|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 28, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Roman Polaski
Nancy Smyth
Marie Troiano
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
Sonja Dean, Alternate
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HDC#339 Request to remove front porch roof balustrade, side porch roof balustrade, and upper roof balustrade, and replace all components with vinyl replacement parts, at 1162 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8
Robert Berger appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He and his wife own the property at 1162 Enfield Street. They are looking to replace the damaged balustrades on all the porches including the widow’s peak. Mr. Berger noted his contractor should be present very shortly and he will show the exact materials that will be used. Mr. Berger stated quite a few of the stakes have been destroyed and they need to be replaced. To do so with wood would be cost prohibitive. They are looking to replace them with an attractive vinyl.
Chairman Tatoian stated the balustrades are white and will be replaced with the same color. Mr. Berger confirmed they will be white. They will be the same shape as what is existing.
Chairman Tatoian asked if they would be replaced in three areas of the house. Mr. Berger stated over the front entrance way there is a porch that has a balustrade completely around it. On the side of the house that goes around the back over the sun room there is another porch area that has a balustrade that goes all the way around. Way up on top is the widow’s peak and a small porch with a balustrade that goes around.
Chairman Tatoian stated in portions of it there is a rounded cap. Mr. Berger stated the balustrade has a center piece and an end piece. Those will be the same shape as to what is there now.
Mr. Polaski recused himself from this application.
Mr. Berger’s contractor, Steve Polaski, 42 North Maple Street, presented pictures of the existing railings. He presented some booklets showing the materials and the railing system. He presented a sample of the material and stated the ball caps would be the same size. The railings would be custom made and look just like the railings that are up there. The railing will have the indent just like the original.
Mr. Gwozdz asked if the architectural features will be the same. Mr. Polaski stated within ninety-five percent.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how old are the existing balustrades. Mr. Berger did not know but noted the house is a little over a hundred years old. It was built originally for the plant superintendent at Bigelow Sanford. Mr. Gwozdz asked if the balustrades have ever been replaced. Mr. Berger stated they have not. They have been painted a couple of times. Mr. Berger discussed problems with the birds in the area. Mr. Polaski stated the balustrades have been repaired over the years and they are in certain points of disarray.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked how long Mr. Berger has been in the house. Mr. Berger stated over twenty years.
Mr. Gwozdz noted the mature trees around the house and he asked if the proposed new balustrades will be moss resistant. Mr. Polaski explained they are coated with Teflon. They will also dull up the material so that it looks like a satin. The way to keep the trim looking good is to power wash the house.
Mr. Berger stated there are less trees than there were because the State of Connecticut came along and took down two trees in the front of the house.
Mr. Meyer asked if the widow’s peak is younger than 100 years old. Mr. Berger could not answer that. Mr. Meyer stated it appears to him that the condition of the decoration shows severe lack of maintenance. The house has not been painted in many years. Mr. Berger stated the home has been painted twice since he’s been there.
Mr. Meyer asked about the cost to replace the balustrades with wood. Mr. Berger stated it would probably cost in the vicinity of $60,000 to replace them in wood. It is going to cost about $25,000 to do it with the vinyl material. Mr. Meyer asked about the reason that wood cannot be used. Mr. Berger stated because of the cost. He doesn’t have $60,000.
Mr. Meyer stated cost is not part of this Commission’s consideration.
Mr. Meyer stated the Commission doesn’t have photographs tonight of the houses that were incorporated into the Historic District. He asked if there is direct access to the widow’s peak. Mr. Polaski stated you have to exit through a window and go up on a ladder. Mr. Meyer asked about removing the whole thing and not replacing it at all. Mr. Berger stated he cannot answer that.
Mr. Meyer stated the Commission feels plastic would not be acceptable unless it was available at the time the house was built. It looks to him that this is poor maintenance. The house is in very poor condition and in his opinion, it should be replaced in kind if it is done at all.
Mr. Polaski stated it is not just a widow’s walk but it is three different sections.
Ms. Dean asked about the type of maintenance that has been done. Mr. Berger stated they replaced the windows. They replaced all the sunroom windows. They had some things done with the eaves because they had problems with the birds pecking their way in and getting into the attic. The birds also pecked away some of the eaves troughs and they had that taken care of.
Mr. Meyer did not feel animals have contributed to the destruction. It is a matter of maintenance. Mr. Berger stated he has had squirrel problems and has had squirrels inside the house.
Mr. Gwozdz noted the columns and the shutters are in need of paint. Mr. Berger explained they started to do the shutters but the work was postponed because of the unavailability of the contractor. He added the shutters may have to be replaced.
Mr. Polaski stated they have to do a lot of painting and scrapping on the outside of the house. This is on top of everything. It also involves some of the trim work. The painters will come in after the work is done. It is primarily a brick house but the trim will be painted after the work is done.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the painting of the trim is part of this application. He stated as long as it is replaced in kind, it is not an issue.
Ms. Dean stated it seems like there is quite significant deterioration not only in terms of peeling paint but some of the areas are missing. She asked why wasn’t action done on this before it got to this critical and severe state. Mr. Berger stated neither he or his wife are as young as most of the Commission.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how long Mr. Berger has lived there. Mr. Berger stated as long as he has been married or approximately twenty-eight years.
Chairman Tatoian stated if the Commission approves of this proposal, would there be a way to save some of the original components like the rails so that if someone came along twenty-five years from now and they wanted to replace what there was is wood, they would be able to do so. Mr. Polaski stated they are planning to categorize, picture and make a diagram and put everything in the attic of the garage. He will save everything that is not rotting.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if they plan on putting in the same amount of center posts. Mr. Polaski stated it will be identical to what is there now.
Chairman Tatoian asked for input from the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Chairman Tatoian designated Lillian Troiano as tonight’s voting alternate.
Ms. Dean stated this is one of the most historic homes in the District. She felt this is a case of demolition by neglect. This is clearly of a design that would have been original to this type of architecture. It is heartbreaking to have this applicant come before the Commission when maintenance has not been done and requesting to replace it in plastic. Ms. Dean felt that truly robs the district of the historic nature and sets a terrible precedent.
Chairman Tatoian asked Mr. Meyer about his comment of replacing the widow’s peak. Mr. Meyer stated he is totally against allowing something to this house which was not available at the time the house was built. There are other houses in the district which are being watched such as the Ingraham’s and the Fire Chief’s house. Mr. Meyer had a concern that the $25,000 estimate for vinyl will be significantly higher because when the materials are removed, they may find that the supports are not in good shape. Mr. Meyer is troubled by replacing something in a historic district which was not available at the time the house was built. He felt the Commission should not be concerned with cost but with the preservation and historic beauty of the property.
Chairman Tatoian questioned what will occur if this applicant is turned down. If he does not come forward with replacing it in wood, what will happen? Mr. Meyer stated he can take down what he has and replace it in kind with wood. Mr. Gwozdz stated another option would be to do nothing and let the home deteriorate even more.
Mr. Gwozdz stated this is definitely a home that has been neglected and the Commission has talked about blight and demolition by neglect. The Commission does have the opportunity to comment on a lot of these properties and get the ball rolling. This would have been a prime example of that where the Commission did not react until it came to them. There are a lot of other properties where the Commission should make an effort to point those out before this happens. It is unfortunate that this did happen. He agrees it would be an architectural loss with this house. Mr. Gwozdz felt Chairman Tatoian’s suggestion of saving pieces for the future is a good idea.
Ms. Marie Troiano felt it is the Commission’s responsibility to start identifying these homes before they reach this point.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the past we have sent letters on a limited basis only when it was apparent that something had been done without an approval. The Commission has not been proactive with the demolition by neglect. There have been discussions recently about going forward with the blight ordinance.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has spoken with the contractor but not Mr. Berger until he appeared this evening. His main concern was that what was there was fully and completely recorded and that it was photographed and measured and drawings of some sort put together to document what was there. Whatever was not fully rotted would then be retained for possible future use. Mr. Alsbaugh stated we do have an ad hoc organization to try to keep these pieces of the history so that they will be available in the future. He is looking into the possibility of getting some storage area in town. He has mentioned to Mr. Polaski that whatever is there needs to be documented and whatever was salvageable, he could salvage.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this application doesn’t have to go forward immediately. There is a contract but Mr. Meyer brought up an important aspect. The Commission really doesn’t have all the information. The cost may be much more excessive. It may be there is a lot of sub surface work to be done and the cost could be significantly more than the $25,000 estimated. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission could consider requesting more information. Another consideration might be a phased project if Mr. Berger cannot afford the full amount for replacement in kind or restoration. Restoration can be very expensive but it can be done. Mr. Alsbaugh stated perhaps the Commission should be encouraging homeowners to have a long-term plan for the maintenance of their homes.
Chairman Tatoian stated his concern is the optimum solution is to replace what is there with wood. There is a consideration of cost but his concern is if the application is not approved, that the applicant will not go forward and the home will continue to deteriorate. The Commission is almost faced with the choice of do we want this replaced with synthetic material or do we want to say no and eventually nothing will be done. Mr. Meyer questioned if the Commission isn’t faced with the same statement for the other homes that have been identified in the District.
Ms. Dean felt to fear that the homeowner will do nothing and to make a decision based on fear brings forward the point of why have a Commission. If any homeowner can say I’m never going to maintain my house, you are not going to have a District. She also felt any solution should not be a matter of cost.
Ms. Dean stated it is easy to not want to put the homeowner into a financial bind. The challenge for this Commission is to look at it and say what exactly is the application. It concerns her to say that we will replace what is rotting. The contractor will have a pretty strong incentive to have to replace everything and not look at it from the point of saving it. There is also the issue of setting a precedent.
Chairman Tatoian stated it is all or nothing. You can say it is going to be approved or it is denied and he would have to come back with an alternate plan.
Ms. Dean felt something has to be done and you can’t just let the home go to nothing.
Mr. Meyer stated if you look at the photographs that accompany the application, the columns are in poor condition. The window on the second floor is in poor condition. The blinds are in terrible condition. This may be the first of many things the Commission is asked to approve. If the Commission allows something that is synthetic, who is to say that the Commission cannot allow other things to be covered with a synthetic material. Mr. Meyer stated it is difficult for him to understand that this home has been painted twice in twenty years.
Ms. Smyth stated it doesn’t sound as though Mr. Berger looked into the cost of wood. She suggested holding off on this and have him go out and get the cost for wood.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has thirty-five days to make a decision.
Ms. Smyth stated if the Commission votes in favor of this application, there will be plastic all over the place. If the Commission doesn’t vote in favor, the applicant may say he is not going to do anything.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can table action. You have to come up with a reason why you wish to table it and formulate some points to go to the applicant of what it is the Commission wants him to consider.
Ms. Dean asked if the Commission can consider asking the applicant to get a quote for wood versus plastic. She noted that if someone really wanted to do plastic, you could get someone to do a quote for wood at an astronomical price.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated you could ask for multiple bids and it would not be unreasonable to ask for such information regarding replacement with wood. You have to have a clear understanding of what kind of wood and what kind of reproduction or restoration you are asking the applicant to look into.
Chairman Tatoian asked if this is plastic or is it a wood composite. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is a PVC or plastic material and it was stated that it was a covering for extruded aluminum.
Ms. Marie Troiano asked if we know what the original wood is. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did ask for a complete documentation. The contractor has made a serious attempt to get up and photograph and bring a sample of one of the caps. As far as the type of wood, he doesn’t know. Regarding finishes, the contractor did say there was an option for a satin finish.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission has to consider the appearance and what it would look like from the street. Mr. Alsbaugh stated as part of a process of requesting, the Commission could request that a few of the sample pieces be positioned in different locations. Everyone could go out on their own to look at it.
Mr. Alsbaugh is assuming what is actually going to be proposed would require a commitment to production and having it done singly for a sample could be perceived as an inappropriate cost to the applicant. If the contractor could get a sample of the satin finish posts and put them up so that the Commission could look at them, that may be a solution.
Chairman Tatoian stated what the Commission is talking about is tabling the application and having the contractor get samples as well as an estimate of what the cost of wood would be.
Mr. Meyer stated all the wood here seems to be beyond salvage.
Ms. Marie Troiano questioned if the type of wood should be specified. Some discussion of the various types of wood, cedar and pine, followed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated once you get into a requirement for wood, you are getting into an extremely customized job. It means someone has to custom turn the caps to meet the same dimensions and measurements of the existing caps. The posts could be done with stock pieces.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated you never get an exact match unless they do a mold from the original. Even with wood, you run the risk unless you are very specific and require the utmost in custom work, it is unlikely you will get an exact profile. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the Thompson House.
Ms. Dean asked if it is possible to have a staff inspection of the current condition of this house.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did explain to the contractor that the issue of opinion would be up to the Commission and as a related issue what one person thinks is totally unsalvageable may not be the same for someone else. It is amazing what you can do with epoxy. If you look at the standards for rehabilitation, they recommend retaining as much of the original and repairing it with either like material or a synthetic and then it goes down from there.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission should be considering the best scenario and the worst scenario and then consider what is reasonable and appropriate. The most desirable is retaining the original fabric and repairing it with like materials or synthetic if necessary. The worst is losing everything but it is a matter of degree. In this instance, the Commission would have to carefully review what is still there that could be restored.
Ms. Dean stated she would want the information of what is reasonable or what is not. Are there elements to be saved? She discussed her own garage and the fact that it could be fixed for approximately $500 although some contractors told her it needed to be demolished.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated contractors are likely to be reflecting the wishes of the property owner. What we’re talking about here is a project that in some manner has to go forward or a total loss will result. The Commission could also ask them to consider removing everything so that you could review it all on the ground and determine what is actually there. The Commission would then have the information. If they decide to allow a replacement in some manner, they are still looking at retaining as much of the original fabric as possible for a future owner.
Chairman Tatoian asked if sections are salvageable, isn’t that making it more complicated.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated it has to come down entirely. Also, if you look at the pictures, you can see a lot of repair work done to the post sections. Regardless of what goes back up there, the contractor has to remove everything and prepare from the bottom up to receive whatever is going to go there. It might not be unreasonable to request that everything be removed so that it can be closely examined.
Ms. Dean asked if the applicant can let the building deteriorate further if the Commission denies it. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed recourse under the blight ordinance.
Mr. Meyer asked if it would be appropriate to table action and ask the applicant to come back with other alternatives.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there could be a discussion between himself and the contractor to get more information.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission will table this application until Mr. Alsbaugh speaks with the contractor and explains what has been discussed tonight.
Mr. Alsbaugh summarized that the Commission would like to see samples in position. They would like to see a couple of quotes for a wood replacement and they would like to have some further evaluation with staff and the contractor to express their concerns and get more information for the next meeting.
Ms. Dean stated she would want to see an evaluation of the condition of what is there. If it was in much better condition than we thought, that might change the wood option.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission should table this and authorize Mr. Alsbaugh to go back and discuss this with the contractor. There is a possibility if what is there was examined and you said ninety percent of this is salvageable, that would have an effect on the Commission’s decision. Chairman Tatoian added he doesn’t think that is the case.
Mr. Gwozdz would like to stress the Commission’s concern of the historic value of this house. It was brought up in discussion that for twenty years we have never approved vinyl but the Commission has. Mr. Gwozdz saw a need to stress the historical value of this house to the town. He doesn’t want them to say well, they have done it before and why are they doing it now. He really thinks there is a need to show the Commission’s concern for this individual property’s historic value.
Ms. Dean agreed and stated this property is a unique example of this particular style of architecture. She added it would be precedent setting and this property is being closely watched. She wanted to make sure the Commission understands the long-term ramifications.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to table HDC#339 with a direction to Mr. Alsbaugh to contact the homeowner and contractor on the three issues brought up seeking more information. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Troiano voting.
HDCR – Review files, determinations of need for certificates of appropriateness:
HDCR2008-001 Report on request to inspect 1207 Enfield Street regarding tree house constructed without COA
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is still waiting for answers on this.
HDCR2008-002 Report on request to inspect 1435 Enfield Street regarding potential blight issue, collapsing porch, general deterioration of house exterior
Mr. Alsbaugh reported this house was reported to the code enforcement team and he was directed by the Planning Director to compile a site record and documentation. Because we are trying to make sure we do this new process correctly, it is going slowly. There is a test case in the blight ordinance going on right now. Mr. Alsbaugh cannot give an exact time as to when any kind of blight notification will be forthcoming.
Mr. Polaski asked if the Commission has anything to do with the blight ordinance being invoked for this house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there was a request of the Commission to the code enforcement team to consider this building. Further discussion followed on other homes involved in the blight ordinance.
HDCR2008-003 Report on request to inspect 1274 Enfield Street regarding addition of deck to previously approved above-ground pool
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the original request was to review to see whether this required a certificate of appropriateness. The pool is actually behind evergreens that the Commission required and it would not be visible so it would not require a certificate. They also wanted to take the deck down off the back side of the house. That was approved with conditions of those evergreens around it. Those have gotten so overgrown that they are naked three feet from the bottom. The homeowner asked about taking the deck down and Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would not require a certificate because they would be restoring to previously existing conditions. If they took down the old evergreens, that would not matter either because those were conditions of approval to hide the deck. If the deck is not there, you do not need the evergreens. They did say they wanted to either put a patio there or a patio with a three season room on it. This would require plans before the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the trees that Commissioner Meyer mentioned to him last week and Mr. Berger mentioned tonight that were removed. Two of them were in front of Mr. Berger’s house and one was further down the street at 1198. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has pictures before them. He stated if the town becomes a certified local government, they won’t be getting these things in the back door. Anything that would be occurring in the historic district, they would have to deal with the town as a consultant.
HDCR2008-06, 11296 Enfield Street, Old Fire House, EMS Dedication Sign, American Legion: Mr. Alsbaugh stated he didn’t find out about this until it was completely designed and constructed and ready for installation. The dedication was this past Sunday. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he told them at some point it would have to come before this Commission. It is planned to be installed on the front gable end of the firehouse. It will be on the fire station above the bays on the gable facing the street. Mr. Alsbaugh noted whoever was behind this project never considered reusing the previously approved sign.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to go into Executive Session to discuss HDC#309 Order to Restore, 1443 Enfield Street. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Commission went into Executive Session at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to come out of Executive Session. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission returned to the Regular Meeting at 8:25 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
HDC#301 Felician Sisters, 1370 Enfield Street, denial of July 28, 2004 – reversal of Trial Court decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, formal action required.
Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the following:
May 28, 20008
HDC#301
1370 Enfield Street, Felician Sisters, Order of Saint Francis
Assessor’s Map 18, Lot 241
HR-33 Zone/Sequence #00072815
Pursuant to the Superior Court Judgment of Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, Docket No. 04-4002314, as directed by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Felician Sisters of Saint Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838, 863 (2008), reversing the original judgment of the trial court and sustaining the plaintiffs’ appeal the following motion is made:
To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for “elimination of existing gravel parking lot, conversion of existing parking area to lawn and construction of new access driveway and parking area” as depicted in site plans titled “Existing Site Plan, Sheet EX-1” and “Proposed Site Plan, Sheet SP-1”, both for the Enfield Montessori School by Jon A. Brayshaw & Co. Both site plans are dated 7/6/04. All site work will conform to said plans and representations of record in P.H. HDC #301.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian, Nancy Smyth, Roman Polaski, Raymond Gwozdz and Sonja Dean voting. Mr. Meyer, Ms. Marie Troiano and Ms. Lillian Troiano did not participate in this application.
Mr. Polaski stated they got permission for the parking lot but he questioned proper drainage and lighting for the site. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if they decide to go forward, they would have to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission with these plans for their approval.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated tonight’s motion was necessary to fulfill the order of the court.
MINUTES
Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the Minutes of March 26, 2008. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
STAFF REPORT
· Update Scantic River Greenway State Park; archaeological issues
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are archaeological and environmental issues that are being pointed out and the State is going to have to deal with them before they go in and put in walking trails. They have done a small four to five car parking area for access. They are waiting for the town’s input and it is all tied into the certified local government.
· Update of Shaker property – Hired Men House; other resources on State property
· Update of Certified Local Government program/discussions with Mary Dunne
· Update of historic GIS data program
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Commission received a very supportive letter from Nick Bellantoni after the site visit he performed. He indicated both the project recommendations for the survey of the Shaker properties and Powder Hollow would almost definitely be eligible for a $20,000 noncontributing grant once the town becomes a certified local government. Mr. Bellantoni does sit on the state council and Enfield is an excellent potential Certified Local Government. Mr. Alsbaugh is working on a resolution to present to the Town Council.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated all the above items are interrelated and they are all going forward at the same time.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer copied the Commission on an order to correct the trailer in front of the house at 1243 Enfield Street. Mr. Alsbaugh reported the trailer seems to be gone.
Discussion Items – Hazardville historic discussion with guests Mayor Scott Kaupin and Council Member William Lee
This item was postponed to the June Regular Meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Gwozdz thanked Mayor Scott Kaupin for pushing the people to get the sign replaced on Oliver Road. Mr. Meyer stated he also called the Town Manager about this sign.
Mr. Meyer brought up the revision of the ordinance that has been handled by a subcommittee of this Commission and that has been going on for thirteen years. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the proposed revision is on the Commission’s table tonight.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated what was created was a list of things that were not going to require a Certificate of Appropriateness. He presented a draft copy of where all those things have to go into the ordinance for the Council to change it. The ordinance has to be modified and then the Commission can go forward and deal with the actual regulations. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed Section 9 which puts into the ordinance the process to go forward for anyone in the district. It was noted that whether there was a certificate or not, it should come through Mr. Alsbaugh to make a determination of whether it was exempt or needed a certificate.
Mr. Meyer asked if the document contains all the changes recommended by the subcommittee. Mr. Alsbaugh responded yes.
Chairman Tatoian asked if this is what needs to be changed in the ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated yes. The Commission has the town ordinance and then a historic district publication. The little booklet is the published form of the town ordinance. The things that were being discussed in the Subcommittee are now included in the ordinance document. The Commission made a list of exemptions.
Mr. Meyer stated there was an entirely new application form that the Commission received last fall and they were asked to go through it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that was something the Commission wanted to do but has not yet done. Mr. Meyer stated it was a sample application. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that will be a step but what he has produced first is the process by which the Commission’s decisions would enter into the ordinance.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this would go to the Town Council for approval. This is a request to amend the ordinance to include these things. The ordinance is one thing and what the Commission is allowed to do under statute, Section 7-147C subsection E is regulations to provide guidance to property owners seeking a certificate of appropriateness. That will then go forward with the guidelines. The Commission will also deal with the application form and how the application proceeds. That’s under Section 9. The exempt acts that don’t need a certificate of appropriateness are contained under Section 14 of the ordinance. This shows in the small type the existing section and the larger type which is underlined shows what is being proposed including the list of exemptions.
Mr. Meyer asked if this would go out to the district for a vote. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not necessary and this is making it easier for homeowners.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the ordinance revisions. The guidelines will become an appendix to the ordinance. The Commission has the authority to create guidelines. The appendix will be a separate publication and the Commission will have those little booklets in some form for the ordinance with a separate publication for the guidelines.
Chairman Tatoian requested that the ordinance revisions may be an agenda item for the special meeting or the next regular meeting. The special meeting was tentatively set for June 11, 2008 with only the Berger application on the agenda. Mr. Alsbaugh will confirm this when he knows there is a meeting room available.
Ms. Lillian Troiano brought up a silver trailer that has been in the Historic District for some time. It is on a flat bed truck.
Ms. Lillian Troiano brought up the many cars for sale on Enfield Street. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has to decide whether they want to open the issue regarding signs. If someone puts something up for sale, the whole thing constitutes a sign. The Commission has control over signs and the Commission has to make the decision that it is a sign. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this subject keeps coming up but he doesn’t think the Commission has actually had a consensus on pursuing the sign issue. He saw a need to pursue this in a formal manner so that there is a clear discussion within the record of the Commission. Further discussion followed. Chairman Tatoian asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
Ms. Dean asked if it would be possible to get a set of pictures for every property in the district to have available at Commission meetings. Mr. Alsbaugh will see whether it is feasible to get color copies for the Commission. Failing that, he will try to figure out the best location for printing black and white copies. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested looking into audiovisuals to assist the Commission in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr |