|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 in the Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Eileen Russell
Nancy Smyth
Lillian Troiano
Sonja Dean, Voting Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Prior to the start of the public hearings, Mr. Alsbaugh informed the Commission that after speaking with the Assistant Town Attorney regarding the Montessori case, she requested that the secretary of each board or commission actually sign the approval or denial letter. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission tonight needs to clearly discuss everything they are going to include in any approval or denial and enumerate the information in the motion. The Commission Secretary will now have to sign the approval or denial letters.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission’s procedure in the past was to take such action regarding if there are any conditions to any approval. Mr. Alsbaugh stated traditionally all the department staff members that support the commissions and boards actually sign the letters of approval. The Town Attorney’s Office is now saying the Secretary of the Commission should sign such letters so that there is no doubt that the letters were created by the Commission should an application go to court. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will prepare the necessary letters but they should be reviewed and signed by the Commission Clerk prior to mailing based upon the recommendation from the Town Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Alsbaugh reiterated that the Commission needs to clearly discuss and formulate everything that will be included in an approval or denial and list the reasons on the motion sheet so that it is clear what has gone into the decision making process for every application. Mr. Alsbaugh will then format a letter incorporating that information and have the Commission Clerk review and sign it.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HDC#315: Claire L. Desjeunes, 1241 Enfield Street, replace casement windows in sunroom on north side of house with 6-over-1 double hung windows. EHDO Section 8
Claire Desjeunes appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She noted the Commission has previously received pictures of her home. On the front of the house she would like to replace the four casement windows on the porch with two double hung windows. On the side of the house she would like to replace the five casement windows with three double hung windows. The double hung windows will take up a little less space or about 2’ less space on the side and 1.5’ of space width wise on the front. Ms. Desjeunes stated the intent is to make the front look a little more cohesive by having the same window types. Also, the existing windows are approximately fifty-eight years old and are deteriorating. They are a single-pane wood window and are not very efficient as far as insulating. Ms. Desjeunes stated she would also like to be able to use the porch year round rather than just in three seasons.
Chairman Tatoian stated that porch is located on the north side and on the west side facing Route 5 there are four windows. On the north side, there are five windows. He asked if the windows facing Enfield Street will be changed. Ms. Desjeunes stated all the windows will all be the same – six over one in conformity with what is on the west side facing Enfield Street.
Ms. Desjeunes stated on the outside of the casement windows, she would like to broaden the wood molding around the windows to match the other windows and make them consistent.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the number of windows will remain the same. Ms. Desjeunes stated no. She would like to have fewer. She noted the ones on the west side in the front are wider than the ones on the porch. There will be two windows in the front on the west side and three on the north side. There is a double door on the east side which will be updated but not changed.
Chairman Tatoian stated the changes are focused on the windows on the north and east sides and the door on the west side. The door on the west side is not visible from the street.
Mr. Meyer asked about the four windows that will be replaced with two windows and if the opening in the wall will be the same. Ms. Desjeunes stated it will change and be narrower or six feet wide instead of eight feet wide.
Mr. Meyer asked if the extra two feet will be enclosed with the same siding on the exterior. Ms. Desjeunes stated that is her intent or cedar shingles like the rest of the house with the color also matching the rest of the house. Ms. Desjeunes stated she wishes to match exactly what is on the rest of the house including the shingles, the color, the moldings around the windows, and the drip top on the top of the windows.
Mr. Meyer stated the windows that are being replaced with three windows from five would also be a smaller opening. Ms. Desjeunes confirmed this to be the case and stated it would go from 10’ wide to 8’ wide. She noted the casement windows on the side are narrower than the west side and are only 21” wide. Commissioner Meyer asked if the heights of these windows will remain the same. Ms. Desjeunes stated she would like to make the heights the same as the other windows or an increase of 8”. The existing casement windows are 21” x 50” and the new windows are 32” x 58”.
Mr. Meyer confirmed that both the three and two windows will be higher than the existing ones. Ms. Desjeunes stated yes and the new windows will match the double hung windows that are in the front now. Commissioner Meyer asked if the windows on the north side will have the same exterior siding and Ms. Desjeunes stated they will. The windows will be painted with the same paint used four years ago on this home.
Ms. Dean asked about the south side of the home. Ms. Desjeunes presented a picture showing the full view of the house.
Ms. Dean asked if the space between the two windows will be echoed in the two new windows. Ms. Desjeunes stated they will be the same distance apart and it will have the same treatment whether it is a solid piece or shingled. Ms. Dean reiterated that she asked if the spaces between the windows will be replicated or if the two windows would be flush against each other. The response from Ms. Desjeunes was that the space would be replicated and it would be the same material as between the windows in another location to match.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out that both wings of the home had their roof lines raised under a prior application. He stated tonight’s application is a continuation of the previous window work.
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Russell, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing casement windows of the 1-story sunroom on the north side of the house and replace them with Pella brand, 6-over-1 double hung windows.
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#315, and as shown in any product sheets or site photographs, and any samples as displayed during the above mentioned public hearing.
Mr. Meyer stated he is impressed that this applicant wants to bring the house up so that it looks the same dimensionally from the street.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian, Mr. Meyer, Ms. Russell, Ms. Smyth and Ms. Troiano, Alternate, voting.
The reasons for approval are it conforms to the architectural integrity of the District (given by Mr. Meyer), is consistent with the architectural elements of the rest of the house and it provides some balance to the home’s facade (given by Ms. Dean). Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that Ms. Dean discussed the architectural detailing on the new windows matching the old ones with the spacing and Mr. Meyer noted the new windows are architecturally consistent to the area.
HDC#316: Frank and Elaine Kosa, 1274 Enfield Street, above ground pool. EHDO Section 8
Frank Kosa appeared before the Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for an above ground pool. Mr. Kosa stated he would like to install a 27’ above ground pool adjacent to the driveway as shown on the map before the Commission. He noted the 27’ is the maximum size being requested but he may elect to go to a 24’ above ground pool.
Chairman Tatoian stated the proposed pool is on the south side of the house and to the rear. This home received approval to construct a new carriage house to replace a burned down garage. This was completed by the previous owner. Mr. Kosa stated he has lived in this home for two years.
Chairman Tatoian stated there was a deck that was approved by this Commission with screening as a condition of approval. Mr. Kosa stated the deck is there and is screened. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the evergreen screening is somewhat overgrown.
Chairman Tatoian noted a portion of this pool would be visible from Enfield Street. Mr. Kosa confirmed that the right half would be visible from Enfield Street especially if he opts for the 27’ size pool. Mr. Kosa stated he is not proposing anything around the pool as far as decking. It will be a standard above-ground pool with a self-locking ladder consistent with the town code. Chairman Tatoian asked if there is a requirement that the pool be enclosed by fencing. Mr. Kosa stated there is no requirement as long as the pool is 52” high. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed for the proposed height of this above ground pool, no fence is required.
Ms. Russell had a concern about the south side of the pool being visible from the street. Mr. Kosa stated the eastern half of the pool from the center would be visible from the street. From the center to the left of the pool would be hidden by the deck and the house.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how far the pool is from the house. Mr. Kosa stated at least the length of the house plus twenty feet. Mr. Gwozdz asked if Mr. Kosa plans to install any screening for what is visible from the street. Mr. Kosa stated he would do so eventually and it would be a fence of some sort.
Mr. Meyer noted according to the topographic map submitted with the application, on the lower portion a garage and a proposed 27’ pool is shown located to the right of the 1274. He asked where the pool is relative to these last structures. Mr. Kosa pointed out on the map where the center of the pool would be located. The existing deck is located off the back corner of the house and it sticks out somewhat. There are evergreens in the area of the deck.
Mr. Meyer noted the proposed pool and people enjoying the pool will be exposed to the traffic and to the neighbors. Mr. Kosa felt it would be visible but it is a significant distance from the road. The pool will have an a-frame type ladder with a self-latching gate but there is no deck proposed.
Mr. Meyer asked if there is any plan to include some type of barrier like shrubs or a fence. Mr. Kosa stated he is sure there will be some type of fence but he is not sure what the actual choice would be at this time. In response to a question from Mr. Meyer, Mr. Kosa stated the pool would be 52” above the ground. Mr. Meyer felt this height would give a lot of exposure to the neighborhood and the street. Mr. Kosa stated the egress would be on the side coming from the driveway area. The filter mechanism will be on the south side of the pool.
Mr. Gwozdz questioned if there are any other pools similar to this in the District that are exposed to the street. Ms. Smyth stated the property owner across from Cimino’s put up a pool after coming before the Commission. They were required to put shrubs in the front of the pool to screen it.
Chairman Tatoian stated he has no objection to the pool being installed but he would like to see hemlocks or arborvitae installed to screen the pool from the street. Mr. Meyer questioned if the pool could be moved further north so that it would be in the shadow of the house. Mr. Kosa stated there is no space. The right way to go would be to go north but you would run into the driveway.
Mr. Kosa requested if the Commission is going to require screening, he would like the option of also going with a fence. The fence would be a picket style wood fence consistent with the code for pools regarding spacing and thickness. It was his understanding it cannot be more than one-inch in spacing between the pickets.
Mr. Meyer stated the maximum height of a fence in town is six feet. He noted even with a fence being installed, people using the pool would be visible going in and out of the pool. He recommended the installation of shrubbery higher than that to completely shield the pool.
Mr. Kosa stated there is a slight grade in the area and the pool would be a little bit lower or three or four inches lower than the grade of the land. If he installs the pool significantly back on his property, it would be difficult to wire but would be hidden from the road. Mr. Alsbaugh noted this would be impractical for their use because of the distance from the home.
Chairman Tatoian suggested a condition that this pool needs to be sheltered with trees, shrubbery or a fence. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicant could be given the option of clearing it with staff to make sure it was consistent to what was previously approved. Some discussion followed on the fencing or shrubbery that would be most appropriate to screen this pool. Mr. Alsbaugh stated because the house is on a rise, the type of fence that Mr. Kosa is talking about would adequately screen the pool.
Mr. Kosa stated the entrance and egress portion will be hidden by the deck and its existing shrubbery which has grown to a fairly large height. The ladder will be on that side or on the east side relative to Route 5.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up the screening around the existing deck which is very mature and actually encroaching on the deck. It should be severely pruned back but it may be too old and too big to actually allow such trimming to get it far enough away without taking away its screening. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the applicant be given the option of changing that to additional evergreens with a fence to be decided upon. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the existing evergreens are past their life because they were not kept trimmed. Chairman Tatoian stated normally the planting of shrubbery doesn’t require any approval by this Commission but the reason this is here is because of the requirement for screening.
Mr. Meyer asked how far this existing shrubbery would be from the existing pool. Mr. Kosa estimated about ten to fifteen feet away. Mr. Meyer asked if there was shrubbery along the deck, could that be extended around the pool. Mr. Kosa acknowledged that you could come up with a strategy where it would start at the east side of the deck and L-shape it. That would be one option or the other would be a fence.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Ms. Russell made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one 27’ diameter above-ground pool as indicated on the site plans submitted.
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#316, 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.
An amendment was added to the motion that the pool shall be screened from visibility from Enfield Street by appropriate evergreen shrubbery at least six feet in height. The applicant may also add a fence but such fence would require administrative approval from town staff.
Mr. Gwozdz stated he has a concern about the visibility of the pool from the street. He did not feel a pool in a historic district is appropriate but, based upon what has been discussed in the past the Commission has allowed a pool with proper screening from the street. Mr. Gwozdz stated he would like to include a condition that there is some type of vegetation planted. He would prefer vegetation rather than a fence because fences can be different styles. However, if the applicant insists on putting up a fence, Mr. Gwozdz would also like to see vegetation to complete the screening.
Mr. Meyer stated he concurs with Mr. Gwozdz. If a six-foot fence is installed, with the pool being 52” high, this would mean that people standing in the pool would be visible above the fence. He concurred that the condition be that appropriate shrubbery should be installed which would cover at least six feet initially. This would assure privacy to the applicant, the neighbors and the town.
Chairman Tatoian further suggested the required shrubbery be evergreen to assure year round screening.
Chairman Tatoian summarized the consensus of the Board is the pool should be screened from Enfield Street by appropriate shrubbery at least six feet in height and this shrubbery should be evergreen.
Mr. Gwozdz agreed with the necessity of shrubbery screening. He added if the applicant feels he would also like to install a fence, the fence style should be similar to styles approved by this Commission in the past.
Mr. Meyer stated architecturally it would make sense to him to continue the shrubbery from the deck around the pool in order to be compatible from a visibility standpoint rather than shrubbery and a fence with no additional shrubbery.
Mr. Gwozdz stated his hope is that if the applicant does decide to install a fence, the shrubbery will block the fence as well.
Chairman Tatoian amended the motion to add the additional condition that the pool should be screened from visibility from Enfield Street by appropriate shrubbery at least six feet in height. The shrubbery should be evergreen in nature and the applicant may also add a fence in addition to the shrubbery, which fence will require an administrative approval by town staff.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the proposed application is consistent with the manner in which above ground pools are approved because they have a visual impact in the District requiring screening (given by Mr. Gwozdz).
HDC#317: Perry Cook and Sonja Dean, 1120 Enfield Street, fence, landscape screen and brick planters. EHDO Section 8
Ms. Dean did not participate in this application.
Sonja Dean, the property owner at 1120 Enfield Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She explained the property currently has a chain link fence around it that is approximately fifteen to twenty years old. The current condition is it is rusting and deteriorating. When they first moved to the property, there was a gate that covered the driveway area on the south side of the house. The gate did not work and they removed the gate at that time.
Ms. Dean stated she had initially hoped to either install landscaping all around the property or install an iron ornamental fence but, unfortunately, she has neighbors on two sides of the house that routinely bounce basketballs against the fence or have dogs jumping on the fence. They have tried to plant ivy and various other things but they have been torn down within a matter of days. They were hoping to install a fence that would be a privacy screen. The very back of the property includes piles of garbage, pallets and other wood debris. They had initially thought about putting in a wood fence but there is a very serious termite problem with all the abandoned wood.
Ms. Dean stated the request is to install a white vinyl privacy fence as shown in the pictures included in the application in order to screen the view. The fence would follow the exact lines of the current chain link fence around the property on the side facing Enfield Street and on either side of the house. On the north side, there is a three-foot gate with a chain link and their intention is to keep a gate in the same location but it would be a vinyl gate as shown in the pictures submitted. On the south side of the house where the driveway is, their intent is to put in a remote-controlled gate for the cars go in and out. Ms. Dean outlined the various components on the site plan submitted and stated on the side where the driveway is, the intent is to screen that area so that the cars are not visible from the road. There is a very steep slope down from where the front porch of the house is to where the garage is. Ms. Dean’s husband has a truck which is easily visible from the road and the intent is to make it so that it is no longer visible.
Ms. Dean stated right now because the fence is pretty much flush up against the garage in the back yard, the original intent was to take it down and install a new fence all along that line. The concern is with the amount of debris in the back as well as the dogs jumping up and down into the fence, they are considering leaving the existing fence along the back and installing a privacy screen about a foot and a half in front of it that would connect to the garage on either side. In her opinion, Ms. Dean stated this would be an easier option and give some longevity to this fence with all the activity in the back.
Chairman Tatoian asked who owns this property on the west side with the debris and the dogs. Ms. Dean stated there are two property owners, the property to the northwest side fronts on Frew Terrace and the property south of the latter fronts on Fairview. The people to the north have cleaned up their property somewhat but different people have different perspectives on what their children and animals do.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the location of the debris. Ms. Dean stated most of the debris is on the adjacent property to the southwest and it is piled pretty high.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the chain link fence to the east. Ms. Dean stated the whole property is surrounded by a chain link fence and it joins up to the back of the house as shown on the site plan. On the north side, the fence connects about two-thirds of the way back and on the south side it connects about ten feet in from the back of the house. Ms. Dean stated the intent is to remove all the chain link on the front, the north side and the south side and replace it with a white vinyl privacy fence. The only place they would consider keeping the chain link is along the back and putting the vinyl in front of it. The fence is a 6’ white vinyl privacy fence.
Ms. Dean stated the other issue with the fence is with the gates, the fence actually joins up to the house on both sides and the posts go two to three inches from the actual walls of the house. As it exists right now, on the part facing the road on the north side, it is mostly obscured by the seasonal bushes. The gate is visible and the remainder of the fence connecting to the house on the north side would be visible from the road. The gate on the other side would be completely visible to the road and currently that gate has been taken down because it has deteriorated. On the north side, the fence that runs there is visible from the road at a certain angle. If you are going south on Enfield Street and you look down the driveway of 116 Enfield Street, you can see part of that fence driving past.
Ms. Dean stated the other part of the application is to put in a brick planter around the oak tree in the front yard shown as a large circle on the site plan. Brick planters are also planned around the two maples on the south side of the property. Both of these areas have very mature trees and the concern is the roots coming up making it difficult to keep grass in the area. The intent is to plant those and raise the dirt level by putting in planters of brick. Ms. Dean presented a sample of the brick that will be used. She stated the intent was to install the bricks and on the top use either reclaimed bricks from the Best and Brower Brick Company or standard brick pavers. Ms. Dean stated if they were ever to take the planters down, all the bricks used would go to the Historical Society.
Mr. Gwozdz asked about the specific location of the fence along the back and Ms. Dean pointed it out on the site plan.
Mr. Meyer asked how far back from the highway Ms. Dean’s garage is located. Ms. Dean stated she estimates the property itself is 175’ deep and her understanding is that is approximately to the sidewalk itself. From the sidewalk to Enfield Street would be perhaps another twenty feet. Ms. Dean stated she believes the property is within the 250’ Historic District boundary. She added it is her understanding the 250’ would go beyond her property.
Mr. Meyer asked if the gate on the south side of the house will be replaced. Ms. Dean stated the intent is to replace the gate with a gate that looks exactly like the privacy fence panel. There is some debate as to whether they can get one full one that will open all the way or two that will open. The north side would have a three-foot privacy gate.
Ms. Dean stated currently from a landscaping standpoint, in between the two maple trees where they are proposing a planter is sort of a garden right now. The dirt is kind of falling out all over. The application also includes an old picture taken at least twenty years ago which shows an overhead view of the property. This gives you an idea that when you are driving south on Enfield Street, if you look down this driveway, you can see a little bit of the fence there.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Troiano, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing chain link fencing and install a 6” high privacy fence as proposed along the north, east and south property lines, to install vinyl privacy screening fence inside the existing chain link fence along the west property line, and to create raised brick planting beds as indicated on the computer generated site plan 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#317, 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 stated any time you remove a chain link fence in the Enfield Historic District and install something more appropriate, it is, in his opinion, definitely an improvement to the District. Regarding the fence proposed, Mr. Gwozdz stated it is appropriate to the District, is an improvement over what exists and he is in favor of approval.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the proposed fence is consistent with the surrounding homes in the area and with the architectural style of the subject house. The raised planters are also consistent with the architecture and style of the house.
HDC#318: Robert and Traci Artioli, 1204 Enfield Street, new carriage house garage. EHDO Section 8.
Robert and Traci Artioli appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Artioli stated they would like to put up a new carriage house behind their property on the south side directly along the line of the driveway. Presently, you drive in and drive straight back.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there is an existing driveway. Mr. Artioli stated the driveway exists but it would have to be extended a little bit to get to the garage location. Chairman Tatoian noted the house did not include a garage and the proposed carriage house will be a two-car garage with a second floor room. Mr. Artioli stated the construction of the carriage house would be wood and painted white to match the house. The stone work is still going on and the stone will go all the way back as far as the garage would be. This stone work was previously approved by this Commission and is located on both sides of the home. It would extend down the length of the driveway to ensure proper drainage.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the height of the carriage house. Mr. Artioli stated the height is 24’. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the actual calculated height used for accessory structures comes out to 14’. The actual peak is higher than that but the way they calculate height for accessory structures comes out to 14’. It is the mid point between the bottom of the eave to the ridge.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the zoning approval necessary. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this carriage house will require a zoning permit along with the building permit. Normally the zoning permit would have been denied for height but the Planning and Zoning Commission changed the zoning ordinances to allow this Commission to determine the appropriate height for accessory structures in the Enfield Historic District. The Commission is allowed to approve accessory structures higher than what is usually approvable for accessory structures but the Commission has to determine that it is appropriate for the property and the area. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in every other zone, 12’ is the maximum height. In the HR-33 zone, the Planning and Zoning Commission has allowed this Commission to determine the appropriate final height for accessory structures. The change in the regulations was to encourage and to allow rebuilding of carriage houses and the types of accessory structures that would be commonly found in homes along Enfield Street.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the use of the accessory structure would require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are standard accessory structure uses that are permitted as of right. Regarding the use of the upstairs of such a carriage house, the Building Department would determine what is actually being created according to their regulations. The HR-33 does not allow anything more than a single-family residence. As an accessory structure, the space is livable, useable space.
Mr. Meyer stated the 8” red cedar vertical siding diverges from the exterior of the existing house. He asked why you would want to diverge from that rather than have it be consistent as the house now is. Mr. Artioli stated they could do that and make it the same as the house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not atypical to have this type of accessory structure. They very rarely matched the buildings.
Mr. Meyer asked if the present building exterior is clapboard or shingles. Mr. Artioli stated the house is clapboard. Mr. Meyer asked about the design proposed. Ms. Artioli stated they selected this plan because they thought it went with the rest of the carriage houses on the street as well as their house.
Ms. Dean asked if anyone knows if there was a carriage house with this house at one time. Ms. Artioli stated she has never seen one in the pictures she has viewed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is also not aware of one. Chairman Tatoian stated this home was an inn at one time. Mr. Meyer added it was a doctor’s home prior to that as well as a sanitarium.
Ms. Troiano felt this homeowner is doing an amazing job and this is going to be a good addition to the property.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Ms. Troiano made a motion, seconded by Ms. Russell, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a wood 24’ x 24’ carriage house/garage as indicated on the site plan 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#318, 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.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the proposed addition is consistent with the architecture of the house and that of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
HDCR – Review files, determinations of need for certificates of appropriateness:
HDCR#2006-002: Robert Barrow, 1442 Enfield Street, new roofing material. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported he spoke with Robert Barrow, 1442 Enfield Street, about the re-roofing of his home. He instructed Mr. Barrow that as long as it was of the same grade or better, it did not require a Certificate. Mr. Alsbaugh stated when he visited this area on April 10, he stopped and took pictures to verify that the work was underway, verify the contractor who was doing the work and the product that was going on the house. Mr. Alsbaugh talked to some of the men at the site and he reported that Mr. Barrow also had three layers of roof. The men were stripping the roof right down and doing what they needed to do to fix it.
HDCR #2006-003: Ronald Deziel, 1415 Enfield Street, new roofing material on rear roof and dormer of house. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported that Mr. Deziel called about re-roofing the rear of the house, the main plane and the dormer, which is shown as the top picture on the page with the pictures submitted. The whole house is done with slate except for the dormer. On the back of the house, this Commission does not have authority because it is not visible from the street. Mr. Alsbaugh will be sending Mr. Deziel a letter telling him that he has informed the Commission about the work that could be done that isn’t visible from the street and does not need a certificate. He will be cautioning Mr. Deziel that because the house is so very old and it does have slate on the front, that the chances of the slate being approved to be removed are very slim. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his recommendation to Mr. Deziel would be to spend the money on repairing the slate. If this is done, the homeowner will get another two hundred years out of this roof.
Ms. Dean stated she used to rent an apartment at this location. She knows at one point there was a Dutch oven in the middle of the house that had been a support for it. When that was removed, they had to shore up the house because it had tilted in. They have had problems with the roof over the years because the roof is not at all straight and prone to leaking.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the home has lost some of its main structural support with the chimney stack, this may be a legitimate reason to approve removal of the slate because the slate could compromise the house. Ms. Dean stated it lost that when it was moved from Buffalo, New York over one hundred years ago. It was shored up when it was built again here but it was prone to having a very curvy roof. In her opinion, it might be better keeping the slate rather than putting on asphalt because the structure is so temperamental.
Mr. Alsbaugh presented the proposed budget to the Commission which is the same as last year. It will be subject to Town Council review. Chairman Tatoian noted the Commission did present this to the Town Council but Mr. Alsbaugh has not yet received a return response. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this budget allows the Commission to do things they were not able to do prior to four years ago. If the Commission would like to request a larger budget for next year, they can vote on that. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission used all the money from last year that they were allotted. The money was actually used twice. Mr. Alsbaugh was able to apply money for one grant proposal for matching funds to the same thing in a second grant proposal because they were overlapping and the information required for each was the same. The money was actually used twice as matching money.
Mr. Alsbaugh presented a picture of 121 Pearl Street, the former Brown Funeral Home building, which has been sold. He met with the couple that bought the home. They are not sure whether they will live in it but the wife seems very inclined to live in it. Mr. Alsbaugh had a long discussion with the homeowners and has been invited to see the building and talk with them when they are further along with this project. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he gets the impression the owners are very much in favor of restoration. They understand the issues involved and they are aware that the carriage house is the nicest one in the Town of Enfield. The homeowner has told Mr. Alsbaugh that the first thing they plan to do is remove the awnings. The buyers are from Enfield and they do not have young children. They are considering the possibility of living in the home and allowing their daughter who is a lawyer to have a professional office on the first floor. Mr. Meyer stated the home just south of the Brown building is also coming up for sale in June.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the Commission has received some information on the Chester Ladd house which the state is selling for $1. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he knows one local couple who has a piece of property one-quarter of a mile away and they want to buy this house, restore it and live in it. There are also a few other people involved in local preservation considering it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the home was built between 1890 and 1910 and is a late vernacular Queen Ann. The interior has a lot of original wood work that has never been painted and the fireplace is tiled. There are pocket doors between the living room and dining room. Vandals have gotten in and taken a circular saw to the door handles on the first floor and the railing going upstairs. Ms. Dean stated if someone ends up owning this home, she knows where they can get some doors.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported he met on site with the DEP representative in charge of the Ladd home and Susan Chandler from the State Historic Council. He submitted a town opinion of what would be considered the best scenario for the building. Susan Chandler also submitted the exact same review which means that the house is not eligible for demolition.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this property was bought approximately ten years ago with the intent of having a trail head for the Scantic River. There is a little road that goes down to the back and into the lower field down behind it and there are some brownstone foundation remains on this property as well.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported receipt of the judge’s decision regarding the Montessori School. The Town Attorney’s Office has requested that Commission members refrain from discussing the particulars of this case for about twenty days. If the Commission wishes to discuss this decision, Mr. Alsbaugh suggested they go into Executive Session. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his recommendation, based upon advice from the Assistant Town Attorney, is that it would be advisable to wait until the next meeting before having such a discussion. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Assistant Town Attorney thinks this decision will be appealed. The decision points out that this Commission had the authority over the project and that the Commission made the correct decision according to the facts and the record. Chairman Tatoian stated this decision is presently a public record and could be reported in the newspapers. Mr. Meyer stated this decision was probably one of the most difficult decisions that this Commission has ever made. Mr. Alsbaugh asked that Commission members review the decision and if they have any questions, they should contact the Town Attorney. Chairman Tatoian stated they would have until May 11 to appeal this decision.
Mr. Meyer asked if there is any update on the Roger Ingraham dictate to get the house fixed. Mr. Meyer stated he passes this house every day and nothing apparently has been done. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has nothing to report.
Mr. Meyer asked about reinitiating the subcommittee to revise the Commission’s ordinance. Chairman Tatoian would like to do so and he suggested a meeting in May to finish the work. He suggested the subcommittee members discuss a date and communicate it to the other members.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated on the request to amend the ordinance and the map, what he had thought would be relatively simple to amend the map by requesting the Engineering Department to do so turned out to be more difficult than originally anticipated. Mr. Alsbaugh is doing all the lot by lot verification and comparison with the approval list. He will have to trace a map for Engineering to produce for him.
MINUTES
Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the Minutes of January 25, 2006. Chairman Tatoian made an amendment to these Minutes and corrected the date on page 3, paragraph three, from 1989 to 1889. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Meyer abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh reported on the approval letters for Mr. Edgar, Mr. and Mrs. Mikulski, and Mr. and Mrs. Berger. The Commission also has copies of the Forum News and Connecticut Preservation News along with a copy of an architectural magazine from Mr. Gwozdz. Mr. Gwozdz stated this is a quarterly publication from the archeological conservancy and he believes it would be beneficial for Commission members to receive. Mr. Meyer stated there is also a magazine entitled Archeology published every two months which he highly recommends. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission should decide if they want to receive such a publication and staff will do further research with a specific recommendation. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Alsbaugh also reported Commission members should have received their new Forum membership cards. Individual memberships were ordered and Commission members may be receiving Forum level entry into their system. Mr. Alsbaugh requested that Commission members review the specifics of their memberships.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Dean, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr
|