Marie Troiano voted nay and Ms. Lillian Troiano, Alternate, voted.
The reasons for approval are: (1) the diamond shape of the rails is a preferable design to the flat rail types, and; (2) vinyl is not contrary to the period of the house’s construction (1960).
MINUTES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to approve the Minutes of July 25, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Meyer had asked at one point which section of the statutes referenced the color issue. It was in an amendment to the statute that was added on and it is Section 147d, sub section c. It goes through what the Commission can consider to make a decision. The section includes a line which states “the provisions of this section shall not be construed to extend to the color of paint used on the exterior of any building or structure.”
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh reported there is a House Talk registration for anyone who is interested in attending on September 29, 2007.
Mr. Polaski stated there is a water tower behind his brother’s house that has been abandoned right off North Maple Street. The water company is no longer using it. The way they are going to get rid of this tank is they are going to cut the legs off it and let it fall down. If anyone on the Commission is interested, he will call Commission members to let them know when this event will occur. Commissioner members stated they are interested. Further discussion on the tank followed.
Ms. Dean stated she went to the Connecticut Trust seminar a few weeks ago and she has the materials from that seminar. She further explained what occurred at the seminar which was geared to commission members and realtors to talk about selling historic houses.
Mr. Meyer reported last Friday in the Connecticut Superior Court there were two members of this Commission that attended the hearing of the Montessori School versus the Enfield Historic District Commission. It lasted for approximately an hour and there was no decision that came out of it. The Court didn’t ask the town’s representative any questions whatsoever but grilled the Montessori School’s attorney. Some discussion followed on when to expect a decision. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it could be four to five months.
Chairman Tatoian stated there was an interesting Supreme Court decision on the historic districts this summer and it was included in the meeting packet. He suggested Commission members read this because it involved a home where the homeowners put a large sculpture on their grounds without applying for permission from the historic commission. The Supreme Court decided that sculpture did require permission from the historic commission even though it was not affixed to the property. The property owners decided not to apply and removed the sculpture.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
· Historic Marker Program options
Chairman Tatoian noted the considerable material presented from Mr. Alsbaugh to the Commission on historic marker program options.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Ms. Dean called and asked if there was a historic marker program and Enfield does not have one. Mr. Alsbaugh went to the internet and pulled out a lot of information for the Commission to review. Many towns do it for different reasons. Some places charge and some don’t. Some places require the applicant to research their own structure and other places have the information available. Those that charge - sometimes it’s a nominal fee and sometimes it includes the research for the marker. Marker types and materials vary widely. If the Commission is thinking about doing it, there should be some discussion. If out of that discussion, it is something the Commission wants to pursue, then they should have a public hearing. What Mr. Alsbaugh did get from all the research is that it is highly recommended if a marker program is desirable, it should be done through the legislative body. In this case, that would mean the Commission would petition the Town Council to write a resolution to modify the Commission’s ordinance. In that way, everything would be incorporated into the administrative process and the Commission would have authority over the process. If the Commission decides they want a program, they have to decide up front what kind they want and how it will be formed.
Chairman Tatoian asked when this is implemented and a style of marker is approved by the Commission, would the property owner be responsible for the cost of the marker. Mr. Alsbaugh stated some places charge and some do not. It is a budget item. The Council would decide what that would be. The Commission would make a recommendation of what they would like to see and whether or not there is a charge for it would come out of the Commission’s discussions.
Chairman Tatoian asked if such a program would prevent any property owner from putting up their own marker. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would not. The only way it would be prevented is if the homeowner wanted to put something up and the Commission did not feel it was appropriate. The Commission could also pre-approve a set of options and state this is what has to be done and nothing else is approvable. It is how you formulate the program.
Ms. Dean stated when they moved into the district, several people on the Council told her Enfield used to have such a program and that is why some people have markers. She doesn’t know the specifics of the prior program. She did measure the signs in other towns and they seem to be all over the map. She wanted to do one for her home and knows a lot of people that want to do the same type of thing.
Ms. Lillian Troiano stated there was a sign on her home when she bought it.
Mr. Meyer stated prior to the National Bicentennial, the Enfield Historical Society had signs made for every historical house and issued a plaque listing the name of the house or the year it was built. This was done in 1995. Mr. Meyer suggested contacting the Enfield Historical Society who would provide the details. Ms. Dean stated she believes they were only issued to houses beyond a certain date. Ms. Dean stated she contacted the Historical Society and they didn’t know anything about it.
Ms. Dean stated there was one new sign placed in the district. She made tremendous efforts to find out when her house was built and she elaborated on these efforts. She felt there are a lot of people in her position that have a house under a hundred years old where there is no documentation. She thinks it is important to pursue. Mr. Meyer suggested Ms. Dean talk to Tony Secondo or Rose Sokol.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated you have to understand the national archeologists who did the surveys had extremely limited time and resources. However, there are people such as Roger Thompson who will do this for a fee and they are trained to research the records.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if there is a program, the Commission can require that the property owner does the research. Most people would pay someone to do it. The alternative is for the Commission to spend the money and have a professional do it and that’s part of the fee to have a plaque.
Mr. Meyer noted the Chairman has photographs of all the homes in the district and the supposed year they were built. Ms. Dean stated a number of the years are incorrect. That is her biggest frustration. She can look at several houses in her vicinity and the documentation that she has been able to research from the residents that own those homes is different than what’s on file. People want to acknowledge this and Ms. Dean felt it is something the Commission should look into and address in a more formal capacity.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Commission might want to form a subcommittee because at some point the Commission is going to have to decide what level of certainty they are going to require to be put on a building. There was misinformation produced during the original process and that had to do with time and budget constraints. Everyone assumes such programs were done correctly. The Commission may want to consider going back and making the corrections that Ms. Dean has said she has discovered.
Chairman Tatoian felt the Commission should take this up in more detail.
A subcommittee meeting on the regulations was scheduled for Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr
|