ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 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
Russell Meyer
Eileen Russell
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
HDCR#2005-008 Update – Sante Isopo, 1431 Enfield Street
Mr. Alsbaugh made a status report to the Commission regarding HDCR#2005-008. He held a review with Mr. Isopo regarding his proposal for a sidewalk. The public sidewalk has been removed in front of the four to five homes in the area. This is a request to replace the sidewalks that allowed him to get from his front door to the driveway. Mr. Isopo would be replacing in kind what the town took out.
Mr. Meyer asked if the town removed the sidewalks, why is it not then an obligation of the town to replace sidewalks that were torn out at town expense. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the sidewalk system on that side of the street has never been completed and the only existing sidewalks are in front of those five homes. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town is not replacing them because the sidewalk Mr. Isopo is referring to is a private sidewalk in an area where public sidewalks have been removed. Regarding payment by the town because the town removed the public sidewalks, Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Meyer would have to direct that question to the Town Manager.
Mr. Meyer asked that Mr. Alsbaugh find out from the town if they tear up public property, why they will not then replace such public property in kind. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not public property that is being installed at this time nor is the proposed sidewalk going where public property would be.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Commission refers to the old map from the previous application that was denied for the parking lot expansion, it offers a better scaled version of what exists on the Isopo property. The public sidewalk is shown going from left to right and coming off of that is a private sidewalk. It is only the new sidewalk as shown on the plans that Mr. Isopo is indicating that he is going to put in. This is his front door access to his driveway. The town has removed the access to the property that was public property.
Mr. Meyer stated his concern is if the town removed a piece of property on town property, they had a right to do so. If they removed a piece of sidewalk on private property and had permission of the property owner to remove it, then it is up to the homeowner to replace that piece on his property. If the town removed a piece of sidewalk, they have an obligation to replace that because it is a public way.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Isopo is the homeowner who wanted these public sidewalks removed. The small section of his walk was removed possibly at town expense and what is being replaced is not on public property. Mr. Isopo is installing a new section of sidewalk to regain access to his driveway on his property.
Mr. Gwozdz questioned why the town removed a public sidewalk. Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Isopo did not like maintaining it and the sidewalk is only in front of the five or six homes. The Longhi’s removed theirs to the north of the Isopo house. In discussions with the Town Manager, at Mr. Isopo’s request, it was determined that the town had no intention of ever extending the public sidewalks on that side of Enfield Street. The piece of sidewalk that the town removed will not be replaced.
Mr. Meyer stated this means that the town no longer has access to the public way in front of Mr. Isopo’s house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if anyone wanted to walk on that side of the street, it would be in the state right of way on the grass. Mr. Meyer asked if the area where the sidewalk was removed by the town will be returned to grass and Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that this will occur.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HDC #309: Roger Ingraham, 1443 Enfield St., Violation of previous approval, work done without Certificate of Approval. EHDO Section 12 – (continued from 9/7/05).
Chairman Tatoian asked at this continued public hearing if there was anyone to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Alsbaugh stated Roger Ingraham called to say that he had a previously planned vacation and would not be able to attend tonight’s hearing.
Chairman Tatoian noted at the last public hearing session, two Commission members present tonight were not present at the initial hearing. He stated the Commission did find two violations which involved the siding approval and the roof profile. The Commission continued the hearing to this meeting. Chairman Tatoian stated that Mr. Alsbaugh has provided possible options to the Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he provided the Commission with a list of observations that occurred at the last meeting and he pointed out the possible options for addressing the concerns.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was decided that there were violations. The siding went beyond what was approved in 1989 and the work on the roof profile was an additional violation. At the last meeting, the commission was informed that this was not an application but an enforcement procedure. Once it was determined there were violations, the locations needed to be enumerated and any remedies brought forward as a possible solution.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated at the request of Mr. Ingraham, the Commission decided to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting so that members could inspect the site.
Mr. Meyer asked if it is the Chairman’s opinion that the Commission can come to a conclusion tonight despite the absence of Mr. Ingraham. Chairman Tatoian stated the issue of the violation is before the Commission tonight and Mr. Ingraham was notified of tonight’s meeting. If he does not choose to appear, Chairman Tatoian did not feel this precludes the Commission from making a decision tonight.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can continue the public hearing to the next meeting, close the hearing and postpone a decision until the next meeting or close the hearing and make a decision this evening.
Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Ingraham has had many opportunities and could have come forth with a letter of intent, with his son or with his attorney to represent him in this case. He has chosen to do none of these. Mr. Meyer suggested closing the hearing and coming to a resolution this evening.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if there is any additional information or clarification the Commission needs prior to closing this hearing.
Chairman Tatoian stated Mr. Ingraham did not put the aluminum siding on the home but he did do work concerning the trim of the building where he did not have permission. Also, he had a notice from the town to cease and desist in that work. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that Mr. Ingraham received a stop work order from the Building Department with a request to supply a list of certain items for determination. A second item was the roof profile was changed.
Chairman Tatoian stated at the September 7, 2005 public hearing, Mr. Ingraham was questioned by the Commission and he said when he received that notice, he did stop and did no further work. But there is evidence that he did do work after he received that notice.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated when the letter went out and was received by Mr. Ingraham, half of the front cornice was encased. By the time of the Commission’s Special Meeting, the entire front of the cornice and roof line had been completed with the aluminum encasement over the trim work.
Chairman Tatoian stated Mr. Ingraham was in the process of changing the system of drainage for the property. There is a built-in system that was part of the architecture of the house for drainage and he was proceeding to change that and install gutters. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the home always had downspouts but the original system was an internal gutter system that directed water to those downspouts from the top of the roof with the aid of an edge lip which created the roof profile. Along the front that edge lip was cut off and the roof redone so that gutters could then be applied on the exterior of the roof cornices and lead them to new downspouts. Mr. Gwozdz noted that none of this was discussed in Mr. Ingraham’s 1989 application. That application was for siding with the condition that the exterior of the house not change significantly. Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission found that as a violation.
Chairman Tatoian stated the public hearing was continued because Mr. Ingraham requested that Commission members look at the other work he was doing.
Chairman Tatoian stated Mr. Ingraham had approval in 1989 for the vinyl siding. He has not, by his own admission, done that but he has done other work without an application. Chairman Tatoian felt all the work he has done is in violation of the ordinances. The 1989 approval stated he was not to change the exterior other than the siding. He has gone ahead and done work without approval. Chairman Tatoian felt whatever work he has done is in violation and Mr. Ingraham should be ordered to restore the property to what it was prior to undertaking this work.
Mr. Meyer was unsure if the Commission can come to a conclusion until they have an open and frank discussion about what is wrong. The siding was approved in 1989. Mr. Ingraham stated at the last meeting that he had no intention of putting siding on the house at this time. The house is deteriorating. If the Commission were to order Mr. Ingraham to restore the building to the way it was, Mr. Meyer had some doubt that he could do so. The materials are no longer available. While that is not the Commission’s concern, Mr. Ingraham has removed and destroyed much of the architectural beauty of the roof line. In addition, Mr. Meyer went by this home today and there is still scaffolding on the south side of the house, there is trash all over the place and whatever Mr. Ingraham has done has not added to the beauty of the street. He compared this home to the home located on the corner of Main Street and Pleasant Street which is about the same age, has been partially painted and is not an improvement. Mr. Meyer stated if the Commission were to allow Mr. Ingraham to do what he wants to do in the short term, he doesn’t think it will improve the appearance of the home. Mr. Meyer saw a need for the Commission to make a decision for the benefit of the District. Mr. Meyer felt there is a violation and the Commission should take action.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated whether or not Mr. Ingraham has the resources or the expertise and whether or not the materials exist is irrelevant to the Commission’s decision. However, if restoration is ordered, modern materials do exist that can restore the original internal roof drainage functions, as well as replacement materials that can reproduce the profiles of the missing elements. As Mr. Polaski noted at the last meeting, there are new materials that allow for the restoration of the original roof drainage system that go a long way to upgrading the long-term use and condition of such a system. There are new materials that could be placed on the roof and within the internal piping system that would not even be seen from the street. While the original materials are gone, restoration could be accomplished with materials that are available to property owners at this time.
Mr. Gwozdz addressed the lack of specificity in the 1989 application. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he felt because it was an approval and did not expire that it required an interpretation. The basic interpretation of what was stated within the approval referenced the siding. The additional condition that ‘the house not change substantially’ in appearance from the street indicated that it was the siding being discussed. The application of siding would result in a removal of the shingles on the building to prevent a loss of the profiles and depth of the trim around the windows and doors. Mr. Ingraham’s decision not to do the siding was based on that interpretation by Mr. Alsbaugh as the shingles would have to be removed to meet the 1989 condition of approval. He felt it was too expensive to remove the cladding on the sides of the building.
Mr. Gwozdz stated since the Commission has determined that Mr. Ingraham is in violation regarding the restoration, the burden of responsibility should fall on him to come to this Commission to state what he plans to do.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is why he recommended listing the points of violation. In this way, they could be specifically referenced in any order to do restoration. How Mr. Ingraham accomplishes that would require a return to the Commission for verification and approval.
Mr. Meyer addressed the 1989 approval which included the phrase “not substantially altered.” He noted that everyone on this Commission has a different interpretation of what “substantial” means. Mr. Ingraham might be able to say what he is doing is not substantially changing the appearance of the building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that would be for Mr. Ingraham to bring before a judge. This is why Mr. Alsbaugh requested a motion from the Commission regarding the violation. It was determined that there was a substantial change.
Mr. Meyer asked if it is the Commission’s feeling to decide what should be done since it has been agreed upon that there is a violation. He believes the Commission has a right to instruct the property owner that he can either continue what he is doing or that the Commission wants the home restored to the way it was.
Chairman Tatoian recommended closing the public hearing and then discussing what action should be taken. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended including discussion within the public hearing about the specific elements on the facade of the building. If Mr. Ingraham at a later date has problems with the interpretation of “substantial”, it will be the judge that makes the decision. The judge will review the public record.
Mr. Alsbaugh recommended looking at the photographs that were provided for this meeting and originally which show where the work occurred. In the text description and in the original staff comments, they describe the extent of the problem areas.
Mr. Alsbaugh outlined the problem areas. There is a description that the incorporated gutter that is original to the house and the associated moldings have been removed substantially changing the profile of the roof. The new vinyl soffit runs perpendicular to the facade rather than horizontally as the original soffit boards. Both fascia segments have been covered in vinyl. The uppermost molding between the soffit and upper fascia is covered in vinyl or has been replaced. The middle molding strip between the upper and lower fascia segments has been covered in vinyl changing the profile of the detail completely. The molding trim below the lower fascia has been removed or covered completely. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this covers everything from the roof profile which includes the cornice detail and the segments of the trim, the soffit boards and the trim segments from the soffit boards to just below where the bottom of the roof brackets are located. Mr. Alsbaugh felt the trim categories would relate to the siding violation. From the outer edge of the soffit boards including the multiple step trim pieces, the flat fascia and the roof/lip edge where the internal gutter is incorporated would be an indication of where the roof violations exist. Mr. Alsbaugh referred to the page in his report dated September 13, 2005 which includes two photographs looking at the southwest corner of the building. The top photo was taken a little further back showing the top of the porch roof and that southwest corner of the house proper. A second photograph is a close-up showing the details as they were on the south side of the house and as they have been changed on the west side or front of the house.
Mr. Meyer suggested an additional violation which is: that the brackets on the south side of the house as shown in the photograph on page one have been removed. Mr. Ingraham has stated they would be scraped and painted and reinstalled but the Commission does not know this for a fact. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that Mr. Ingraham removed the brackets from the front and did reinstall them. Also, this item is a repair and maintenance issue and Mr. Ingraham would be allowed to do this without a certificate. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended the work include what is needed on the north and south soffits and then require that the brackets from the north and south be repaired and replaced within the same time limit as the work being done on the front.
Chairman Tatoian noted there are no members of the public present. He closed this public hearing.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, that the seven actions taken by Mr. Ingraham at 1443 Enfield Street be deemed as violations of the Enfield Historic District Ordinance. The seven locations of violation are as follow:
1. The incorporated gutter that is original to the house and the associated moldings have been removed substantially changing the profile of the roof.
2. The new vinyl soffit runs perpendicular to the facade rather than horizontally as the original soffit boards.
3. Both fascia segments have been covered in vinyl.
4. The uppermost molding between the soffit and upper fascia is covered in vinyl or has been replaced.
5. The middle molding strip between the upper and lower fascia segments has been covered in vinyl changing the profile of the detail completely.
6. The molding trim below the lower fascia has been removed or covered completely diminishing the stepped and shaped transitions of the cornice and entablature.
7. The brackets on the south side of the house have been removed.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote. (Reference is made to the memo from Roger W. Alsbaugh to the Historic District Commission dated September 2, 2005 regarding HDC#309: Violation of 1989 approval which contains pictures of 1443 Enfield Street.)
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission now has to discuss what action to take regarding these outstanding violations. The Commission can order Mr. Ingraham to correct these violations by restoring the property to what it was before this work was undertaken.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Commission can request restoration of the cited areas of violation which shall be restored to the original or with in kind materials and profiles that previously existed. A second item would be that the method of accomplishing the order must be submitted by Mr. Ingraham for approval by the Commission. Also, the Commission has to determine a time limit upon which these restorations must be accomplished.
Mr. Meyer questioned if the Commission has the authority to establish a time limit and Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission does. The Commission is allowed to condition an approval and including a time limit as a condition of approval is allowable.
Following some discussion of the actual wording of the motion and the time limit to impose, Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, that Roger Ingraham correct the outstanding violations at 1443 Enfield Street as follows:
1. The areas of violation as described in the list of violations above shall be restored to the original profiles using original materials where existing and practicable. Modern materials should be utilized to reconstruct the roof drainage system (underlayment, flashing, interior drainage pipes that lead to original downspout placement locations, and membrane roofing). A plan in sequence shall be prepared to perform the work containing specifics of the materials and architectural elements listed above.
2. All restoration work (materials and techniques) and the sequenced plan shall be
reviewed by staff and submitted to the Commission for approval prior to any work being performed.
3. All restoration shall be completed by September 28, 2006 or one year from the decision and order of restoration under HDC #309 (hearing closed and decision made on 9/28/2005).
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
MINUTES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Chairman Tatoian, to approve the Minutes of September 7, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 2 – 0 – 2 vote. Mr. Meyer and Mr. Gwozdz abstained.
STAFF REPORT
a. CGS request to look into Newport, RI traffic light poles
Mr. Alsbaugh presented photographs of the traffic light poles in Newport, Rhode Island, which Mrs. Troiano brought up at the previous meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh also reported that the town previously requested that the poles in the Enfield Historic District be black and this has not occurred. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did not format a request to the Town Council because he wanted the Commission to review these pictures and decide if they are adequate for the size of the street. The present poles are straight silver poles. Mrs. Troiano had questioned if the poles in Newport could be used in the Historic District in Enfield.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the bottom right picture is equal to the width of Enfield Street. He added that the Commission has the statutory right to submit comment about the types of lights in the District to the legislative body (Town Council). The Commission recommended that these black, historically designed poles be used in the Enfield Historic District. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the design would go beyond the color black originally proposed and would probably be a considerable increase in cost. The cost would be borne by DOT as they are doing the re-signalization of the entire length of Route 5.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Mayor has requested that Town Hall staff forward information to the DOT (which must go through channels - to the Council and then to the DOT) regarding the use of black poles in specific areas of the Town.
Some discussion followed on whether the Commission should make a motion to install the decorative lights in black on Route 5 in the Enfield Historic District.
Chairman Tatoian made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer, that the Enfield Historic District Commission make a recommendation to the Town Council that the traffic poles in the Enfield Historic District be replaced by those in a style similar to pictures presented to the Commission from Newport, Rhode Island. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CGS request for boundary correction
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he decided to change the recommendation from closing the boundary because the Commission already determined that it doesn’t need to be closed. The ordinance and Historic District mapping need to be corrected. Mr. Alsbaugh presented a report to be sent to the Town Council with a request for the correction. His report explains that the boundary description within the local ordinance is incorrect and that it does not reflect the original boundary description that was approved during the nomination for approval that was approved by the state and federal government. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he also added information about the statute that required encroachment permits and conformity with local zoning regulations and ordinances as well as the fact that the sovereignty of the state is never in question. When a zoning boundary or an ordinance boundary encompasses the state right of way, it confers the authority to regulate within that area to the town but the state sovereignty is never diminished or removed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he also presented in his report to the Council the actual statutes, a copy of the current ordinance boundary description, a copy of the original boundary description from the approved nomination application, a copy of a newspaper article dated December 9, 1971 concerning the nomination application and designation process, a copy of the day/date/paper name from the pertinent page of the newspaper dated December 9, 1971, and a copy of the map from that 1971 article.
Chairman Tatoian noticed that the map in the newspaper includes the house located on Frew Terrace. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that it does and the 1993 map done by the Planning Department intern also includes Frew Terrace. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the map needs updating and there were exceptions in the original verbal descriptions. There were a number of properties that went further than the 250’ beyond the Orin Thompson House. The town ordinance only includes the Orin Thompson House and the two homes on either side of King Street. Everything else is 250’ from the right of way or the rear property line, whichever is less. There were a number of exceptions in the verbal description that were less than 250’. The Woodgate Apartments were down to 40’ and the current Mayor’s house boundary is the rear property line. The intent was to include any associated out buildings with the homes. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the ordinance needs to be rewritten to match the original nomination form verbal description and the map from 1993 needs to be corrected to reflect those same things.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the synopsis page at the bottom gives a short version of what the Commission is trying to accomplish. On the second page of Section 7-147CJ memo to the Council, numbers one and two, it gives a more in depth description of what it is that the Commission is seeking to resolve.
Chairman Tatoian asked who would rewrite the ordinance and create the new boundary map. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if this is what the Commission wants to send to the Town Council, he will reformat the town ordinance to reflect the corrections. If time permits, he will also have the map corrected in Engineering. He will also format the resolution for the Town Council.
Mr. Meyer previously called Mr. Alsbaugh about this revision and specifically addressed items for sale on the front lawn in the Enfield Historic District. This Commission presently does not have the power to say that such items cannot be placed there and that there could be legal action taken by the Town Attorney. Mr. Meyer noted he never sees such items for sale in towns like Suffield and Wethersfield. While the public may not be concerned about the District’s boundaries, they may have a lot of concern about items for sale on the front of the properties. He is concerned that it states that these boundaries shall extend east from the state highway markers on the east side of Enfield Street to the rear property line of said houses and also on the west. This means to him that if he is within the state boundaries, he is outside of the district and, therefore, can sell cars with no problem.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is what is being clarified and corrected. The Commission does not presently have the re-formatted description. It is clear what it is when one looks at the original USGS coordinates page and the verbal description in the original nomination form that was approved by the state and federal governments. When it was reinterpreted and reworded in the local ordinance, it became confusing and seemingly describing discrete boxes and it needs to be changed back. Additionally, there are exceptions at the bottom that need to be incorporated into the ordinance also. The Town had no authority to change that once it was approved by the state and federal government. For whatever reason it was changed; Mr. Alsbaugh is suggesting that there was some confusion in interpretation. The new format will clearly indicate that it is a continuous line around the district and that it does not stop at the state right of way.
Mr. Meyer asked if it would be to the Commission’s benefit to see the reformatted document prior to it going to the Town Council. Chairman Tatoian agreed that the Commission would like to see the final document before presentation to the Town Council. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the document will reflect what it should say in the original approval. The original wording is clear that it is a continuous line around the entire district with specific exceptions and encompassing the state right of way. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the state references say there is nothing wrong with doing an overlay box created by town ordinances and they are supported by state statutes and by DOT regulations. Mr. Alsbaugh requested a short recess so that he can get the list of concerns for the Town Council.
The Commission recessed at 8:21 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. Alsbaugh presented the third page of the memo to be presented to the Town Council. The two state statute sections are referenced and the bottom includes inappropriate activities in the state right of way.
Mr. Meyer requested additional time to review this document. It states used car sales but there are other vehicles that do not come under the term used car sales. In Mr. Meyer’s opinion, anything that is for sale on the front lawn is not compatible with the District.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission considers these as signs so it would be inclusive of trailers, boats, lawnmowers and canoes. The advertising of the item for sale is considered a sign. If someone is considering selling vehicles, the Commission had considered in past discussions that such vehicles should be located in the driveway and no further forward than the front line of the building.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the Commission wants this document to go to the Town Council as is with the formatted ordinance and map and the resolution for the Council or do they want to make changes.
Mr. Meyer stated the Commission has not seen the final wording and combined documents that will go to the Town Council. If there is a vote this evening, he will abstain and request that Mr. Alsbaugh email him a copy of what is being submitted to the Council.
Chairman Tatoian requested that Mr. Alsbaugh make the corrections to the map and the ordinance and present them to the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh agreed and noted a unanimous vote of the Commission would note there is full support of the Commission.
Mr. Meyer stated the Commission has been reviewing the problems in the District for almost ten years and the Commission is now being asked to vote on something without seeing the final document. This is a concern to him and he would prefer to see the final document prior to sending it forward to the Council.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission is sending to the Council a request to correct the ordinance. The other items that are a continuous concern are referenced in such a way that when they correct this boundary, they will see the activities that concern the Commission.
Following further discussion, Chairman Tatoian recommended postponing action on this item until the October Regular Meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Ms. Russell nominated Nancy Smyth for Secretary of the Enfield Historic District Commission. Mr. Gwozdz seconded the nomination. Nancy Smyth was elected Secretary of the Enfield Historic District Commission by a unanimous vote.
Chairman Tatoian nominated Russell Meyer for Vice Chairman of the Enfield Historic District Commission. Ms. Russell seconded the nomination. Russell Meyer was elected Vice Chairman of the Enfield Historic District Commission by a unanimous vote.
Ms. Russell nominated Richard Tatoian for Chairman of the Enfield Historic District Commission. Mr. Gwozdz seconded the nomination. Richard Tatoian was elected Chairman of the Enfield Historic District Commission by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF 2006 MEETING DATES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Russell, to approve the 2006 Meeting Dates of the Enfield Historic District Commission. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
COMMISSION PHOTOGRAPHS FOR ANNUAL TOWN REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Russell, to adjourn. Following a 4 – 0 – 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr |