|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Nancy Smyth
Marie Troiano
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
Sonja Dean, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
HDC#328: Shawn and Marlene Caron, 1380 Enfield Street, Construct new 2-car shed garage and pave driveway. EHDO Section 8
Shawn Caron appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he has owned the property for one year. He would like to build a two-car garage and pave the driveway. Mr. Caron stated the driveway goes around and behind the house but he is not paving the entire length. It will not wrap around the back of the house and they would make that area grass.
Chairman Tatoian noted the garage will be to the west and behind the house. The paving of the driveway will be black asphalt. Mr. Caron stated the driveway is approximately twelve feet wide and will remain that width.
Chairman Tatoian asked that Mr. Caron describe the garage. Mr. Caron presented a sample of the siding of the garage which will be wood. The roof will match the shingles of the house. Ms. Marie Troiano asked if the garage will be visible from the street and Mr. Caron stated it will be.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the garage doors. Mr. Caron stated they are flush and do not have any recessed panels. They have a wood grain look to them and they will be painted the same red color as the house. They are metal doors with a wood grain finish. Chairman Tatoian asked if there are five sections of the doors. Mr. Caron stated yes but you won’t see the lines. The door will be flat.
Chairman Tatoian stated these are rather plain doors and the house is a historic home and one of the oldest in the town with a very distinctive architecture. He asked if Mr. Caron considered something other than the plain doors. Mr. Caron stated he did but in all areas where he has seen houses like his with a garage like he is proposing, they had the same doors.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if there is going to be any hardware on the doors and are they automatic or manual. Mr. Caron stated there is no hardware proposed and the doors will eventually be automatic. Ms. Troiano asked if the door shown on the south side is wood or metal. Mr. Caron stated it will be a fiberglass. The window is an Andersen window and that will be vinyl.
Ms. Marie Troiano made an observation that the slats on the house run horizontally and the slats on the garage are vertical. She asked if they could be horizontal on the garage. Mr. Caron stated they could but he prefers the vertical. The ones he has seen all have the same look. He discussed a project in Windsor where the garages are all similar to this one.
Ms. Dean stated this type of siding is meant to replicate the look of clapboards with board and batten that was more popular in the Victorian era as opposed to something in the 1700’s.
Mr. Alsbaugh commented that with shed garages it is not unusual to have a vertical board and batten design. It is a matter of choice as to what the Commission feels is appropriate for the area and what the property owner desires for an out building. Mr. Alsbaugh observed that it is not really board and batten that Mr. Caron is showing. He asked if there would be vertical strips and Mr. Caron stated there would be. The plywood used is T-111. The battens will cover all the grooves and it will look like an era appropriate out structure.
Ms. Dean asked about the shape of the structure and what was the style of out buildings in 1702. Mr. Alsbaugh stated shed type structures are common back through some of the earliest colonial periods. He pointed out if the height is going to be more than 12’ which is half way between the front peak and the top of the roof, then that has to be approved by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Caron will double check on that. He stated it is 8’9” to the mid section.
Ms. Dean asked if the overall shape and the scale of the proposed shed garage would be reasonable for a home of this era. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he would say yes. If you were going to be a real stickler for a perfect reproduction, you would be talking wood shingles. Mr. Alsbaugh is comfortable with historical accuracy of board and batten and he felt the scale is acceptable as outbuildings came in all sizes dependent upon use.
Ms. Marie Troiano brought up the plain flat doors. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is a decision for the Commission to make. He gave all the information to both the Commission and the applicant about options for doors. Obviously, plain overhead sectional doors don’t really have any historical reference. If the Commission is not happy with them, the may in their discussions come up with a solution for the applicant.
Chairman Tatoian stated the out building is acceptable and in conformity with the house but his concern is the flat doors. He felt they are modern doors that don’t have any relation to the architecture or history of the house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the typical historic door would be doors that open out. To get that visual look, you can have outward opening doors or you can overhead doors that replicate the visual of the outward opening doors from the street but are actually segmented panel overhead doors. Manual or automatic doors are available.
Chairman Tatoian stated he can understand the concern about doors that are not automatic doors. He suggested something that can accommodate the needs of the property owner but be more in keeping with the house.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he presented material to indicate the options that are available design wise. He tried to stay with the ones that seemed to replicate visually the double opening out type door. The final design is up to the Commission. The main historical reference should be to a double opening door. How that is achieved is really dependent on what the Commission feels is appropriate to the property. Mr. Alsbaugh noted it is an old Georgian building but it is reasonably simple. It does have 12 over 12 windows and a classic reference to the portico but that doesn’t necessarily mean an out building has to be as formal as the main building.
Chairman Tatoian pointed out the handouts presented and identified the New England door. He asked about specific doors. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they are steel roll-up overhead doors as are all the other options presented.
The Commission members discussed the various options for overhead doors Mr. Alsbaugh presented to them.
Ms. Dean asked about curved windows on the doors and would they be from a later period. Mr. Alsbaugh stated for the era, the curved windows are probably out of place. If there were windows in the out building, they would probably be the smaller square windows. In response to a question from Ms. Dean regarding the preference for windows, Mr. Caron stated he doesn’t like the garage doors with windows. In his opinion, the doors presented as options are too busy for the style of the house. He thinks the house is simple and elegant and the windows and hardware take away from it.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the issue is not one of being busy but rather a matter of historical appropriateness. There needs to be a decision on the part of the Commission regarding appropriateness.
Ms. Dean asked on the windows that are shown in the garage, the two windows on each side, they are shown as six over six instead of twelve over twelve. Mr. Caron stated there won’t be a window on the north side. The proposed one on the south side is six over six but it won’t be visible from the street.
Ms. Dean stated she has a concern with the style of a modern door especially with the trim surrounding it. She would advocate pursuing one of the door options researched for the applicant by Mr. Alsbaugh.
Chairman Tatoian stated he is not in favor of the plain door. He thinks something else should be considered as the modern doors proposed are not appropriate for this house. Mr. Caron stated he has seen these doors on homes in many historic districts including Windsor and Suffield. The neighborhood he saw all had the same flush doors. Also, the other doors included as options are two and three times more money and he did not want to spend that.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested an option that the garage be turned so the doors don’t face the street.
Ms. Dean asked what is the visibility of the sides of the proposed garage from the street. Mr. Caron stated south the house blocks it and north the school would block it. Mr. Caron stated it is not possible to change the location of the garage unless he attaches it off the back of the house.
Mr. Gwozdz asked if he has looked at any of the doors from Mr. Alsbaugh without the windows. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did not mean to imply that windows should be required. He tried to pick door design options where windows could be omitted – it seems that doors with windows simply are offered in website pictures as a popular current trend.
Mr. Gwozdz stated this is a garage and more bells and whistles are not going to make things more appropriate. It is a matter of personal taste for each individual. He has seen other garages with the plain doors on them and they are not hideous. Mr. Gwozdz felt that some of the doors being discussed would be more appropriate on a carriage house rather than a garage. He doesn’t want the Commission to go overboard.
Mr. Caron asked if it would be helpful if the proposed doors were the almond color of the trim of the house versus red. Mr. Alsbaugh stated color is not allowed by law as an issue.
Mr. Gwozdz did not feel the doors presented are that much of a problem.
Ms. Lillian Troiano agreed with Mr. Gwozdz. She noted this is a shed type garage and not a carriage house. It is a simple structure. She doesn’t see anything offensive with the plain garage doors. She thought they went along with the structure and it is expensive to have other types of doors.
Ms. Dean stated her biggest concern is going with a plain door; it will be a solid expansion of red compared to the board and batten. By having a solid block of red, it will stand out. She felt that changing it to something like number six of the options might be a way to make the doors blend in more yet not make it look like a carriage house.
Mr. Caron again offered to paint the door the same color as the trim of the house. Ms. Lillian Troiano felt while color is not under this Commission’s jurisdiction, his suggestion is a good one.
Ms. Smyth asked if Mr. Caron plans to paint the trim around the windows and around the door the same color as the trim on the house. Mr. Caron stated the trim on the garage would be the same color as the house.
Ms. Dean stated her concern is having garage doors that are clearly visible as a modern add on would be visually detrimental to the house and the District. Ms. Marie Troiano agreed. Ms. Dean pointed out the option of the New England door on the fifth page of the material presented which is more appropriate for this era. Her concern is what would make it look like it has always been there as opposed to the doors standing out.
Mr. Caron stated the doors suggested are in the $1,200 range. Ms. Dean stated while there are cost differences, there are times when the appropriateness can outweigh the cost. She would think a door like this would more than offset its additional cost in adding to the property value.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how far this garage is from the street. Mr. Caron stated approximately 150’ back. The proposed garage is behind the rear building line of the house. The driveway curves and go down a little hill into the garage. Mr. Gwozdz noted from Enfield Street the entire face of the garage will be visible.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to approve HDC#328, the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new 2-car shed-type garage and resurface the driveway at 1380 Enfield Street as shown in the elevations and site plans submitted for this application.
Such products to be installed, and the areas and manner in which they will be installed or used, shall be as described and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC#328, and as shown on any site plans, in any product sheets or site photographs, and per any samples as displayed during the above mentioned public hearing.
Mr. Gwozdz felt because it is a utilitarian structure, he doesn’t have a problem with the garage or the doors proposed. As far as appropriateness, if the house was built in 1702, he doesn’t think back then they had a concern to make the garage doors exquisite.
Ms. Dean felt the proposed garage doors would stand out and look clearly modern and not of the era so it in some ways undermines the attention that has been put into the house. She is also concerned that if this application were to be approved with the modern doors, where would the Commission be if someone proposed a very large out building with a utility look to it. Mr. Gwozdz stated each building is a separate case and if it is a larger carriage house, he would have to look at the entire picture.
Ms. Marie Troiano stated she certainly doesn’t want to add to the cost of these doors but her concern is you will be able to see these doors from the street. She would like to see something more appropriate in style.
The motion was denied by a 2 – 3 – 0 vote. Mr. Gwozdz and Ms. Lillian Troiano voted in favor; Ms. Smyth, Ms. Marie Troiano and Chairman Tatoian voted nay. Mr. Alsbaugh offered to meet with the applicant to search for something the Commission would agree to since the decision indicates that flat modern overhead doors are not really appropriate for the proposed structure.
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to reopen the public hearing for HDC#328. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there is a way that if Mr. Caron presents something else, he does not have to have another meeting.
Ms. Dean felt the staff should have the final say on the historical appropriateness of the doors and help the applicant to find a low cost solution that would meet the Commission’s needs.
Mr. Gwozdz stated it is a matter of personal taste. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can direct the applicant to come back with another application. Chairman Tatoian stated if Mr. Caron comes up with something and Mr. Alsbaugh reviews it, there could be a special meeting held. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there will be a regular meeting scheduled for next month. Chairman Tatoian suggested having an earlier meeting rather than waiting until the end of June. Ms. Smyth noted Mr. Caron cannot get started on the garage at all because of the denial.
Mr. Caron asked if he puts (non-working) hinges and handles on the garage doors, would that be acceptable. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested a vertical visual line of division on the door to make it look like outward opening doors.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are two or three other companies that all have simple paneled doors. He added that if hinges and handles are proposed for appearance only, larger strap-type units would work best visually and historically. He pointed out page four of the options which has simple strap hinges and handles. Ms. Lillian Troiano felt hinges and handles would give the illusion of doors that open.
Chairman Tatoian suggested modifying the motion previously denied. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can specify something that will allow Mr. Caron to go forward immediately closing it out tonight or stating the options on something else giving Mr. Alsbaugh the authority to okay it in the Commission’s stead.
Chairman Tatoian stated what the Commission is looking for is to have the reproduction iron hinges and the handles. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission reopened the hearing because they now might find the actual doors Mr. Caron is proposing acceptable even though they don’t look like two doors. The Commission would find them acceptable minimally because of the visual cue that four straps and two handles on each door would supply. There would be no actual physical dimension to the door that indicated panels of outward opening doors. The illusion would simply be confined to strap hinges and door handles. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if that is what the Commission is proposing, that would be the motion and there would be a need for another vote.
Ms. Dean asked if we know how visible the segmentation is between the different panels. Mr. Caron stated the doors are completely flush. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new 2-car shed-type garage and re-surface the driveway at 1380 Enfield Street as shown in the elevations and site plans submitted for this application.
Such products to be installed and the areas and manner in which they will be installed or used, shall be as described and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC#328, and as shown on any site plans, in any product sheets or site photographs, and per any samples as displayed during the above mentioned public hearing with the condition that the proposed doors for HDC#328 can be used with the condition that the strap hinges and strap handles are put on each door to make it appear they are two separate doors for each bay.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked for verification that the Commission doesn’t care what the final choice is as long as they are strap hinges and strap handles. Mr. Gwozdz would like to see them appropriate to the structure. The consensus was to make the hinges and door handles age appropriate to the house.
Some discussion followed on the type of hinges and handles to be used. Mr. Alsbaugh directed the applicant that the strap hinges and strap handles have to be appropriately scaled to the size of the door. The Commission decided to go with the proposal without the vertical strip of wood. Mr. Alsbaugh directed the applicant to submit the product sheet to him for the file.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Gwozdz and Troiano voting.
HDC#329: Mark Clavette, 1144 Enfield Street, replace four original wood swing garage doors with two steel overhead doors. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Clavette appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He is proposing just garage doors. The structure is already up. Mr. Clavette stated he would like to install automatic overhead doors and dress them up with hinges and try to keep them looking the same. Mr. Clavette stated he has owned this home for a week and a day.
Mr. Clavette stated the present doors are shot and cannot be used. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the garage is to the right of the house as you are looking at it. The garage that is more visible in the commission photo is the next door neighbor’s. Mr. Clavette stated the house dates back to 1890 and the garage is probably from around 1920.
Chairman Tatoian stated this garage is visible from the street but it is set back behind the house. Chairman Tatoian asked if the picture in the application is what Mr. Clavette is proposing. Mr. Clavette stated after hearing the previous hearing and seeing all the information that Mr. Alsbaugh found, he acknowledged he should have done more homework. Mr. Clavette stated the doors look a lot nicer in person. He would propose going with the steel door with the wood grain and dressing it up with the hinges. Mr. Clavette stated the carriage doors would look a lot nicer but the price is almost $5,000 for two doors.
Mr. Clavette stated if he went with the doors with the hinges and handles on them, it will still be two doors. He doesn’t intend to make it one solid door. It will remain the same way it looks right now with the center post. That post needs some repair. Chairman Tatoian stated Mr. Clavette would be modifying what he proposed originally.
Mr. Clavette stated he is not changing the openings and he would probably go with the steel wood texture like the previous applicant. Mr. Clavette stated he intends to do some more homework and get together with Mr. Alsbaugh to come to a better solution. He intends to use two steel doors, white, with black hinges.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked about the original doors. Mr. Clavette stated they are all rotted. Ms. Troiano stated they are very attractive for this structure. Mr. Clavette intends to dress up the garage by installing new doors.
In response to a question from Ms. Marie Troiano, Mr. Clavette stated the home and garage are all vinyl sided.
Ms. Dean stated her concern is we are taking something that is clearly an asset to the District and by stripping the doors and replacing them with something modern, it would be a visible detriment to the property. Mr. Clavette stated he talked to a neighbor and he said the doors were replaced just five years ago. They are not original to the house. The doors are sitting in water and he has to do some work in this area.
Ms. Dean noted someone took the time to get a style appropriate to the era of the house and replacing it with a style not appropriate to the house would be difficult. Mr. Clavette stated while he likes the carriage doors, price is a factor. Ms. Dean discussed the doors on her home and noted the value of having doors that are era appropriate outweighs the convenience of overhead doors.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is not a carriage house but a 1920’s garage and garage doors. The doors that are there are correct for the era. If the Commission is considering changing them, they have to discuss what is or is not appropriate and what is acceptable in place of what is there. Mr. Alsbaugh stated these are just simple 1920 garage doors. They would be the z type, the double buck, or the single buck. Those are the ones that would have been appropriate on this particular structure.
Ms. Dean stated it is pretty clear there are several alternatives that would replicate the look. Mr. Clavette stated he priced out some of these alternatives and to do both would cost over $5,000. He then chose non-insulated steel doors.
Ms. Dean stated the double x bucks without windows is the door she would propose. It is included in the handout from Mr. Alsbaugh. The x bucks are the predominant design element and the vertical boards would be less noticeable. Further review of the various options followed.
Chairman Tatoian stated Ms. Dean’s proposal is something the applicant can look into. That would be more appropriate because it is similar to what is there now. Mr. Clavette stated he will look into this in more detail.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission will table this and in the interim Mr. Clavette will meet with Mr. Alsbaugh. The Commission voted unanimously to table this application to the next meeting.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is a good point where he needs to gather more information because the Commission is at a disadvantage. They are being pushed in what they are being required to consider in appropriateness by economics. Not having a clear view of the true economics, the Commission cannot at times make a well founded decision. Mr. Alsbaugh noted at times cost may be irrelevant because the Commission’s decision making process is supposed to be based upon what is appropriate. There will be times when the Commission needs to say yes or no to a proposal and an important part of making an informed and balanced decision will be knowing what these things cost.
Further discussion followed on economics versus the appropriateness in the Enfield Historic District and the fact that each application is decided upon its own merits.
HDCR #2007-002: James and Amanda Mission, 42 Frew Terrace, hardscape – sidewalks and patios. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has not heard from James and Amanda Mission about submitting an application. Chairman Tatoian left a message with this applicant and he has not heard back from them. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will call them and remind them that an application is expected prior to advertising for the next meeting.
HDCR #2007-002: James and Carol Rinkavage, 1140 Enfield Street, hardscape – walls and retaining walls. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated James and Carol Rinkavage did apply. They are using reclaimed brownstone that they got from another site. Even though this is, again, an after-the-fact application, Mr. Alsbaugh felt the Commission may be pleased with materials and design proposed for the wall.
MINUTES
Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marie Troiano, to approve the Minutes of April 25, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh stated regarding Preservation Month, this Saturday the Institute is having an open house and will be installing the plaque from this Commission. The open house will be from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Mr. Alsbaugh acknowledged that additional Preservation Month activities may not occur within preservation month. He is going to try to have the sign back for the Old Town Hall Museum by July 4. Mr. Alsbaugh would like to present the three sets of preservation National Trust publications. There will be one for both libraries and one for the Town Hall. Ms. Dean asked if a letter could be sent to all residents of the District informing them that this resource is available to them. Mr. Alsbaugh will coordinate this with the Library Director. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that some of these bulletins from the National Trust are available on the internet but not all of them. He will get the Commission members a copy of the actual title list of these publications.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was considering giving an award to the town for the work done on the senior center and the library. However, because of problems with the library, that has been put on hold.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated regarding the Adopt-A-Spot, he and Colleen have made an appointment to meet right after Memorial Day to assemble some options and recommendations for the Commission.
Ms. Smyth stated the paving sign has been out in front of 1243 Enfield Street for quite some time. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this property had been selling cars from the site.
Mr. Alsbaugh reviewed a set of questions submitted by Ms. Dean to the Commission and contained in a memo from Roger Alsbaugh dated May 23, 2007.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated regarding the army tent and antique sales at 1280 Enfield Street, the Zoning Enforcement Officer has said if you want to write a complaint, he will look into it and begin verification on weekends. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is not a true Historic Commission violation issue. If what they are doing is verified, it is an illegal business which is a zoning issue. Unfortunately, it only happens on weekends when there is no zoning enforcement. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has agreed to follow up on it as long as it is in writing. Ms. Marie Troiano felt this should be handled as a complaint from the Commission. The consensus of the Commission was for Mr. Alsbaugh to compose a letter to submit to the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up the second question which is also 1280 Enfield Street and concerns a stone ringed fountain and mini-pond to the south of the house. Mr. Alsbaugh will send a letter stating that something has occurred on this property that needs a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up the third question involving an advertising sign at 1243 Enfield Street. Mr. Alsbaugh has not seen it and would like to do some investigating. There are a couple of options. Under the zoning regulations, they have never prevented contractors from putting up temporary signage. Mr. Alsbaugh will verify that this sign is an advertisement and not ongoing work on the site. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended including this in the memo to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and also sending a letter as a Commission that it’s inappropriate and is to be removed immediately.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up commercial vehicles and stated as long as they are under 11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, they are allowed in any residential zone no matter what they say on them. However, Mr. Alsbaugh has discussed with the Planning Director the potential problem this issue may create in the Historic District. He noted that this Commission realizes if contractors that live in the District own eligible vehicles then under the zoning ordinance it is something they will have to put up with. However, if it gets to be abused, if commercial vehicles are parked continually in a way that comes across as an advertisement, then this Commission will step in and treat them as signs / advertisement under their authority. If the Commission is put in this position, Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is guaranteed that there will be a conflict and people will be complaining. Mr. Alsbaugh spoke with his boss and told him that Planning and Zoning may want to consider some amendment to the zoning ordinance for the HR-33 zone. Mr. Alsbaugh asked Ms. Dean if this vehicle is parked so as to be an advertisement. Ms. Dean stated she doesn’t have a problem with this commercial vehicle but there is a resident at the other end of the District that has said they are going to do the same thing to advertise their business.
Mr. Alsbaugh will include the commercial vehicle matter in the memo to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He also proposed sending a letter to the owner and letting him know that Mr. Alsbaugh has reported it to the Zoning Enforcement Officer because they are required to have a permit from the Zoning Officer. He will tell this person that the Commission has concerns that although they understand these vehicles are allowed in all residential zones, if it becomes an issue of a sign, the Commission will treat it like a sign. They will decide whether or not it is appropriate. Mr. Alsbaugh warned the Commission that once they begin to deal with this type of advertising, there are going to be conflicts and there are going to be impacts.
Regarding this issue with the Baronet Coffee truck, Mr. Alsbaugh will inform the Zoning Enforcement Officer and he will let this person know that the Commission has certain concerns about signage in the Historic District. Mr. Alsbaugh reiterated that this process will cause some form of conflict and he asked the Commission if he should go forward. The consensus of the Commission was to inform this person of the Commission’s concern via a letter from the Commission. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next question is regarding public hearing signs. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this one fell through the cracks. When applications come in the mail, he doesn’t see them until they have been processed. Usually when someone comes in with an application, they take the sign with them or make arrangements to pick the sign up later. Mr. Alsbaugh stated having the public hearing sign up is an administrative policy of this Commission and not an ordinance requirement. It has been tied in to the advertising time requirements and there is no cost to the applicant. It is a reasonable way to give notice to the neighbors in the District who may not see it in the newspaper.
Mr. Alsbaugh next read Ms. Dean’s question about fines for illegal signs. Mr. Alsbaugh asked the ZEO for advice. Mr. Bickley reiterated his belief he had no authority over the right of way. He said that has been his position for twenty-two years. Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out the statutory sections and DOT regulations that indicate the town does have authority over the right of way. The statute states that nothing can occur in the state right of way without an encroachment permit from DOT. DOT administrative regulations say that any proposed encroachment must comply with the abutting zoning requirements. The locally created zones cover the entire state right of way and state statutes and DOT policy tie it into zoning compliance. There is also a state statute that says it is illegal to put such signs on telephone poles. The state is sovereign and cannot be told what to do in the right-of-way but it doesn’t mean that the town doesn’t have zoning authority within the state right of way; the town is empowered by statute to have zoning, to create zones, and to enforce the law within those zones. Further discussion followed on these signs. Mr. Alsbaugh’s recommendation is to keep ripping these signs down when they are seen. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended sending any concerns regarding this signage to the Town Council or as individuals to inform their Council representatives. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the possibility of fines which are not proposed for the near future.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up Ms. Dean’s question regarding 1204 Enfield Street. He noted there has been no addition from what he has seen and been told. When they were in to do the stone walls and the lights on the driveway, it was presented as repair and maintenance of the existing porch and the restoration of failing components. Mr. Alsbaugh stated when he witnessed this personally, it was exceptional work. Ms. Dean stated two people thought there was an addition of a screened in porch. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was screened previously and the glassed in section has been restored. Mr. Alsbaugh went into some detail on the restoration done at 1204 Enfield Street. The present owners have brought back the north porch entirely.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if a letter has been sent to the homeowner that has the recreational vehicle in front of their property for sale. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is a zoning issue because recreational vehicles are supposed to be parked behind the rear building line of the house. Ms. Troiano stated this home is located to the north of Mr. Tallarita’s house. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed people selling private vehicles in the District. Regarding Ms. Troiano’s question, Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will put this item in the memo to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He will verify and photograph it and include it in the memo.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Marie Troiano, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr |