ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 28, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, July 28, 2004, in the Council Chambers, 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
Roman Polaski
Nancy Smyth
Eileen Russell
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
Sonja Dean, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HDC#300: Parkway Pavilion: converting screened porch to interior room at 1157 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.
Corey McNulty, Regional Director of Plant Operations of Kindred Health Care, the parent company for Parkway Pavilion, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. McNulty stated they would like to enclose a 17’ x 8’ screened porch with wood shingles and brick veneer in order to use the space as a permanent room for office space. The space is presently one of three porches in the facility, is located on the west side facing Enfield Street, and is not being used at this time.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there would be any expansion of the size of this porch. Mr. McNulty stated there would be no expansion.
Regarding the appearance, Mr. McNulty stated the enclosure would have cedar shingles with brick veneer in keeping with the rest of the facility. They plan to add two windows and two doors on the Enfield Street side or the west side of the room. Those doors will be used for ingress and egress. Mr. McNulty stated there is currently egress going out that porch now. The egress for that part of the building is through a set of fire doors on the west side and through that porch and out. There are no other doors to this area.
Regarding the window configuration, Mr. McNulty stated the windows would match the rest of the facility. Two windows are planned for the west side of the enclosed area. Mr. McNulty stated there would be no windows on the north side.
Mr. Meyer pointed out the south elevation drawing which shows the existing elevation. Mr. McNulty stated there is currently a screened porch there but it is not shown in this elevation.
Mr. Meyer asked about the exterior of the facility which is proposed to be brick veneer and shingles. Mr. McNulty clarified that the exterior will be a combination of both in keeping with the rest of the existing facility. He further noted there will be no extension of the roof line either on the south or west elevation.
Mrs. Smyth asked if there are two new windows proposed for the south elevation. Mr. McNulty stated there are.
Mrs. Russell asked for a clarification of the location of this enclosure. Mr. McNulty stated it would be on the opposite side of the reflection part of the facility or in the rehabilitation wing.
Mr. Gwozdz asked if there will be any alterations to the roof slope. Mr. McNulty stated the existing roof would not be changed.
Chairman Tatoian asked for input from the audience.
Anthony Torres, 1126 Enfield Street, spoke in favor of this improvement to the Parkway Pavilion.
Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert a screened porch to an interior room at 1157 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 #300.
Chairman Tatoian noted the proposal is in keeping with the existing structure and the Historic District and is not a radical departure from what is existing. The materials proposed are in keeping with what is presently on the building.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with all regular members voting.
HDC#301: Felician Sisters: modifications to parking and access at 1370 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.
Attorney Ken Slater with the firm of Halloran and Sage appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. Also present was Jon Brayshaw and Sister Anastasia from Enfield Montessori School.
Mr. Jon Brayshaw outlined the proposal for the Commission. He stated approximately two years ago, he stood before this Commission presenting a proposed parking lot layout that was quite a lot larger than what is proposed this evening. The first submission had a parking lot for 55 cars and that has now been considerably reduced.
Mr. Brayshaw stated the existing parking is made up of 12,413 square feet of bituminous pavement and 6,912 square feet of gravel parking area. The lighter area on the plan is the gravel parking area that’s right up against the sidewalk south of the main building. The darker area on the plan represents the bituminous pavement they have surveyed and the numbers are fairly accurate.
Mr. Brayshaw stated in 2002 they presented a parking scheme, the first one of two that was presented to this Commission, which had 55 parking spaces and it had a grand total of 27,677 square feet of parking. The second submission which followed the first by several months reduced the proposed parking to 37 spaces and at the same time reduced the paved area to 25,162 square feet. The proposal before the Commission this evening has been further reduced down to 17 spaces with a total of 16,546 square feet of bituminous pavement or a reduction of 2,779 square feet from what presently exists. Mr. Brayshaw added the actual area this is paved today is 12,413 square feet and the gravel area that has always been in question measures 6,900 square feet.
Mr. Brayshaw stated the present conditions on the site result in an unorganized dropping off of students which is disruptive and borders on dangerous. They have been trying to come up with a workable scheme that would allow the traffic to come in off of Route 5 without backing up on to Route 5. Traffic would come down through the site, traverse around the loop, drop the children off and then just go right back out in a very orderly and systematic manner. The present design before the Commission seeks to do just that.
In order to accomplish this, Mr. Brayshaw stated they have narrowed areas and made everything a little bit thinner in order to minimize the amount of area that is within the Historic District. They plan to install two ten-foot high pole lights on the property and he presented pictures showing the approximate design of the lights that would be used. The size of lights in the pictures is twelve feet high and the ones they propose are ten feet high. They also plan to install nine white pine trees along Route 5 and eight or nine additional trees up against the north property line.
Attorney Slater reviewed the history of this application. He stated as Mr. Brayshaw indicated there were some previous applications that had been filed. Those applications were in the context of proposals to expand portions of the school building on the site. Attorney Slater became involved with the Montessori School after they had received a zoning enforcement notice in December of last year regarding the graveled area which is shown on the plan entitled Plan CXI, existing conditions. He presented several photographs that show the existing site conditions. Photographs one, two and three are photographs that are taken from the other side of Enfield Street that show the existing bituminous access way into the site. Attorney Slater noted on the left side of the photographs the graveled parking area that exists very close to Enfield Street is shown. Photographs 4A and B are two photographs that show the entire graveled area and pictures 5 and 6 show the bituminous area to the rear and to the side of the three-story historic white building close to Enfield Street.
Attorney Slater stated there was a zoning enforcement notice suggesting that full approvals for this graveled area had not been obtained and requesting a cease and desist. In looking at the site as well as looking at some of the previous plans, Attorney Slater stated it is very obvious in his initial review that the appropriate area for parking would be to the rear rather than close to Enfield Street for historic issues as well as to address safety concerns. He met with members of the Planning Department in discussing the possibility. Attorney Slater added the area that is graveled has been used for a parking area for many decades or far earlier than the adoption of zoning. It exists as a lawful nonconforming use and the school could continue to operate their parking in this area without any further approvals. However, the school is interested in abandoning that area altogether and the plan would be to reseed this area and return it to lawn if an approval is given to construct the turn around that Mr. Brayshaw outlined. Attorney Slater stated it was in this context that this application has been filed.
Attorney Slater added during those meetings with town staff, it came to their attention that there may have been concerns by the Commission during previous meetings that somehow the school had unlawfully expanded the use of the existing buildings on the site. That is obviously a great concern to those that operate the school. In investigating this issue, Attorney Slater stated they prepared a very detailed set of documents showing the historical use of all of the buildings on this site for educational space and presented this information to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for his review. He conducted an investigation and concluded that there had not been any unlawful expansion and that the existing use of the buildings on the site for educational purposes is an existing lawful nonconforming use. The affidavit that accompanied that request to Mr. Bickley was also submitted as part of the submission to this Commission.
Attorney Slater stated during the course of the earlier applications, it became apparent to them that the existing parking area also presents a potential issue of safety in terms of dropping off children and queuing of cars on Route 5. As a result, the school commissioned a traffic study by F. H. Hesketh and Associates, Inc. Although this Commission’s focus is not on issues of traffic safety and that is more of a zoning matter, Attorney Slater thought it was important for the Commission to understand that this proposal does address those issues of traffic safety. He submitted the report which is signed by Stephen Mitchell, Civil Engineer, Manager of the Transportation/Engineering Department for Hesketh and Associates. Mr. Mitchell determines that the current parking demands cannot be accommodated in the driveway and will overflow on to Enfield Street if there is insufficient on-site parking. Restricting parking to the existing paved areas would create an unsafe condition. He concludes if the school did not have a right to use the graveled area and didn’t get an approval for the revised plan, using the existing bituminous area for parking would not be safe.
Attorney Slater noted Mr. Mitchell further concludes that the Historic parking area is currently a gravel surface. It provides enough parking to avoid overflow on to Enfield Street but it is insufficient for maneuvering and presents a potential for safety concerns. He also concludes the proposed parking field has sufficient capacity for the current student population with a twenty percent reserve. He next concludes that the proposed parking field will be out of the field of vision from Enfield Street due to its location behind the existing historic structure and its grade relative to Enfield Street. Thus, the relocation of the parking to this location should provide an architectural and aesthetic enhancement. Finally, he says given the property constraints of the site, the proposed layout presents a sound and reasonable means for providing safe vehicular movement within the site and safe access to and from the site while preserving and enhancing the historic nature of the Enfield Street frontage.
Attorney Slater submitted a number of those reports dated March 25, 2004 for the Commission. He also distributed reduced copies of the photographs shown to the Commission. He noted photograph 2 which shows a van parked on the bituminous area that exists and the very top of the roof line is barely visible. He noted the proposed parking is even further down from that location and suggested the proposed parking in the back would be barely visible from Enfield Street because of the grade and location.
Attorney Slater confirmed that the Montessori School has stated that they will abandon their right to the gravel parking area if they are able to establish a new parking area. The end result would be once they abandon the nonconforming right, it would be lost.
Attorney Slater called Sister Mary Josephine Fish, Jean Labutis, Frances Hoffman, Frances Deluzio, Sue Begley and Mrs. Magauran as witnesses. They all confirmed that the present gravel parking area was used for parking as far back as the 1950’s but that it was a grassy area instead of a graveled area. Attorney Slater also read a letter from Margaret Molinski Pappas confirming the area was used for parking during her attendance at the school from 1954-58.
Attorney Slater stated he consulted with a number of the agencies involving historic preservation including the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation looking for recommendations from people with expertise in the field of historic preservation. He then called Phillip Barlow, a partner and landscape architect with To Design, 56 Arbor Street in Hartford. Mr. Barlow reviewed his credentials and reported he was asked to review the plan before the Commission and comment on its significance and appropriateness. He stated he feels it is appropriate to the Historic District for several reasons. One of the most important is it does return a green space to the Enfield Street streetscape. The new plans will shield the cars from the view of Enfield Street and you will no longer see those cars as you go down the street as you do now when they are parked in the proposed parking lot.
Mr. Barlow stated the plan is in keeping with the Department of Interior’s guidelines for the restoration of historic landscapes. They recommend that missing portions of an existing topography be replaced with the same materials. The topography in this case would be the lawn. They also recommend the replanting of vegetation when historic vegetation is missing. Again, the lawn is missing so it will be replaced.
Mr. Barlow summarized his firm feels that removing the existing gravel parking lot and replacing that area with lawn is an appropriate condition and will be of benefit to the Historic District.
Attorney Slater discussed his difficulty getting someone to come this evening because when others reviewed the plans, he heard many times that it seemed so obvious that the proposed plan would be an improvement from a historic standpoint. Attorney Slater felt it was important to emphasize that not only does this proposal make an improvement at the site from a safety standpoint but it improves the site from a historic preservation standpoint.
Attorney Slater urged the Commission to approve this Certificate of Appropriateness and allow this project to go forward. With an approval from this Commission, they would be filing an application with the Planning and Zoning Commission. They believe they have demonstrated this evening that the use of the area that’s shown as gravel for parking exists as a nonconforming use. The establishment of a new area on the site would be subject to the existing zoning regulations and since late in 1966, an educational use in the zoning district requires a special permit and site plan approval. They will be filing site plan and special permit approval with the Planning and Zoning Commission following an approval from this Commission.
Chairman Tatoian noted the specific changes of the proposal with respect to lighting include the addition of two ten-foot light poles. Attorney Slater confirmed that and added if there are any recommendations or concerns in terms of the landscaping in general on the plan, they would be willing to incorporate any recommended changes. The design presented was the design that they thought best served the interests of the Historic District but they would welcome any proposed amendments in terms of landscaping around the parking area or lighting.
Chairman Tatoian asked what would be removed regarding existing trees or shrubbery. Attorney Slater did not believe there is any removal of existing landscaping. He added with the proposed plan, areas that are not currently paved would be paved but there is no removal of trees or other landscaping features planned. Mr. Brayshaw added during the process of removing the topsoil to install the two layers of bituminous pavement, there may be a tree whose roots might be interrupted by the machinery but they plan to make every effort to make sure that all the current landscaping survives.
Attorney Slater pointed out the proposed plantings along the entrance way and in the area of the existing graveled area. These plantings would further shield the property from Enfield Street. Also, in discussions with the Planning staff, the proposal includes that the school would be formally abandoning this gravel area and would no longer have the right to park in that area if all of its approvals are obtained for the new parking area. Two trees are proposed for that area to act as a bit of a physical barrier to prevent cars from going in that area.
Ms. Dean questioned two trees that appear to be missing on the new layout and she identified those trees for the applicant. Mr. Brayshaw responded in their enthusiasm to prepare for this evening’s meeting, they did not spend a lot of time zeroing in on each and every tree. He added every effort will be made to keep every tree that’s there.
Chairman Tatoian noted the proposed plan contains seventeen parking spaces. He asked what would be the increase in parking over what is existing. Attorney Slater responded the present gravel parking area is not spaced out but he felt there would be at least as many spaces and probably more in the existing gravel parking area and bituminous than what is being proposed. It is not as much an increase in parking as it is a redesign and an improved design for handling parking on the site.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the increase in the overall parking area. Mr. Brayshaw stated the existing bituminous pavement is 12,413. The gravel parking is 6,912 for a total of 19,325. That is what exists there right now totally devoted to automobiles, whether parking, traversing or circulation. The existing proposed is 16,546. While there is an increase in bituminous area, if you take the area that is devoted to auto traffic and parking and circulation, there is a 2,779 square foot differential reduction in the amount of area that is impervious.
Mr. Meyer pointed out the additional bituminous coverage proposed is twice the size of this 40’ x 50’ room. Mr. Meyer further noted that on SP-1, the applicant showed the distance between the 24” maple tree on the north side of the parking lot at 9’ but on HDC 271, it was 28’. He noted with this plan they are moving north with the bituminous covering closer to the abutting north neighbor.
Mr. Meyer addressed the light pole issue. He noted the applicant indicated they were proposing two ten-foot lights but from the south parking lot there is no light proposed. Mr. Brayshaw and Sister Anastasia confirmed there are existing lights on the school structure. Mr. Meyer concluded that the original proposal, HDC-271, which raised some concern about light and noise to both the north and south abutting neighbors and primarily the north, now might increase because of the reduced distances between the bituminous driveway and their property line. Mr. Brayshaw offered to move the light to another appropriate location. Sister Anastasia added that very rarely does anything occur at the Montessori School in the evening. They may have an evening meeting approximately three times per year.
Mr. Meyer reiterated the difference between HDC-271 and tonight’s proposed HDC-301 means the driveway is moved about 19’ north or closer to the abutting neighbor. Mr. Brayshaw stated that is correct and the reason that was done was to meet the radius requirements of the fire department.
Mr. Brayshaw again offered to move the pole lights to an alternate location.
Attorney Slater questioned if there is any significance in the 19’ issue raised by Mr. Meyer with the question of certificates of appropriateness and historic preservation. He asked what issue of historic protection is implicated by the 19’ measurement Mr. Meyer is discussing.
Mr. Meyer stated he raised the question because there appeared to be a difference in the two drawings. He wanted to be sure that he understood the drawings properly in that one would be closer to the north boundary that the other.
Chairman Tatoian added that the state statute indicates the criteria for making a judgment with respect to parking. One of the criteria is the closeness of any improvement to an existing building and that is set out in the statute which is Section 147F of the General Statutes. In Chairman Tatoian’s opinion, this is a legitimate issue.
Attorney Slater asked if there have been any measurements in terms of the distance to the building of concern. The measurements referred to are to the corner of the property line, 75’ and 56’, which may have an effect on the distance to a building. For clarification of the record, Attorney Slater noted that the 75’ and the 56’ refer to measurements done by Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer measured a previous plan that is not being proposed this evening to the corner of the property boundary and compared that to the distance of the proposed plan to the corner of the property boundary shown as IP on tonight’s proposed plan.
Mr. Polaski asked how many students were enrolled in the Montessori School twenty-five years ago. Attorney Slater responded many more than there are now. In order to present the affidavit submitted tonight, they reviewed and assembled a great deal of their title material. That was submitted to Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley which culminated in his conclusion that there has not been an unlawful expansion and that the existing school use is lawful. Attorney Slater added the property was purchased in 1944 for the purposes of establishing a school. Our Lady of the Angels Academy was established shortly thereafter. Initially, the student body was 17 girls and faculty members and it grew to as many as 184 girls and 11 faculty members in 1957. At that point, some classes were starting to be moved off site.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the school was exclusively in the white building with the expansion to 184 students. Attorney Slater stated the white building was used along with the carriage house building. All of those buildings were used for educational space. There are photographs from year books through the 1950’s showing that was educational space and that there was a library and other educational facilities in the white building. The carriage house building or the annex building was also utilized for educational space and has been for quite some time.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the other building referred to as the guest house. Attorney Slater stated that has not been used for educational space. The space used for educational space includes the annex building and the former Graham house, also called the white building, and shown on the plans. Attorney Slater reported in 1957, there were 184 girls being educated at the school. During 1957, kindergarten classes were also added to the site. In 1957, there were six classes of kindergarteners and there are enrollment records to reflect this. There were both morning and afternoon sessions and enrollment peaked in 1969 when there were 312 children educated at the site just in the kindergarten.
In response to a question from Chairman Tatoian regarding the space used for educational purposes, Attorney Slater stated it was a combination of the annex and the Graham house. In addition, in 1965, the Montessori School started and what happened during the sixties is Our Lady of the Angels Academy was phased off the property with the kindergarten expansion. By 1970, the Enfield public schools were offering a kindergarten program that resulted in a reduction and ultimate elimination of the kindergarten program at the site at the same time that the Montessori School was growing. Attorney Slater stated there are approximately 120 students being educated currently and that’s well below the peak number of students that were being educated at the site. Enrollment records do reflect that fact prior to the adoption of zoning regulations that would require a special permit for the site. So there is no question, as Mr. Bickley determined, that there’s not been an unlawful expansion of the site and the existing use for that number of students is permissible under Connecticut zoning law.
Mr. Brayshaw pointed out the carriage house being referred to on the plans. It is one of the original buildings on the property that was used for horses and carriages.
Attorney Slater stated for an enrollment of that size, there had to be a large area devoted to parking. He noted this is further clarification that the graveled area has been devoted to parking well before the adoption of the special permit regulations by the Town of Enfield in 1966.
Attorney Slater also confirmed there are 120 students being educated in this facility right now using the white building and the annex building. Mr. Polaski noted the 86 cars reflect the 120 students. He asked if there are any plans to increase the number of students in this facility. Sister Anastasia stated they may go over by a few students but they would not have room to accommodate 150 students.
Mr. Myer asked if there are any plans for sidewalks, private ways or cross walks to prevent potential harm to students. Sister Anastasia responded there are two cross walks already that have been there for a number of years. You can cross at South Road or you can go further down and cross on either side of Post Office Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated he was referring to cross walks that would serve the new proposed parking area. Sister Anastasia stated it is her understanding that the entrance on Enfield Street would not be changed that much. The rest of the parking would be down below and would be a lot more presentable as far as Enfield Street is concerned. Currently, there are two cross walks existing on either side of Post Office Road and one further down. There are buttons there so that you can stop the traffic if need be. If somebody needs to get across, there are two ways to get across the street safely.
Attorney Slater stated in their view, and it was borne out by the Hesketh study, the haphazard mechanism presently in place under Plan EX-1 would be improved with the design of SP-1 which would have an orderly flow and improve the safety of students being dropped off or picked up at the school.
Mr. Gwozdz asked about the distance of the slope from the sidewalk on Enfield Street to the boundary of the Historic District. Mr. Brayshaw stated it is approximately 10’ to 11’ from the grade at Enfield Street down to where the historic line concludes. He pointed this out on the plans.
Chairman Tatoian read the following communications:
A letter dated July 27, 2004 from Judith L. Stevens, 1346 Enfield Street which states:
“I reside at 1346 Enfield Street. My home was built before the Revolutionary War in 1773. In the early 1800’s, it became a hotel and country tavern and was a welcome destination for weary travelers between Hartford and Springfield. I spent a lot of time researching the history of my home and take great pride in living in my neighborhood because of its historical significance. As the bridge between our past and present, the preservation of historical districts is extremely important to all of us. I feel very strongly against the application being submitted by the Montessori School for new parking and a roadway and find it to be in total disregard of the importance of preserving our historic district. It is unfortunate that because of the school’s current increase in enrollment, they are facing space limitations but school enrollments have always fluctuated and always will. Therefore, their proposed permanent solution to what could be a fluctuating problem would change the face of our district and is, therefore, totally unacceptable to me. I urge you as the guardians of our Enfield Historic District to vote no on this application and ask that you include this letter in your minutes.
Sincerely,
Judith L. Stevens
1346 Enfield Street”
A letter dated July 26, 2004 from Attorney John Kindel of the firm of Pullman and Conway, Hartford, Connecticut which reads:
“Dear Attorney Tatoian:
As your file with respect to the above-captioned matter will reflect, this firm represents Anthony and Lillian Troiano, owners and residents of the property located at 1364 Enfield Street which abuts the above-referenced property. This letter will serve to express my client’s objection to the recently filed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by the owner of 1370 Enfield Street requesting permission to construct a new paved access driveway and parking area at said premises.
As you are well aware, a similar request was previously made by the applicant and was unanimously denied by your Commission at a meeting which took place on June 22, 2002 with respect to Certificate No. HDC-265. At the time of the previous denial of this request which seeks permission to perform these site improvements in order to accommodate a new proposed building at the premises, the Commission determined that the proposed construction within the Historic District would create an unacceptable and inappropriate impact on the immediate neighborhood and District. Further, your Commission noted that the applicant was essentially offering to remove an existing illegal parking and access area in return for the Commission’s approval of an extensive incursion into the District.
In connection with its current application, the applicant, through its Counsel, seeks to characterize its request as a proposal which improves the site from a historical protection standpoint. However, the current application does not, in fact, present the Commission with any compelling reason why the Commission’s unanimous decision in 2002 to deny this request ought to be reversed. Counsel for the applicant, in his letter of July 7, 2004, attempts to buttress the applicant’s position by suggesting that (1) the applicant’s existing use of the three-story building at the premises for classroom space has been deemed lawful by the town’s zoning authorities; and (2) the jurisdiction of this Commission in connection with this matter remains in question. Whether the applicant’s current use of the existing three-story framed building is illegal is a matter that is clearly not within the jurisdiction of this Commission. However, it is certainly not clear that even if a determination has been made as to the legality of the applicant’s use at the existing building, it necessarily follows that the applicant’s current use of the existing gravel parking and access areas are permissible.
Furthermore, the applicant would certainly not have the right to pave and improve the existing gravel parking areas as suggested by his counsel without the approval of this Commission in the first instance. As for the applicant’s renewal of their challenge to the authority of this Commission, no new legal argument has been made justifying a reversal of the conclusion of Attorney Bromson as Town Attorney in August of 2002 that the applicant’s request is clearly subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Obviously, the current application is a precursor to the applicant’s subsequent request for an expansion of their current activities at this location. The applicant’s proposal would result in the paving of current landscaped areas within only a few feet of my client’s property line and will obviously request in increased traffic, vehicle emissions, lighting disruption and adverse property value implications for all adjacent property owners.
The current request by the applicant does little, if anything, to change the reasons for the Commission’s unanimous denial of this application in 2002. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if your Commission would note on its records my client’s opposition to the current application and request that the Commission deny said application at the hearing scheduled for the consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions with regard to this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John J. Kindel.”
Mr. Meyer noted that on July 23, 2004 Roger Alsbaugh included in material regarding HDC-301 a drawing from a 1974 approval for PH#356. He asked for further explanation.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that was an approval for an addition to the front of the brown school building which at the time the town had previously listed as workshops and not a carriage house. That was an approval before the Planning and Zoning Commission under PH#356 approved on July 11, 1974. It shows the existing conditions on the property. Subsequent to this site plan, nothing has ever been uncovered to this date showing approval for expansion beyond the original site plan in 1974.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public.
Anthony Troiano, 1364 Enfield Street, the abutting property north of the Montessori School, spoke against the application filed for construction of an access driveway and parking area by the Montessori School. In reviewing the newly submitted plan by the school, he finds that there are no changes from the previously submitted plans which were denied by the Commission. The parking, roadway, light poles, sidewalks, shrubbery – everything is the same. This constitutes a total disregard of the Commission’s previous decision to deny their application.
Mr. Troiano stated the school refuses to accept the Commission’s ruling. There are rules and regulations people have to abide by and that means everyone. He questioned who in this room would like to wake up in the morning and find their neighbor’s nice green lawn turned into an asphalt parking lot with light poles all over and a roadway for cars and buses. He doesn’t think anyone in this room would be pleased with that situation. He stated this environmental effect changes the whole community and not just the neighbors to the school. Once this paving is accepted, no one can stop the school from fulfilling their intent to asphalt their backyard totally. This is their way of coming back through the back door to get the large addition to the school built. And, once this property is sold, for whatever reason, as many properties have been sold by various religious orders, it could be used for any purpose in the future.
Mr. Troiano’s opinion was the previously green lawn area south of the sisters’ home which the school graveled over is a definite violation. Now the school is saying because they are correcting this violation, the Commission should give them the parking they are applying for. Mr. Troiano felt you don’t correct a wrong with a wrong. He added once this change is made, it is forever. The District will be changed forever. It’s a precedent that will be set and the Commission will get more applications for the same thing. Mr. Troiano noted he was on the Montessori School board in 1980 and the enrollment was 80 students. That enrollment has increased or they wouldn’t be having a problem. He suggested alternatives like having the children board school buses at the Felician Sisters’ parking lot across the street and return them in buses to the lot where their parents would be waiting at the school. Or lower the enrollment. Less students, less parents, less cars.
Mr. Troiano further suggested if the Commission wishes the school to grow as it has in the past, the most sensible thing to do is to find another location out of this Historic District to build a brand new beautiful school. Or do the most obvious thing. Use the empty buildings across the street owned by the Felician Sisters.
Mr. Troiano added the Historic District is our town’s history and how we protect it is a reflection of how we feel about our ancestors, our community and our future generations. He felt strongly that any encroachment on the residential properties in this Historic District should be vigorously opposed by the Historic Commission.
Richard O’Brien, Chairman of the Martha A. Parsons Trust at 1387 Enfield Street, stated they are across the street from the Enfield Montessori School and approximately three lots south. For the last two years, they have watched as the school has turned the lawn across from them just south of their white historic building from a grassy area to a gravel area. They are now, to Mr. O’Brien’s amazement, calling that an established parking area. Mr. O’Brien stated this just simply is not true. The 6,900 square feet of gravel parking is now an eye sore. The Martha A. Parsons Trust is adamantly against it and Mr. O’Brien is here representing all seven trustees of the Martha Parsons Trust.
Sister Anastasia, Principal of Enfield Montessori School, addressed enrollment. She stated Montessori education does not open with a pre-school through the age of 12. It’s a developmental program. Therefore, you begin with a small nucleus, add to the nucleus and expand gradually. She confirmed that the present enrollment of the school this past year was 117 students. The reason that the enrollment has gone up from 84 when Mr. Troiano was on the board is because they now have a complete Montessori program which ends at the age of 12 and that is as far as they intend to go.
Sister Anastasia also agreed with the gentleman representing the Martha Parson’s Trust and she noted the proposal this evening is their solution to enhancing the view from Enfield Street.
Attorney Slater asked Sister Anastasia about the gravel parking area. She confirmed that the area was used for parking as far back as the 1940’s.
Attorney Slater offered some remarks in rebuttal to the comments the Commission heard.
He stated Ms. Stevens, Mr. Troiano and his attorney suggest that the application that is before this Commission is the same application the Commission had reviewed previously. That is just simply false. The application that was before the Commission previously involved an application for 55 parking spaces and was associated with a proposal to improve and expand the buildings on the site. As indicated in the record earlier, Attorney Slater noted this application is sparked by a zoning enforcement effort that was filed in December suggesting that a site plan approval was necessary to use the graveled area. As was demonstrated tonight, and there has been no evidence submitted by the persons who were opposed to it, that area has been used. It was grassy during much of the time but the area that is shown in the photographs that were presented earlier and on plans of the existing gravel area has been devoted to parking. And that fact is obvious from the number of students that were educated at the site. People had to park somewhere. Attorney Slater noted you can see from just common sense from the existing design of that site, people had to park in an area and the only sensible area that people had been using without making an improvement such as what is proposed tonight is in that area shown as the gravel area.
Attorney Slater noted the proposal that is presented tonight is for only 17 parking spaces. It’s a substantial change from what was presented previously. Presented before in the earlier applications, the area of bituminous parking was more than 25,000 square feet in area. The proposal that is being presented this evening is just over 16,000 square feet.
Attorney Slater felt there is no question that what is being proposed is substantially different than what was previously considered by the Commission.
Attorney Slater stated Mr. Kindel in his letter suggests that the issue of the jurisdiction of this Commission was fully addressed by the Commission back in an earlier application. Attorney Slater stated a different issue was raised. As the Commission has heard from their presentation this evening, they are not challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission this evening. Instead, they are demonstrating that from a historic standpoint there is no question that moving the parking area to the rear of the site is an improvement. And that is the question that is before the Commission. The zoning issues in terms of property values or suggested impact on the neighboring property owner – those are issues that the Planning and Zoning Commission can address. The question here is one of historic preservation and moving parking away from the front of Enfield Street and to the rear. Attorney Slater felt this proposal can only serve to benefit purposes of historic protection in which the streetscape along Enfield Street would be enhanced and that is the basis of their application.
Attorney Slater stated the issue that he raised in his letter to the Commission, and he was not counsel to the Commission with the previous application, is a completely different issue and was not addressed by counsel for the town previously. He doesn’t think it needs to be addressed because assuming the Commission has full jurisdiction, the applicant has demonstrated that a Certificate of Appropriateness should be issued. The issue that he raised in his letter is the previous counsel for Montessori School took the position that since a portion of the Historic District Commission regulations are verbatim provisions of a portion of the general statutes that was eliminated from the general statutes in 1963, this Commission had no jurisdiction. This is not Attorney Slater’s view. His view is that this Commission has all the authority the general statutes grant to the Historic Commission regardless of whether they are specifically stated in the regulations. Even if a portion of the regulations has been deleted from the general statutes, this Commission still has the authority to require a certificate of appropriateness to the extent the general statutes require one. The question that Attorney Slater raised just in preserving the rights of the applicant is that the existing general statute, Section 7-147D, says that no area within a historic district shall be used for industrial, commercial, business, home industry, or occupational parking without a certificate of appropriateness. The general statutes do not require a certificate of appropriateness for a parking area serving a residential home within the historic district nor does it have a requirement for a certificate of appropriateness for an educational facility. The plain language of the statute requires one only for industrial, commercial, business, home industry or occupational parking.
Attorney Slater stated they are before this Commission to demonstrate that if this Commission has jurisdiction, they believe they have demonstrated that a certificate of appropriateness is in order and that from the standpoint of historic protection, this plan is superior to what the existing conditions are. Attorney Slater also believes they’ve demonstrated, and there’s not been any rebuttal, that the graveled area can continue to be used because it has been used historically. Again, they will abandon that area, abandon any rights in that area and that entire area along Enfield Street will be returned to a grassy area if they can proceed in obtaining not only the certificate of appropriateness from this Commission but be allowed to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission to address the other issues raised by Mr. Troiano and in the other letters in opposition.
Attorney Slater suggested the Commission needs to rely on facts and evidence, recognize the basis for some of the opposition that they’ve heard and recognize that some of the statements that were made are just simply not true. Attorney Slater asked that the Commission rely on the appropriate evidence that is before them and rely on the rule of law they are charged with when considering what is appropriate for this site. Attorney Slater noted altering the site to eliminate parking in the front and moving it to the back can only serve to benefit historic protection. The Commission should not be moved by individual concerns by individual property owners but look to the greater good in terms of historic preservation and issue the certificate of appropriateness.
Chairman Tatoian asked if they can raise the question of jurisdiction at any time. Attorney Slater responded they can. He added the issue was never decided by a court of law under the previous application. He hopes that it’s not going to be necessary in this case. Attorney Slater stated they reserve their rights in that jurisdictional question as to whether or not this Commission really has jurisdiction but for the purposes of this evening, they are treating it as if this Commission has full jurisdiction over this application. They are endeavoring to demonstrate that assuming the Commission does have full jurisdiction, the consideration for historic preservation has been met by the applicant.
Mr. Polaski asked why they don’t address the legal issue initially. Attorney Slater responded he found some difficulty finding an expert on historic preservation to come here this evening only because they couldn’t believe that this is even in question. The plan eliminating the existing conditions in the front, returning that to grass and moving the parking to the rear of the Historic District, especially considering the grade, is so obvious that they couldn’t imagine how a historic commission would even think twice about issuing that kind of an approval. Attorney Slater believes that is the case and certainly the path of least resistance would be to demonstrate that to this Commission rather than look to the courts on the question of jurisdiction.
Attorney Slater stated they don’t believe they are ever going to have to or should have to test the question that’s raised in the December enforcement matter about whether or not they have a right to continue to park in that graveled area. If they can obtain this Commission’s approval and obtain site plan and special permit approval, then that issue becomes moot. If they appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission with this kind of a plan, they are going to reserve their rights and demonstrate the fact that they believe the Enfield Montessori School has the right to continue to use this parking area. Attorney Slater hopes they are never going to have to test that question in court because it makes sense to them that this design is an improvement over using the existing area that they have a right to under a nonconforming use. They are certainly going to reserve their right in using that parking area when they proceed before the Planning and Zoning Commission but in the event that the approvals are issued, that area is going to be abandoned and that issue becomes moot. For the same reason, the jurisdiction over this parking area is moot if this Commission agrees that the parking area that they are proposing is superior to the existing conditions or to improving the existing parking area because every property owner with an existing lawful use of their property has a right to reasonable parking.
Attorney Slater stated they have demonstrated through the affidavit that was submitted that this is not an expansion of a use. There were far more children being educated in the mid sixties on this site than there are today. This is to serve an existing use that’s been there for decades and any property owner has a right to maintain parking to serve an existing, lawful use. This property is a property the Montessori School owns. They have a right to use it as a school and they have a right to reasonable parking. The question is where to locate that parking. Attorney Slater felt it is beyond dispute that a well designed parking area as opposed to the haphazard way that it’s been used for decades is an improvement in safety and historic preservation and it will moot the need to test the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Mr. Gwozdz asked for a clarification whether there has been an internal expansion of the educational program which is why the Enfield Montessori School is having a problem with the parking.
Attorney Slater pointed out the affidavit that was submitted with the application that shows that there were many more students – 312 enrollees just in the kindergarten – in 1969. In addition to that, there was also the Montessori School which currently has 120 students. There have been ebbs and flows in the specific number but this application tonight to provide parking for the existing use, the 17 spaces for the existing use, and not the 55 that was proposed in the previous applications, is to serve the scope of use that’s been there for decades and not some recent significant expansion.
Sister Anastasia further clarified that the Montessori program is a very unique program. Montessori begins with a small cluster and then you add some more children the following year and additional children the following year. Grade 6 is as far as they intend to go with this program. The enrollment may fluctuate by five children but the school could never accommodate 150 students.
Attorney Slater asked Sister Anastasia about the total enrollment of the Enfield Montessori School during the 1980’s and whether it was approximately 80 students. Sister Anastasia stated she would have to look back in the records but she would agree with Mr. Troiano’s figure of approximately 84 if that is his recollection. She added any growth that has gone on is because this is how the Montessori program works. It expands and you move up the older children and feed in from the bottom. They have now completed the program through the age of twelve and are going no further than that.
Attorney Slater asked Sister Anastasia if the parking area that Montessori School is proposing tonight is a result of the addition of new educational programs at the site since the 1980’s. Sister Anastasia responded definitely not. The bigger concern presently is the children because many parents are coming in single cars creating a dangerous situation on the property.
Mr. Gwozdz asked for a clarification of the fact that there were once over 300 students being educated at this site. Attorney Slater responded the Montessori program was started in 1955. At the time the Montessori School was started on the site, there was an existing kindergarten and it was the kindergarten program that had 312 students. The peak enrollment of 312 students was in 1959. So there was an overlap of educational programs that existed at the site. The Our Lady of the Angels Academy existed at the same time as the kindergarten. The Our Lady of the Angels Academy was phased off of the property and the Our Lady of the Angels Kindergarten and the Montessori School existed at the same time. The Enfield Montessori School began in 1965 or at the same time that the kindergarten program started to phase out on the site. Although there have been three different kinds of educational schools operating on the site since it was opened in the 1940’s, currently it is only the Montessori School that’s operating there. There is no kindergarten. But those numbers are offered to demonstrate the scope of the educational use that existed prior to when the regulations were first adopted in Enfield that required a special permit. It was that scope of the use that would demonstrate that it is a legal nonconforming use and not a new use that was established for the first time after the zoning regulations were adopted.
Anthony Troiano offered a rebuttal to Attorney Slater. He stated for some reason, he’s confused. The last application was for an addition to the school and the 57 parking spots were behind the school out of the Historic District. The application that’s presented now is exactly the same if you match it with the one that was submitted in 2002. The only thing missing is the building and, in Mr. Troiano’s opinion, if tonight’s application is approved, the next application will be for the building. It was his opinion that they are putting in the parking lot before the building because there’s nothing in the area of the building. They could have put the parking lot where the building is supposed to be but it’s completely vacant. It’s absolutely obvious what the intent here is. To get a parking lot so that they can come in, bypass the Commission and go to the zoning board. That’s the intent. Mr. Troiano noted the 57 parking spots are down to 17 but there’s no building yet. He stated this property does not warrant a new building. If there are going to be increases, as Sister Anastasia says in time, Mr. Troiano suggested moving to where there is more room. There are restrictions on this property. It’s only 240’ wide and the rear is all wetlands. It’s almost impossible to operate on this property with an increase in enrollment. And that’s what has, in his opinion, happened here. It’s been stated that they have been back trying to find places to park cars. Mr. Troiano felt it’s just impossible with this facility as it is now with a building in this condition. It should be moved. It’s in a historic district. In the 1980’s, it was a cottage type school and was almost unnoticeable. The house looks like a house still but if they add the parking lot and a building, forever the historic district is going to have an edifice that they’re going to be sorry about especially for the future generations.
Mr. Troiano stated if that building is introduced, the parking lot is not even sufficient to handle the people that that building will hold. On top of that, the school rooms haven’t been addressed. They are fifty and sixty years old – some of them – wood floors and no air conditioning. He cannot understand how they can put 120 people in those buildings. They’re 5,000 square feet – the annex – and the school, the white building that is supposedly a school, has had nuns living in it for the thirty years that he has been there. He doesn’t know of any school in this town or anywhere that has people living in the school. So is it a school or isn’t it? Is it a moot issue? Are we being held up here by this attorney who’s coming here and saying if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to court. Go to court. In Mr. Troiano’s opinion, he should have gone to court before he came here.
Patrick Crowley spoke before the Commission and felt with the proposed plan, it will be very difficult for buses to turn in when you have cars pulling out. He further cited a house that was recently built on Route 5 behind the Historic District on the side of the property of Enfield High School. That property owner owned the property and wanted to have a sibling put a house behind him. They were denied the right to put a driveway through the Historic District. Mr. Crowley felt that should be considered because there could be a possible lawsuit for the town in the future. That person has to use the annex through the Enfield High School to get to their property. Their driveway comes out on to that road and it cannot go through the Historic District
Mr. Crowley noted the attorney spoke of safety. He noted the attorney and the other two gentlemen that appeared before the Commission don’t drive Route 5 every morning like he does. Safety is a tremendous issue in this area. There are cars trying to pull on to Post Office Road and people pulling out of Montessori School creating a very dangerous area. Any increase to the size of the parking area at the school means an increase in the traffic flow. In Mr. Crowley’s opinion, if you move the traffic back further, it doesn’t make any difference as far as traffic flow goes. The same cars are pulling in and out and it is still going to be very dangerous there. If you narrow that driveway, buses are going to have a very difficult time turning into there along with the present SUV’s that have increased in size.
Mr. Crowley finds it difficult to believe that in the 1940’s and 1950’s there were that many cars pulling out of the Montessori site. He also noted that many of the cars pulling in and out presently have out-of-state license plates meaning a lot of the people using this school are not Enfield residents. He asked that the concern be directed to what happens to the town and to preserve the historical district. He further added that the gravel area should be eliminated.
Esther Clark spoke before the Commission and stated she and her husband own the property to the south of the Montessori School at 1380 Enfield Street. She noted in her letter, Mrs. Stevens eloquently expressed the same feelings that she has about the historic preservation of the street. She recalled that when she moved to 1380 Enfield Street in 1986, people did park on the lawn at the school. However, that line crept closer and closer to the fence that distinguishes their property line and it became rutted, muddy and it just destroyed what grass there was. Eventually, the area was graveled. There was no preparation that she saw and it never occurred to her at that time that it was not an approved correction for that particular property.
Ms. Clark noted with respect to the gentleman that spoke about landscape architecture, he was speaking about parks. This is a residential area so she doesn’t know about the appropriateness of his comments as a comparison.
Ms. Clark stated they will soon be transferring ownership of their home, the Ethan Pease home, to new owners. They’ve already been made aware of the parameters because of the home’s location in a historic district. They know they need to respect and adhere to the rules. Ms. Clark’s feeling is that there are 300 years of history right here on two miles of Enfield Street. We’ve all respected it. We need to continue to respect it. We’ve only owned it for a period of a few years – any one of us who lives here. Ms. Clark noted the need to be careful that we don’t allow things to happen which will set a precedent so that the historical value and the living history is destroyed. She asked that the Montessori School abandon their desire to put this parking lot in and look for some alternative.
Mr. Brayshaw addressed the comments made. He stated the first submission they proposed had space for 55 cars. The second submission brought it down to 37 cars. Their proposal went from 55 to 37. Mr. Brayshaw stated he is bringing up the previous applications to address comments made that they have not attempted to reduce the parking.
Chairman Tatoian asked Assistant Town Attorney Cerrato if this Commission has jurisdiction. Attorney Cerrato stated the issue was partially addressed in a memo dated August 14, 2002 when the initial issue of whether this Commission had jurisdiction over parking lots was addressed. The issue was partially addressed then in a footnote in that memorandum dated August 14, 2002. The Town Attorney’s Office noted that the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 7-147 D, sub D, applied to all parking except residential parking. The memo cited Terry Tondro who has written several land use treatises and also cited an appellate court case which referred to this article and refers to residential parking. On July 26, 2004, Attorney Bromson submitted another memoranda to Mr. Alsbaugh for the Commission. Attorney Cerrato stated they revisited that issue with regard to jurisdiction and Attorney Bromson’s answer was essentially he found nothing in the law to change the 2002 opinion and it is still the opinion that the Commission has jurisdiction over this issue.
Attorney Slater stated their entire presentation was made this evening without discussing the issue of jurisdiction. That issue came up later and he addressed it with the Commission. He added the Town Attorney would agree there has never been a case that dealt with the question of whether or not educational parking falls under that general statute. That specific question was not raised in 2002. The previous attorney’s letter disagreed with the then counsel for the Montessori School’s view that simply because a portion of the general statutes was eliminated, the Historic Commission therefore has no jurisdiction over parking. Attorney Slater stated he believes this Commission does have jurisdiction over parking. It is just the language of the general statutes and there has been no case in the State of Connecticut dealing with the specific question of educational parking. It uses the words that you have jurisdiction only over industrial, commercial, home industry or occupational parking. No court in Connecticut has ever decided whether or not educational parking, parking serving an educational school, falls under any one of those definitions.
Attorney Slater stated jurisdiction is not the focus of the presentation this evening One of the issues that is not a reasonable one which some of the persons that are opposing this plan wish would exist would be that there be no parking on the site whatsoever, that the graveled area be eliminated and that the proposal to improve a new area be eliminated. Attorney Slater stated that’s not a possibility. The property owner has a right to have reasonable parking. And the question that they are putting before this Commission is would it be preferable to use and improve the area close to Enfield Street or have an area further away. Under issues of historical preservation, as the only expert witness that presented anything this evening that relates specifically to historic preservation stated, this plan is an improvement. Although abutters purchased their property with this nonconforming school in existence near them, they wish it was not there and they would do anything to prevent any improvements to the property and hope that it’s going to go somewhere else. Attorney Slater stated it’s not. The school is here to stay and the question is what is the appropriate way to deal with providing parking to the existing school operation. What is appropriate for the existing school and they have submitted that the evidence has demonstrated that a certificate of appropriateness should be issued.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the Commission should confine their considerations and determinations to the issue that is rightly before them as a historic district. Any of the zoning issues are completely irrelevant. The gravel parking lot, whether it is legal, whether it was ever approved, whether it is going to be approved is the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission and not for this Commission to decide. The Commission should also not be considering any of the zoning considerations. As far as any concern the Commission may have about authority, it is not an issue at this particular time. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if Commission members have any questions or need additional information, there is time to continue this public hearing. The Commission has until September 4, 2004 to make a decision.
Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mrs. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Russell, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct new parking areas, driveway areas, sidewalks, and other exterior site improvements for the Montessori School located at 1370 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.
Reference is made to two site plans titled “Existing Site Plan, Sheet EX-1" & "Proposed Site Plan, Sheet SP-1", both for the Enfield Montessori School by Jon A. Brayshaw & Co. Both site plans are dated 7/6/04. All site work will conform to said plans, and to all discussions, revisions, and conditions as may be recorded in Public Hearing HDC #265.
Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission’s concern and the issue before them is the proposed placement of the site improvements appropriate for this site. This Commission is charged with considering the impact and appropriate location of the parking and paving on the property in relation to this particular property; that is, the property on which the improvements are to be placed, the surrounding neighborhood and the whole district. The issue is to be judged by criteria that this Commission is charged with legitimately considering and those factors in considering the appropriateness of parking are actually set forth in the general statutes. They are the size of the parking area, the visibility of cars in the parking area, the closeness of the parking area or the parking lot to adjacent buildings and other similar factors. There are four criteria for consideration in approving any parking proposal. Those are the criteria and issues that the Commission must consider and nothing else. Whether a building is to be placed at some future date is not in the purview of this Commission’s consideration.
Mr. Meyer stated he keeps hearing the words tonight to improve and enhance. Those are very strong words and he doesn’t understand how you can add more than 4,000 square feet of blacktop and call that an enhancement to the Historic District. Whether the blacktop is placed close to the property lines north or south is really not material. The question is does it improve the site. Mr. Meyer doesn’t see how that can be a justifiable statement. The increase in paved area, he believes, would diminish the main historical structure on the private site.
Mr. Polaski stated he read through all the files and he still doesn’t see anything that would really change his mind this time. His concern is if there is a larger driveway installed, there will be more cars and the 480 cars a week now could probably increase to a larger amount and he does not think that is appropriate.
Ms. Dean stated as a relatively new member to this Commission and as a homeowner of the District, she has seen that one of the biggest challenges the Commission has is educating the public. She felt there is a great deal of miscommunication and misunderstanding in the community. This Commission is charged with preserving the properties to the time that they were built and maintaining the appropriate look and feel of the District. Ms. Dean stated a big issue that was raised tonight is what is appropriate. Attorney Slater mentioned a couple of times that that was a concern and Ms. Dean thinks that is truly the central issue here. Ms. Dean felt another critical issue is the issue of improvement versus what is appropriate and she cited the Liberty Bell as an example.
Ms. Dean saw a need to look at what is appropriate for the long term health and preservation of the District. In addition to that, as a homeowner in the District, one issue that is a factor for her is that her property is in the time frame of changes that were made. Just because changes to a property were made a long time ago does not make them appropriate from a historical preservation standpoint. She noted there were changes made to her property in the 1930’s that are not by any stretch of the imagination appropriate to that building that was built in 1910. One of the Commission’s challenges is to preserve the properties to the times that they were built. Ms. Dean saw a need to make sure that the Commission makes the right decision now for the historic preservation of the District in the Town of Enfield.
Chairman Tatoian summarized the Commission’s charge is to decide whether the proposed improvements on the site are appropriate for the site and using the criteria, the size of the parking area. The size of the proposed parking area is an increase of what is paved of about twenty-five percent. Another criteria is the visibility of cars. The visibility of cars would be decreased by this proposal. Regarding closeness to adjacent buildings, the proposed parking is closer to adjacent historical buildings than it is now. And these houses and buildings are of a significant nature because they are among the oldest buildings in the town. Chairman Tatoian stated other similar factors would be the loss of landscaping. Paving involves the covering of natural vegetation which would occur and the impact on the adjacent buildings, the neighborhood and the entire District has to be considered. The additional paving would, in Chairman Tatoian’s opinion, have an impact on the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote. Commission members Richard Tatoian, Russell Meyer, Roman Polaski, Eileen Russell and Nancy Smyth voted.
HDC#302: Anthony Torres: removal of original windows and installation of vinyl, double-hung windows at 1126 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.
Alternate Sonya Dean did not participate in this application.
Anthony Torres, the owner of the property at 1126 Enfield Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Torres stated his home was constructed in approximately 1935. The windows on the home are the original windows to the best of his recollection and based upon wear and tear. Mr. Torres stated the windows presently are wood sash windows and many have rotted beyond repair. He has repaired them over the twelve years he has lived in the home but the wood sashes are at the point where they need to be replaced. Mr. Torres stated the wood frames are rotted and, particularly, the top sash of the windows. There are presently aluminum storm windows on the home and they may have trapped the moisture resulting in deterioration of the windows.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the condition of the windows when Mr. Torres bought this home. He stated they were in a similar condition and he made some repairs to them. They were not properly maintained even prior to his purchasing this home.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the deterioration of the wood windows is prevalent throughout the house. Mr. Torres stated the main area of deterioration is on the second level. The windows are identical throughout the house except for the bathroom window.
Mr. Torres stated he is proposing to install vinyl clad windows which provide double insulated glass and are more efficient. His intent is to replace the windows to cut down on the heat loss and improve appearance. The new windows will allow him to remove the existing aluminum storm windows.
Chairman Tatoian asked about the configuration of the windows. Mr. Torres stated they are six panes over one. The proposed windows would be double paned glass with internal grill work that would be six over one.
Mr. Polaski asked if the entire window frame will be replaced. Mr. Torres stated since they are sash windows, they would be removed and be replaced with modern windows which are a unit. Mr. Polaski asked if the trim around the windows would be removed. Mr. Torres stated it is wood trim and some of that would have to be replaced because of deterioration due to rotting. Where it would be necessary to improve on the installation, he would replace the wood trim. The house is presently sided with six-inch wood clapboard. Mr. Torres confirmed the trim would be replaced in kind with what is existing.
Mr. Polaski asked about the color of the windows. Mr. Torres stated they are green to match the trim.
Mr. Meyer asked if all the windows in the home would be replaced. Mr. Torres stated that is his intent. He does not intend to do them all at one time but he is requesting approval to change all the home’s windows.
Mr. Gwozdz asked about the porch shown in the picture presented to the Commission. Mr. Torres stated that is a three-season screened porch.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke regarding this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Smyth, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Anthony Torres, 1126 Enfield Street, to:
1. Remove the existing original wood windows and aluminum storm windows, and;
2. Replace them with American Craftsman Series 8500 Premium Double Hung Windows.
Such products & materials 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 #302, and as shown in any product sheets and sight photographs. Any conditions, if applied, will be listed below under 'revisions to text'.
Mr. Polaski stated the removal of the present aluminum storm windows will be a tremendous enhancement to any house. The six over one window configuration will keep the look of the home as it is now. He would like the exterior trim presently on the home to remain the same.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
MINUTES
Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Smyth, to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Commission has received the decision letters from the last meeting applications, a copy of the Forum News, a copy of the National Trust Forum Journal and the Connecticut Trust Preservation News.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported he had email communications with Mr. Dorazio regarding the decision of the Commission that he must make a decision on a particular option regarding the garage roof. Chairman Tatoian felt the Commission extended this applicant every courtesy in allowing this application to continue when there was uncertainty as to what the applicant wanted to do. Chairman Tatoian suggested in the future that the Commission not proceed with similar hearings where the applicant is unsure of their changes and, instead, advise the applicant to return at a later date with specific revised plans.
Mr. Polaski stated his term on this Commission expires August 31, 2004. He was instructed to return papers to the Town and he has done so. He will take another term if one is available. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Town Council will inform the Commission regarding this matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
jmr Enfield Historic District Commission |