|
ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 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
Nancy Smyth
Sonja Dean, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HDC#294 – Ronald Deziel: renovation of garage at 1415 Enfield Street. EHDO Sect. 8.
Alternate Sonja Dean did not participate in this hearing.
Ronald Deziel appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he has an existing three-car garage with a storage area in the back that is 10’ x 25’. The storage area is currently in a dilapidated condition. He would like to keep the structure as it is and rebuild the storage area. Once the renovations are complete, his intent is to install siding and change the front garage overhead door. Presently existing are three seven-foot garage doors and he would like to change the center door to an eight-foot door.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there are two houses on this property. Mr. Deziel stated there are. The real address for the property is 1415, 1417, and 1419 Enfield Street. There is a common driveway with a three-car garage in the center. These are rental properties. Mr. Deziel stated he lives in one section of the large home which is a duplex. The other side has an address of 1417 and is rental property. 1419 is a small home and is also rented.
Mr. Deziel stated he would like to repair or replace the shed to the rear of the garage. The roof is presently collapsing and there is a chimney in the shed that is rotted. He was unsure of the age of this structure.
Chairman Tatoian stated the houses are listed as being built in 1830. However, the garage doesn’t appear from its design to be a nineteenth century structure. Mr. Deziel estimated the garage was built in the 1950’s or 1960’s.
Chairman Tatoian stated the intent is to repair the shed, remove the windows from the shed and replace them. Mr. Deziel stated there are three windows – two in the back and one on the side. He would like to replace those by eliminating the three windows on the shed and installing two skylights with a weathervane. The shed is 10’ x 25’.
Mr. Deziel stated the intent is to replace the garage windows with vinyl clad windows. Regarding the two homes, one is wood and one is aluminum with a little bit of vinyl. He would like to replace the soffit material with vinyl soffits.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the intent is to change the garage doors. Mr. Deziel stated he would like to leave them the same but install an eight-foot door in the center garage. Chairman Tatoian asked the reason for this eight-foot door. Mr. Deziel stated he has a utility truck that is presently parked in the yard that he would like to park in the center garage.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the shed is visible from the road. Mr. Deziel stated the north wall of the shed is visible if you are looking behind the houses. There is a spot between the two homes where the shed can be seen. Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if it can actually be seen. Mr. Deziel stated there is one spot and if you are really looking for it, you can actually see it through the trees.
Mr. Meyer reviewed the items listed in the Certificate of Appropriateness. Number one was not a concern because the shed is not visible from the street.
Regarding the repair or replacement of the roof of the shed, Mr. Meyer asked if the new shed roof will be visible from the street. Mr. Deziel stated it will not be visible.
Regarding the removal of the windows from the shed and closing the openings with like material siding, Mr. Meyer asked if the siding will blend in with the siding presently on the garage. Mr. Deziel stated he would like to vinyl side the entire garage and the shed area. The garage is presently wood clapboard. The shed has some siding but there is hardly any siding on the back. The siding would be the same as it now is. On the house it is the four-inch white over white. On the garage, it is a flat board with a one-inch curl. The garage will look different from the house once the improvements are completed but it will look just as it does now.
Mr. Meyer asked if the skylights proposed for the roof would be visible from the street and Mr. Deziel confirmed they would not be visible. The spiral fan in the rear wall would also not be visible from the street.
Mr. Meyer brought up the removal of the chimney on the rear wall of the shed. Mr. Deziel stated the chimney does not project above the roof.
Mr. Meyer discussed item seven, replacing two garage windows with vinyl clad windows. Mr. Deziel stated the present windows are wood and they are deteriorating. The windows would be six over six with vinyl or exactly what is now there. The windows are presently red and if Mr. Deziel cannot get this color red, he will use white.
Mr. Meyer had a concern regarding the replacement of the existing center garage door with an eight-foot high garage door. He asked if they will have to cut into the rafters to install the center door. Mr. Deziel stated it will be even with the roof line. They would not have to touch the roof line at all because they have the eight-foot clearance. The beam work would be done on the inside of the garage and would not be visible.
Mr. Meyer stated the opening on the street will not show a straight line for all three doors. Mr. Deziel confirmed that would be the case and he has chosen to increase the height of the middle door so that aesthetically it would look nice from the street.
Mr. Meyer stated he has a concern because what will be seen from the street after the renovation will not be the same if the Commission allows the enlarged opening.
Ms. Troiano asked if the roof proposed for the shed will match the garage shed. Mr. Deziel confirmed that it would. He added there are asphalt shingles on part of the roofs. They are dormer roofs off the main house and they plan to use the same shingles they are using for the new roof of the house on the garage.
Mr. Gwozdz asked how much higher the center garage door would be. Mr. Deziel stated just the one foot. He presented a photograph that shows there is a wide board that goes across. This garage is located about 100’ from the street and is set back.
In response to a question from Chairman Tatoian, Mr. Deziel stated he has owned this property for approximately twenty years.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the middle garage door will be the same style as the other two doors. Mr. Deziel stated it will. It is his intent to keep the building aesthetically exactly the way it is but he wants to be able to use the garage for himself.
Mr. Meyer asked if the applicant has given any thought to increasing all three garage doors so they look the same from the street. Mr. Deziel stated he considered that and he would present that option if the Commission denies the eight-foot center door. He noted the cost is prohibitive and it would also involve getting into the beam work. If he only does the one door, he can come right behind the beams.
Mr. Meyer stated with all three doors the same size the home would look the way it does today. Mr. Deziel stated if a car is traveling forty miles an hour on Enfield Street and you look up his driveway to view the garage, it will be difficult to see any change.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up the possibility of changing the order of the agenda to consider a vote on the public hearing immediately following the hearing. This would mean less of a wait for applicants at Commission meetings. The proposed change to the order of the agenda would not violate any town ordinance and would improve the process for applicants. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to change the order of the agenda for future meetings by acting on individual applications immediately following the close of each public hearing. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Alsbaugh will reformat the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can apply this format to tonight’s hearing and consider action on tonight’s hearing at this time.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve HDC#294 to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to perform the following list of activities at 1415 Enfield Street (EHDO Section 8):
1. Repair or replace shed attached to rear of garage (not visible from street);
2. Repair or replace roof of shed;
3. Remove windows from shed, close openings with like siding materials;
4. Install 2 sky lights in shed roof;
5. Install 1 'spiral' fan in rear wall or roof of shed;
6. Remove chimney on rear wall of shed;
7. Replace two garage windows with vinyl clad windows;
8. Re-side garage and shed with vinyl siding that matches profiles of existing wood siding;
9. Replace soffit materials with vinyl soffits; and
10. Replace existing center garage door with 8-ft. wide garage door, all at 1415 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8
All construction and site work will conform to the plans and elevations submitted, and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC #294.
Mr. Meyer stated he has no problem with items 1 through 9 in the motion but he has a concern regarding item 10. He requested an amendment to the approval stating that the center garage door not be increased outside the boundary of its present lines unless the applicant increases the size of all three doors. This would mean the view from Enfield Street would remain the same and it would maintain the integrity of the Enfield Historic District. He added that cost is not an item this Commission considers.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the applicant has stated there are other three-car garages on Enfield Street that have doors that do not match. The applicant is trying to keep the building the way it is but he would like the eight-foot door so he can park his truck in that garage. Mr. Deziel has also stated if the eight-foot door is not an option, there is no reason for the planned renovation.
Mr. Gwozdz stated the increase of 1’ for the middle door would not have much of a visual impact. It is also the center door and the three-car garage would be symmetrical. Without the eight-foot door, there would be a truck parked outside. Mr. Gwozdz felt the proposal would be an improvement for the area. He questioned if the construction people could install some type of fake line to blend the three garages together. Some discussion followed regarding the present appearance of the garage doors.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mr. Gwozdz is suggesting an appliqué or some paint to duplicate the space on the top panel above the other two doors so that all three doors would be similar in height.
Chairman Tatoian questioned if a transom window with panes could be installed over the garage doors. These windows are approximately one-foot high.
Following some discussion, Mr. Meyer withdrew his initial amendment and changed it to amend the motion to include a condition that the top panel of the new eight-foot high door is to have compatible windows which will offset the carved top or the increased clearance. Mrs. Troiano seconded the amendment.
The motion, as amended, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Gwozdz and Troiano participating.
The following section is the revised full motion, revisions, and reasons for approval:
Motion as made and seconded during regular meeting:
TO APPROVE the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to perform the following list of activities at 1415 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8
1. Repair or replace shed attached to rear of garage (not visible from Street);
2. Repair or replace roof of shed;
3. Remove windows from shed, close openings with like siding materials;
4. Install 2 sky lights in shed roof;
5. Install 1 'spyral' fan in rear wall or roof of shed;
6. Remove chimney on rear wall of shed;
7. Replace two garage windows with vinyl clad windows;
8. Re-side garage and shed with vinyl siding that matches profiles of existing wood siding;
9. Replace soffit materials with vinyl soffits; and
10. Replace existing center garage door with 8-ft. high garage door, all at 1415 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8
All construction and site work will conform to the plans and elevations submitted, and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC #294.
Revisions applied by the commission to the motion:
· The 8-ft. high garage door to be placed in the center position of the garage front facing Enfield Street shall have a row of windows at the top as indicated in the product sheet shown to the Commission during the public hearing on 2/25/04.
· The roof line at the front of the garage will not be modified; if the door cannot be installed without an external modification to the appearance of the bottom edge of the roof line, then this approval shall be vacated.
Please note that during the discussion held by the Commission on the agenda item for your application, reasons for approval were discussed.
Reason(s) for approval:
It was determined that:
· The proposal is in keeping and compatible with the general appearance of the other structures on the property considering the later construction date of garage.
· The symmetrical arrangement of the three garage doors (7' / 8' / 7') is a sensitive and reasonable modification of the structure, which will also allow for the internal storage of an allowed commercial vehicle.
The reason for approval is the proposed modification is in keeping with the character of the houses on the property and is a reasonable and sensitive (symmetrical) modification to a utilitarian structure.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the Minutes of January 28, 2004. Mr. Meyer made an amendment to the motion and requested that his name be added to the list of those present at the January 28, 2004 meeting. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh reported Correspondence includes a copy of the approval letter for Mr. Harrington at 1130 Enfield Street.
There is also the property list of the original nomination packet that was submitted and approved by the state and local government for the local district. Mr. Alsbaugh noted 42 Frew Terrace was not included in that property list. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the process for nomination packet preparation and stated the criteria may have been for buildings that fronted or faced Enfield Street. The property at 42 Frew Terrace does front on Enfield Street but it faces Frew Terrace. Mr. Alsbaugh did not understand the conflict created by not including 42 Frew Terrace. Chairman Tatoian stated the highway was put in and Frew Terrace changed to a one-way street in 1966. The driveway has not changed and is original to when the house was built. The access is on Frew Terrace. Mr. Alsbaugh explained that when the list of properties was prepared, they did not include Frew Terrace. They then made their description of the district which ended up including a property they did not intend to be included in the district.
Ms. Dean stated her concern is the property on Frew Terrace is presently for sale and it seems to be in a state of neglect. Because of the visibility of this property in its current location, Ms. Dean questioned if it would be possible to revisit the inclusion of this property in the Enfield Historic District. She would hate to see someone purchase the property, make drastic changes to it and have other people in the Historic District question why they can make such changes. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the property can be nominated for inclusion but the decision would be up to the property owner. He will verify this procedure with the new State Historic Council.
Mr. Gwozdz asked about the distance of 42 Frew Terrace from Enfield Street. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is less than 200’. Ms. Dean added the entire property is within 150’ of Enfield Street.
Mr. Meyer requested copies of the additional pages of the property address list from the original nomination packet for the Local District, and staff's updated list of all the homes on Enfield Street in the Enfield Local Historic District.
Some discussion followed about the dates of the properties on this list and whether they are totally accurate.
Chairman Tatoian stated there are discrepancies regarding the dates of the homes. Ms. Dean asked if there was any definitive source on the dates of these homes. Chairman Tatoian stated there have been other published lists of the dates of the homes on Enfield Street. One was done in the 1930’s and another list was composed in 1920. Ms. Dean questioned if it would be possible to review the earlier lists. Regarding her own home, she noted she has seen five different dates for it.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated such lists many times represent best guesses of the dedicated professionals and amateurs who compiled the lists. If they don’t have a primary document that locks in the exact date, then there isn’t an exact date and you see the various dates.
Ms. Dean asked if there is something the Commission should look at now to define when the homes were built. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the alternatives are to acquire copies of the list, review them and see what makes sense to the Commission or to fund a professional study or in depth search. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the latter would be expensive and he added if this Commission has not been able to find more precise dates of some of the homes, he could not guarantee that a professional would be able to discover anything more accurate.
Ms. Dean stated she is thinking of people with homes built in the 1930’s or 1940’s where there are people in Enfield who could tell you the exact year these homes were built. She would hate to have approximations included and having people in the future saying they wish they knew the exact dates.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission is unaware of the sources for the lists that were compiled. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission would need to have the individual property sheets that were used.
Chairman Tatoian cited his own home which is listed as being built in 1955 which is incorrect. The home was built in 1950 and he has personal knowledge of this date.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you look at the hundreds of nomination packets, they include a lot of best guesses regarding property dates. Most of the research is done by the same few people with a lot of research and a lot of best guesses.
Mr. Meyer asked if the town still has interns available that might look into these things. Mr. Alsbaugh stated not at this time. Also, for the Enfield Historic District, he doesn’t have the original property sheets. He does for the Bigelow-Hartford Carpet Mills district and for the Hazardville district.
Mr. Meyer questioned if you don’t have any documents that are stand alone then why try to go into a search to try to find when a particular building was constructed. Ms. Dean stated she would like the other list available to people in the district. Where the Commission has definitive information, the Commission could update the current list in the file so that in the future that information is available. She discussed her personal search in finding the exact date of her home and stated she would like such information available to other property owners if it is available at this time.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Commission apply for a grant for this research. Ms. Dean stated her suggestion is to take the current list and update it to denote whether the date of the home is accurate or an estimate. Mr. Alsbaugh saw difficulty in determining such dates for particular homes.
Chairman Tatoian stated if there are private individuals that have knowledge of a particular property, then this information should be included in the list. Mr. Alsbaugh stated unless there is primary documentation and not just anecdotal evidence, it would not be wise to do this.
Chairman Tatoian stated with his home, he has the necessary documents. He could submit a memo to the town confirming the house was built in 1950 and not 1955. Mr. Alsbaugh noted primary documents would confirm such dates and they include such things as insurance papers, a deed or probate records, etc. He would not recommend making any changes to any property date list unless there are primary documents available.
Ms. Dean suggested creating something on a small scale and including information on the dates that can be changed. Every time the Commission encounters a home where the date is definite based on documents, the list should be changed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the data base for the District he could add comments in updating. Where there is primary documentation, he can do an actual update. That, along with all the other updated information, can be sent to the State Historic Council and the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Correspondence also includes a copy of the first version of the letter of intent for a Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Grant for a District update and boundary increase for the Bigelow Carpet Mills. The concept is tied in with the whole planning outlook for the Thompsonville census tract. They have someone working on the design guidelines for the Thompsonville Village. They have gotten approval to expand the survey for that work to the entire census tract because they will also be proposing expanding the Thompsonville Village District. Mr. Alsbaugh has talked to the circuit rider who is on the Board of Review and she has asked him to make some revisions to clarify the grant language. However, it appears that this grant is being looked at favorably.
Mr. Alsbaugh informed the Commission of recent action taken regarding municipal ethics. He cited page 13, Section 11 of the document presented to the Commission. This section means that Commission members would have to disclose all their financial information. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed this at their Monday meeting and one of the members is fairly certain there will be a conflict with the privacy act. Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Commission review this information and understand what it will mean for volunteers on municipal boards. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested if Commission members have strong feelings regarding this, that they should contact their legislators. While it has not yet been made into law, action could be taken very soon. Some discussion followed on what Commission members would have to file in their statement of assets and income should this become state law.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted receipt of a memo from the Planning and Zoning Chairman, Anthony DiPace, inviting the Commission to meet with other town boards and commissions to discuss the Plan of Conservation and Development goals and their status. Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Commission members attend this meeting because a lot of the goals related to the Enfield Historic District have received less than adequate review over the last few years. He is making an attempt to correct this.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has received a copy of the Connecticut Preservation News for January/February, 2004. He further reported he sent the letter to Senator Dodd outlining the Commission’s support for the React proposal.
Mr. Alsbaugh previously presented the Commission with photographs for the Ingraham house. He has met five times with the Community Development staff or St. Patrick's Church's Americares group and the property owner. The owner wanted to replace all the windows with vinyl replacement windows. In their discussion, Mr. Alsbaugh made the suggestion that they first evaluate the condition of the present windows. This was done and the original windows are in wonderful condition. Mr. Alsbaugh recommended that they consider a compatible storm window system that reveals the full window dimensions. He is working on that with the parties involved at this time. An application to the Commission will be forthcoming. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if an application is not presented to this Commission in the next two months, this applicant would not be able to participate in the Americares program for 2004.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he had a meeting yesterday with an attorney for the Felician Sisters regarding Enfield Montessori School. Suggestions were made that they may submit another application. This would be a reduced version of the last application that was denied by this Commission. The attorney requested Mr. Alsbaugh’s opinion of the Commission’s reaction to the new application. Mr. Alsbaugh responded the plan was not significantly different from the one the Commission previously denied. At that point the attorney started conversation that they do not want to take it to court and see whether or not the Commission even has the authority to do it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the town position at this time is this Commission has authority over plans proposed for this property and has received an opinion from the Town Attorney. In additional discussion, Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did make mention to his department head that this Commission was rather upset that applications have repeatedly come to them for a property that has multiple zoning issues which should be dealt with prior to any action by the HDC on a similar application.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the representatives previously agreed to grass over the existing parking area. Mr. Alsbaugh stated from the very first application, the removal of the dirt parking lot was part of their original offer. Staff brought up the fact that they would have an issue with Planning and Zoning and the State because this parking lot was developed without town approval or state approval for encroachment in the state right of way. Chairman Tatoian remembered they were inclined to grass that area as part of any approval. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he made it clear that there were quite possibly zoning violations on the site and that this Commission was not happy that the application was before them first rather than the other way around.
Mr. Meyer stated as he recalls the grassing over of the parking lot was not part of the original plan but they volunteered to grass it over. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was proposed from the very beginning to grass that area. It was made clear to them at the first preliminary meeting for an application that the parking area was going to be an issue separate from a Historic District application and they should address it.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the attorney plans to return and review additional files since access to them was not available when the attorney visited initially.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to adjourn. Following a 5 – 0 – 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr |