|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 in the Thompsonville Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
HDCR #2005-003: Charles & Dawne Young, 1293 Enfield St., Porch columns (replace front & repair & re-install side); Repair floors & ceilings of both porches; Resurface aluminum coated roof on rear porch & replace screening.
Mr. Alsbaugh made the following report on the above review file: During the last full week of May, Mr. Young approached staff regarding the proposed projects. Staff explained the concepts regarding repair and maintenance and the need for staff to inspect and verify conditions and proposed methods for what maintenance is to be done.
On May 31, 2005 Mrs. Young submitted two application forms, one each for the front and rear porch repair and maintenance. Staff reiterated the potential for administrative approval of the work and accepted the two application forms for the creation of a single Review file (HDCR2005-003). An on-site inspection was scheduled for June 1, 2005.
Staff met with the Young’s on Wednesday, the 1st. Both porches and their components were inspected, discussed, and photographed. Support timber had been added to the front porch to prevent roof collapse and to ensure resident and guest safety. Administrative approval to move forward was granted based on the following observations:
Front Porch - column replacement, porch floor replacement:
-
Plain, tapered Doric wood columns, of the same dimensions and basic design will be used for replacement (see attached product sheet). Similar dimensional lumber will be used to repair and replace the severely deteriorated flooring (subsurface framing will be replaced with pressure treated lumber which will not be visible.) Any visible fascia around the floor will be repaired or replaced in kind. Existing stone steps and foundations will be retained. The ceiling will be repaired / replaced in the same manner.
-
Staff also discussed the potential for column repairs using epoxy (acceptable under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards); if the Young’s still wish to replace (in kind), they have agreed to consider the transfer of the original columns to a local volunteer reclamation group that salvages architectural elements from Enfield structures and offers them for re-use locally. (This group was active during the demolition of the Terry House and abutting properties. This program is based on the Williamsburg Resolutions on Architectural Fragments of September 1995, which staff has adjusted for Enfield needs, and will be offered as a recommendation to the Town Council as one of several new administrative procedures when they consider formal application for designation of Enfield as a Certified Local Government.)
Side Porch - column repair, porch floor & ceiling repair, re-surfacing of porch roof:
-
Two columns with minor damage will be removed during porch repairs, repaired and re-installed afterward.
-
Flooring and ceiling will be replaced in kind
-
Screening damaged by previous occupants will be replaced with a stronger grade material, and reinforced on the inside with lattice work to prevent the family dog from discovering the option for unapproved exit.
-
The existing aluminum-based painted finish on the porch roof will be renewed.
The following pages of photographs represent existing conditions, and in addition to the attached replacement column product sheet, support the review of the physical evidence and proposed materials covered under the Young’s proposal and subsequent staff confirmation of normal repair and maintenance allowed under statute and local ordinance.
Front porch, face on
Front porch, from southwest
Left front porch column
Right front porch column
Side porch
Southeast column removed for repair South side screening
HDCR #2005-005: Jeffrey & Colleen Ann Cross, 1116 Enfield St., Removal of inappropriately designed wrought iron railing added to front porch
Mr. Alsbaugh reported on the above review file. Attached was correspondence between Mrs. Cross and staff, including before and after photographs taken by the property owner of 1116 Enfield Street.
Mr. & Mrs. Cross removed the railing when they painted the porch. They requested that they be allowed to leave the railing off.
Administrative approval to move forward was granted based on the following observations:
Front Porch - railing removal:
-
The railing design indicates early latter half of the 20th century installation. It may or may not have been installed after the existence of the historic district. It is not original to the building
-
Inspection of the columns and other porch fabric showed no sign that any railings had ever been installed previously. The height of the porch floor allows that logical assumption. Current code also allows the absence of railings on porches of less than 30 inches floor height.
Based on the removal of obviously unsuitable materials and the fact that the porch probably never needed or had railings, the removal was determined to be minor and a positive restoration of the original porch. The normal repair and maintenance project (painting) resulted in a net increase in the original design of the façade.
Mrs. Troiano made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer to concur with the actions taken by staff under review files HDCR2005-003 and HDCR2005-005. The vote was 4-0-0.
Following completion of the two review file reports, Mr. Meyer noted concern with the process for administrative review and staff approval of projects proposed by property owners in the historic district. He noted the categories eligible for administrative approval were unclear. Staff noted that the only things that have been approved were “normal repair and maintenance”, or were not visible from a street, as specified in the historic ordinance and state statutes. What seems confusing is that previously there was no formal way for staff to review, verify and report such things to the commission (that such proposals were indeed normal repair and maintenance, and therefore did not need a certificate of appropriateness). With the creation by staff of permanent ‘review’ files that remain as such or are transformed into an actual certificate application file, this class of work before staff has become a consistent and retrievable body of documentation. Everyone present understood Mr. Meyer’s concern that the categories of items not requiring a certificate and not yet defined under the guidelines-in-progress, must be brought to the commission for a determination until the guidelines are completed and clear.
MINUTES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Troiano, to approve the Minutes of May 25, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
STAFF REPORT
A revised copy of the local district boundary adjustment resolution was reviewed and discussed. The attachments mentioned at the last meeting were included and presented to members for discussion of those documents’ relevance to the main body of the resolution. Mr. Meyer discussed the length of the complete packet, and recommended the commission include a cover sheet representing a clear, bullet format synopsis for ease of review by the Town Council. The new abstract of the full packet will be formatted by staff and sent out to commission members for review in the next two weeks.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
· Local district boundary closure - see above under ‘Staff Report’
· Discussion on potential new Hazardville Local Historic District: Staff presented a map indicating the boundaries of the present Hazardville National Register Historic District and pointed out the extent to which the boundary went South to encompass the entire original Hazard Powder Company survey (done by DuPont at the time of their purchase of the Hazard Powder Company in the late 19th century). A preliminary list of things involved in the nomination process, the pro’s and con’s of such a proposal, cost estimates for phases of the project and possible funding sources, and a rough time line should be partially available at the July meeting, with a more complete review in place for the September meeting.
· American Forests, Historic Tree Nursery: Mrs. Troiano presented copies to the members of the pamphlet from American Forests, as well as two articles on the importance of slow growing trees and descendants of historic trees. The members discussed possible scenarios for planting these trees along both sides of the entire length of the local historic district. They also noted that the trees could be used throughout town, and possibly as a fund raising option.
Mrs. Troiano mentioned the continual loss of old trees along Enfield Street. This is from age, disease, electric utility system upgrades, and also from residents who wish to avoid raking leaves. Mrs. Troiano suggested that, as full grown trees are lost, an historic descendant tree could be planted in its place. Staff noted the desirability (from a long term planning view) of making certain a complete survey of existing trees is conducted, and that replacement trees are plotted and well documented as being on the survey plan. The previous historic district planting plan, which was not completed, was considered by some to be a waste of scarce resources; it would be unwise to place the commission or the town in that position if these new trees were not tracked permanently and effectively. The members thanked Mrs. Troiano for her efforts to date on this matter, and decided to gather more information to allow them to bring forward a coordinated recommendation for the utilization of these trees.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. Troiano made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
Working list of notes from previous minutes to follow up on for future reports and projects
Review of draft resolution to close the boundary of the Enfield Local Historic District to amend the insufficiencies of the original boundary description. Staff was asked to format a resolution request to send to the Town Council, which mentions closing the box on all sides, discusses several options to accomplish the main goal, and notes the HDC’s preferred method for the amendment process.
Mr. Meyer is concerned that there are so many vehicles for sale within the District.
Hazardville Local Historic District – Reports of Informal Inquiries
Mr. Alsbaugh presented a report to the Commission entitled “Preliminary List of Issues and Projects Relating to the ERSC’s Charge as outlined in the Enfield Town Council Resolution No. 5448.” It was his intent to take things from this document and incorporate them into a report so that there are stronger supporting reasons for bringing forward a possible Hazardville Local Historic District. This report references documents that the Council has approved. He asked that the Commission review this document in greater detail.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is his intent to present a formal report next month to this commission on a proposed Hazardville Local Historic District. He plans to tie in the documents and relate the concepts for historic preservation that the Council has taken a strong position on in his report.
Mr. Meyer talked to a member of the REMAX Real Estate firm and a member of the Executive Committee of the Hazardville Institute. Both would support the concept of a local historic district in Hazardville.
Mr. Gwozdz reported he met with Scott Kaupin and he is enthusiastic about the Commission’s plans for Hazardville.
Responding to a question from Mr. Polaski, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the proposed Hazardville Local Historic District would replicate the existing Hazardville National Register Historic District.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he recommended using the boundary of the Hazardville National Register District for the new Hazardville Design District A, but the recommendations of the consultant to only include the Hazard Avenue properties in the National District as Phase I were utilized by the PZC.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town has the ability to generate a fairly good National Register map. Mr. Meyer asked that the Commission receive a copy of this map at their next meeting.
In response to another question, Mr. Alsbaugh noted a three-quarter vote of the property owners in the proposed district is necessary to endorse such a local historic district for Hazardville. The procedure is to first go before the Town Council and get their support. They would have to pass a resolution to proceed with the district nomination process, and at the same time approve funding the process. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the town would be eligible for some funding from the Connecticut Trust for this purpose, but a successful application for funds is always uncertain. The nomination application is sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer, who will then decide whether the nomination can proceed formally as an application through the State Historic Council for approval by the Department of the Interior. Public hearings would be required, as well as the aforementioned vote by the property owners. Other costs include hiring a certified architectural historian because they are required to do a study. A proposal is brought forward to the State Historic Preservation Officer. If he approves the proposal, it goes forward under his auspices.
Mr. Alsbaugh will present the Commission with information on the Elm trees he previously discussed for the next meeting.
|