ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 23, 2004

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, June 23, 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

Nancy Smyth

Lillian Troiano, Alternate

Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate

Sonja Dean, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

PUBLIC HEARINGS

HDC#297: Thomas and Ann Dorazio: replacement of front entryway, new shutters, new garage doors, and new synthetic garage door roof decorative railing system at 1234 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.

Thomas and Ann Dorazio appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Mr. Dorazio presented a digital before and after color photo of the house.

Mr. Dorazio stated he wants to restyle the roof line that is over his front entry way. He is planning on installing a new roof and he believes this new style of entry way will prevent ice from forming on the sidewalk. Mr. Dorazio stated he also wants to install plastic shutters on the house which are open louvered style. His last request is to restore his decorative fence railing in vinyl on his garage. However, if he finds it cost prohibitive to use vinyl versus building it himself out of synthetic wood materials that require painting, he may go that route. Mr. Dorazio stated in his investigation of the vinyl fencing, it is more of a real railing system versus a decorative scaled down type of railing. A full scale railing on this garage is not the look Mr. Dorazio is trying to achieve. Regarding the garage doors, he plans to replace them with steel doors in the style of a 1920’s cross buck type of design.

Chairman Tatoian brought up the replacement of the front entry way in which Mr. Dorazio proposes to remove the present roof of the entry way. Mr. Dorazio stated there is currently a shed type dormer roof there and he would like to replace it with a gable type roof system which matches the L part of the cape cod style house. Chairman Tatoian asked if the present entry way is original to the house. Mr. Dorazio stated the house was a simple L shape initially and he suspects they had a lot of water and ice coming down on the original front step which was located in the intersection of the L. It was his understanding one of the owners created a covered and enclosed entry way over this stoop and subsequently installed a new front door.

Mr. Dorazio stated this home was built in 1948 and he has owned it since 1980. In 1983 he took advantage of the energy credits available at the time and he had fiberglass insulation blown in. This caused a lot of damage to the clapboards. The house was in very bad condition with about one-quarter inch of paint on it and many clapboards cracked open. He moved clapboards that were on the back of the house and on the gable ends and salvaged what he could to repair the front.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the home presently has shutters. Mr. Dorazio stated the house originally had batten type wood shutters which were in poor condition. They were removed because they were exacerbating the decay of the clapboards and windows. The new shutters proposed will be vinyl.

Regarding the color of the house, Mr. Dorazio stated it is white. The color of the shutters has not been determined but he is considering burgundy. He noted the Commission has a picture of the proposed shutters with open louvers. The shutters will be installed on particular windows. He does not plan to have shutters on the picture window. He will probably apply them to the gable ends on the Green Valley side and on the Enfield Street side. On the gable end on the Nutmeg side, he may install them on one window.

Mr. Dorazio stated the garage door is on the north side of the house and it is a two-car garage. It presently has a colonial type door which is illustrated in the drawing submitted. It is a typical panel construction door. The problem is no matter how much paint is applied, it gets water logged in the spring and affects the garage door opener. His intention is to replace the garage doors with a Klopay door in a cross buck as shown in the color photograph submitted. While the doors appear to open out like the old-fashioned doors used to open, they are, in fact, roll-up steel doors.

Chairman Tatoian brought up the railing system proposed on the garage. Mr. Dorazio stated he is considering a vinyl product made by a firm that produces architectural elements. However, the components are code approved railing systems that are 36” high with balusters 8” apart. The fence railing on the garage is decorative and would be a smaller non-code railing system. While there is no railing at this time, there was originally but the railing rotted and was removed. The proposal is to replace it. The height would be approximately 24” and there would be no access. The railing would go around three sides but it would not fully enclose the fourth side or the western elevation. There would be seven sections in total.

Mr. Dorazio stated he has not made a firm decision on the garage railing due to cost considerations. He may choose to rebuild the fence and paint it white.

Mr. Meyer applauded Mr. Dorazio for tying to restore an improved appearance to this house as it faces Enfield Street. Mr. Meyer stated the garage in the photograph is on the right hand side and does not show a railing. Mr. Dorazio stated the original railing rotted and he removed it. In the design of the original railing, the sections all had a simple cross x in the center. Mr. Dorazio stated this was one of the reasons it would not meet today’s code. A small child could crawl through the space and there should be no space larger than 8”.

Mr. Meyer asked if the proposal is to have the height of the new railing approximately the same as the railing that was removed. Mr. Dorazio stated yes and it would be approximately 24”. If ball finials are added, it would increase the height to 30”. He is also considering the addition of double x’s to mimic the garage doors. The advantage of having the x’s is it would add to the stability of the fence. The x’s would act as a brace to prevent the fence from moving. He is unsure of the final design at this time.

Mr. Meyer noted the Commission wants to know exactly what is being proposed. Mr. Dorazio has given various options regarding the garage fencing. Mr. Dorazio stated this will be his winter project and it is his intent to do additional drawings to see how it would look with the doors.

Mr. Dorazio asked if the new materials that are a perfect simulation of wood are a problem for the Historic District Commission. He has seen a lot of vinyl siding on the street and he noted the need to do something to reduce maintenance. He plans to submit a package to the firm he discussed earlier and if the cost is prohibitive, he would then build it himself in wood or a synthetic wood which could be painted white. Mr. Dorazio stated he will not have a firm submittal regarding the garage fencing until the end of January.

Mr. Meyer brought up the east elevation facing Enfield Street. The intent is to put shutters on two of the windows but not the picture window. Mr. Dorazio stated there would be three in total including the garage window.

Ms. Smyth asked if the railing would be installed on all sides except the back or south side. Mr. Dorazio stated there is no place to put such a railing on the side of the house that faces Nutmeg. Although the garage appears to have a flat surface, the garage is approximately 22’ long and there is a roof system that drops about two feet from the front to the rear so that water is shed away from north to south. When you look at the garage, the garage appears to have a flat roof when it, in fact, has a slanted roof.

Ms. Troiano asked if the intent is to have the posts with finials. Mr. Dorazio stated he would like to find some simple ball type finials made of plastic. What is available is pine, cedar and pressure treated wood which would create a problem because they will open up in the weathering process. His preference is to find a finial made of synthetic material. If he cannot find a suitable product that will hold up to the weather, he may delete the finials and install a simple Nantucket cap on the railing. His intent is to give the house the feeling of a Nantucket style cape cod house. The front entry way will have an over door treatment that is a feather board fan that they invented on the island to replace the weathered windows that used to be over those door systems. The front entry way presently has a Greek revival over mantle. He presented a picture showing what a classic fan over the door would look like. His intent is to make that change to the house.

Mr. Gwozdz asked if this project will be done in stages. Mr. Dorazio stated it is his intent to complete this project over approximately two years. He would accomplish one thing at a time so that the house won’t appear to be in disarray at any time.

Mr. Gwozdz asked about the time line for the garage railing system. Mr. Dorazio stated it is his basement winter project and he would finalize the design in January.

Chairman Tatoian stated because Mr. Dorazio has not made a final decision on the garage railing, he would recommend that he come back for this aspect of the project when he has a final design to present. Mr. Dorazio agreed to come back before the Commission in January.

Ms. Dean asked about the original railing for this home. Mr. Dorazio stated it was built with two by fours and had a cross buck in it. The garage may have been added to the home in the mid to late fifties. What they did at that time was put a big wood board around the parapet and hammered in some nails with four by four posts and put in a two by four railing system. This caused all kinds of damage to the house.

Ms. Dean commended Mr. Dorazio for his efforts. She noted it is important to restore the historical integrity of the house.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.

Chairman Tatoian designated Ms. Troiano as the voting alternate for this application.

Mr. Gwozdz stated because the Commission does not have anything specific regarding the garage railing, he would recommend removing this item from the motion.

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Troiano:

Motion as made and seconded:

TO APPROVE the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the entryway, to install new shutters and new garage doors, and to install a new synthetic garage roof decorative railing system at 1234 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8

All construction and site work will conform to the plans, photographs, and elevations submitted, and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC #297.

Mr. Meyer stated he would recommend the motion include the approval of the front entryway, the new shutters and the new garage doors only and ask the applicant to return when he has more specific information regarding the garage roof decorative railing system.

Ms. Dean referred to the front entryway and noted the pictures she viewed had a simpler front entryway than the one proposed with the decorative fan. Her concern is that if the one being proposed includes the decorative fan, would the fan be in keeping with the historical architecture of the structure. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are already elements of classic revival with this home. The applicant presented a picture of the fan and Mr. Alsbaugh noted the fan would be on the plane of the front wall containing the front door and not on the front of the overhang gable end; this was difficult to indicate clearly in the digital photograph. Mr. Dorazio stated there are two examples of this fan on other homes on the street. On the other side of the street from him to the south the house was recently remodeled and has one. The house next door also has the same element in the entryway.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the front plane of the gable end of the roof is arched and open. The fan is an element that is recessed in on the plane above the front door. He noted the Commission should reference elevation 'b' proposed within the motion.

Chairman Tatoian stated the replacement would be as depicted in the east side elevation b. proposed plus the shutters.

Ms. Dean asked if there is room for interpretation once this motion is passed regarding the particular entryway. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the motion references the discussion and the submitted documentation. Ms. Dean saw a need for the Commission to be consistent.

Mr. Dorazio stated the Commission seems concerned about the specific pattern that will be in the garage railing. Mr. Meyer stated the railing has been removed from the motion and the discussion now focuses on the garage doors and the front entry door going to be as depicted in the drawing. Mr. Dorazio stated the garage doors are going to be the ones he has presented to the Commission.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the Dorazio’s decided at the last minute to do something different, they would have to come back to the Commission with a request for a modification. The procedure allows for modification through proper administrative procedures which is a referral back to this Commission.

Mr. Gwozdz made an amendment to the motion:

Motion as revised and seconded:

1. The garage roof decorative railing was deleted from the motion and subsequent approval.

2. Specific reference was made to 'East Side Elevation - B - Proposed', indicating the approved composition of the new front entryway. No approval is intended at this time for a garage roof railing system.

3. Shutters are to be placed on the south ell gable end, the front façade (east) except for the picture window, and the north gable end of the main structure.

The amendment was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lillian Troiano voting.

The main motion, as amended, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lillian Troiano voting.

Reason(s) for revisions & approval:

It was determined that:

· The applicant must return for future approval of a garage roof railing system. The design must be a commitment to an exact set of components and must be installed as it may subsequently be approved.

· The addition of the proposed gable-fronted entryway is sensitive and compatible to the original cape and front-facing gable ell design.

· The design of the approved garage door replacements will replicate the look of era-appropriate swing open doors even though they will be overhead in function

· The shutters, though of synthetic materials and not of the same whimsical nature as the long gone originals, are of an appropriate louvered design for the period.

HDC#298 – Enfield Congregational Church: installation of acrylic panel system over north windows of sanctuary at 1295 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8

Peter Clement and Ann Ryder appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Ms. Ryder stated she chairs the committee for the improvement of the structure of the church. Mr. Clement is her assistant.

Ms. Ryder stated part of the proposal is to repair the north side of the church window sills. They have begun to deteriorate because of the weather and they would like to replace those sills. The application also includes the painting of the steeple and the installation of a new trap door on the top of the steeple. They plan to paint Fellowship Hall which is the adjacent building to the church and they also plan to paint the exterior of the church sanctuary.

Ms. Ryder stated to help prevent more deterioration on the north side windows of the church and to preserve the glass and framing, they have requested that the installation of acrylic sheeting that would cover the triple windows.

Chairman Tatoian stated the only activity that requires an approval from this Commission is the proposal regarding the exterior acrylic panels. Mr. Clement stated they also plan to do repairs but they are existing structural repairs.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated if there are parts of a repair and maintenance proposal that involves a replacement in kind or a repair of a specific element of the building, while it would not require a Certificate of Appropriateness it would require an administrative procedure to oversee what is being done and to verify that it has been done.

Chairman Tatoian stated this would apply to the replacement of the trap door on the steeple. Mr. Clement stated the door is on the northeast side of the steeple and is not visible from the public way.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the present window sills on the north side are wood. Ms. Ryder stated they are. She could not confirm if they were part of the original church building but noted they are pretty old. The proposal is to remove the sills and replace them with mahogany or cedar sills that would be similar in appearance to what exists.

Chairman Tatoian noted the church was built in 1849.

Chairman Tatoian stated the proposal is to install an acrylic panel. Ms. Ryder stated the purpose of this is to preserve the framework of the windows, the glass and also for heating.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the glass on the panes of the windows is original. Mr. Clement stated they are.

Chairman Tatoian asked why the proposal is for acrylic windows rather than glass. Mr. Clement stated the reasoning was to use something that would be safe and would support itself. It will have a channel to hold each of the three sheets and it can be attached right into the outside of the frame. By using this material rather than glass, it would avoid having to install huge custom made storm windows. They are trying to do something that will achieve the preservation and help with the heat loss on the north side of the building.

Chairman Tatoian stated the church has windows that are similar on the south side. Mr. Clement stated their intent is to try the acrylic panels on the north side to see if they work. He noted the sunlight does eventually cause problems with this acrylic. The north side does not get the sunlight and their intent is to see how this works regarding the moisture. If they are successful with the north side, they may try to do the same on the south side.

Chairman Tatoian asked about the issue of acrylic and its deterioration over time. He questioned if an acrylic material over the years would become cloudy or scratch as opposed to glass. Mr. Clement stated he would agree but with the modern technology, it would have a much longer life span than it used to have but it would never have as much as glass. It is the application and the cost of having custom storm windows made that has led them to this alternative. They eventually may have to look at something with the entire window system. This proposal is an attempt to preserve the windows and not change the appearance.

Chairman Tatoian asked if there is a possibility of accomplishing the same thing by putting a storm window on the inside of the sanctuary. Ms. Ryder stated they probably could do so but it would only work for heat cost savings and not preserve the wood..

Chairman Tatoian asked if the outside windows have been noticeably deteriorating. Mr. Clement stated it is his understanding that the south side windows have been replaced but the north side windows have not been. Ms. Ryder confirmed the glass on the south side has been replaced.

Mr. Clement stated more of the north side has the original windows. Also, the church building is exposed to the harshest weather on that side.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has done an inspection and determined the actual conditions. On the north side, the sills have substantial rot. They need a significant rejuvenation or replacement. The glass on the north side windows is obviously of a couple different eras. It is all the old wavy glass. The other major deterioration of the window system is some of the muntins have rotted to the point where some of the glass may eventually fall out. The muntins that the glass panels fit into need to be repaired. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the major goal is to protect the exterior on the north sides.

Chairman Tatoian asked if there was an inquiry done as far as how other historic churches have coped with this problem. Mr. Clement stated the only other thing he has seen in churches is large combination aluminum windows.

Ms. Ryder stated the proposed acrylic panels are presently being installed in a church in Wilberham, Massachusetts. Mr. Clement stated the contractor was expected to be present this evening but he is not. The proposal is not a new one and he has used it previously.

Ms. Dean asked if the acrylic panels will be sealed. She questioned if there is a risk of having moisture between the acrylic panels and the existing windows. Mr. Clement stated they are not trying to make the system air tight and there would be drainage at the bottom.

Mr. Meyer stated the proposal is to install four new sills made of cedar or mahogany. He asked why pressure treated wood would not be used. Ms. Ryder stated the contractor did not recommend pressure treated wood. Mr. Alsbaugh stated when you cut into pressure treated wood, you remove a substantial amount of the chemical treatment applied to pressure treated wood.

Mr. Meyer stated he has looked at the sills and they are no longer level but arched. He noted the windows in the church when they were originally built were built in three tracks so that they could be raised or lowered. They have since been painted over. Mr. Meyer asked if the sills are going to be replaced, how can this be done without raising the windows in order to get access to the entire sill area. Mr. Clement stated the contractor asked them if the windows opened and they responded they did not and the contractor stated this was not a problem. Mr. Clement stated they are concerned that there may be some damage on the inside behind the window sill.

Mr. Meyer asked if any void created after the installation of the new sills would be caulked. Mr. Clement felt this would be done. Mr. Meyer noted these acrylic windows have to breathe especially on the north side.

Mr. Meyer read information regarding painting. The article noted that the best choice for historic homes is oil based primer. Mr. Meyer suggested the contractor be informed that it is recommended not to have acrylic primer but that an acrylic top coat is adequate. Mr. Clement requested a copy of this information to provide to their contractor.

Mr. Meyer stated the present (individual) window (sashes) are approximately 4’ x 8’ and there are three of them resulting in an area about 24’ high. He asked if the acrylic windows will be a single sheet. Ms. Ryder stated there will be three single sheets – one for each window.

Mr. Meyer stated there will be an unsupported 8’ high piece of acrylic panel. Mr. Clement stated it would be sitting in a channel on the bottom. Mr. Meyer noted the acrylic facing the weather will be a single sheet enclosed in a frame. Ms. Ryder stated there will be no frame. The acrylic will be screwed in. Mr. Alsbaugh added it will be screwed to the stops on the side where the sash is. Mr. Meyer asked what will be done about the overlap between the windows. Ms. Ryder stated it will go on the outer edge of the building. Mr. Clement stated the bottom one would be the closest one and the acrylic would not change. The acrylic sheets are three 60” x 80” sheets stacked. Mr. Meyer asked what fills the void between each of the main windows. Mr. Clement stated there is no void but there will be a channel that goes across.

Mr. Meyer stated there will be three different pieces of acrylic and the windows on the inside will be staggered away. Mr. Clement stated that is correct. The plane of the acrylic will stay exactly the same (from bottom to top).

Mr. Meyer discussed the proposal to do high pressure washing to remove surface contaminants. He stated the literature he previously discussed does not recommend the high pressure washing because it erodes the softer part of the wood and leaves the harder material. This means it will be subject to more decay over time. The recommendation is to use a garden hose with ordinary detergent rather than high pressure washing.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has made the property owners in the district aware of the effects of high pressure washing. He also discussed the moisture content that power washing will drive into the wood with the ultimate effect of having any paint that is applied peel right off (if the moisture content has not been allowed to diminish to 14% or less).

Mr. Meyer stated his personal experience is latex primer under a latex top coat is not a good longevity coating.

Mr. Meyer brought up the steeple and noted some time ago one of the finials at the base of the spire had either fallen off or was removed because of deterioration. The last time that the church was examined and painted there had been major repair to some of the finials. There is nothing in tonight’s proposal to indicate an examination, repair or replacement of the finials. Mr. Meyer asked if this is part of this application. Ms. Ryder stated the finials are not a part of tonight’s proposal.

Mr. Meyer discussed the painting of Fellowship Hall and noted the high pressure washing should be reexamined. In order to paint the building, they have to remove the shutters from both the sanctuary and Fellowship Hall. On the south side of Fellowship Hall, there are one or two shutters that have missing louvers. Mr. Meyer asked if those will be replaced. Ms. Ryder was unsure of this.

Mr. Meyer asked if it is the intent of tonight’s proposal to bring the church back to a reasonably good condition. Ms. Ryder stated that is their intent.

Ms. Dean recommended that cedar be used for the sill material. She has done considerable research and has constantly seen advice to avoid using pressure treated lumber.

Mr. Clement stated the contractor specializes in church restoration.

Chairman Tatoian asked if Mr. Clement is aware of a church where these acrylic panels have been installed. Mr. Clement stated there is a Congregational church in Wilberham that is being done by the same contractor but he has not personally seen this church.

Mr. Clement stated the material that will be used is clear and should not alter the appearance of the church.

Mr. Meyer stated it was his understanding that the company that worked on the church preservation previously removed a finial piece to use as a model or sample to rebuild another one in kind to be reinstalled. That never occurred and now a different contractor is being used. Mr. Meyer asked where the pieces are that were removed.

Mr. Meyer stated regarding the sills he has a concern. He doesn’t see how you can replace a sill without raising a window.

Mr. Meyer stated if the contractor removes the shutters from the church and the Fellowship Hall which are the original shutters, there is nothing in this proposal indicating that the shutters would be repaired before they are reinstalled. Mr. Clement stated there are some on the south of the Fellowship Hall that need repair.

Mr. Meyer advised the applicant to look at the condition and/or replacement of the urns on the base of the spire.

Mr. Gwozdz asked if the applicants have seen pictures of the church with the acrylic panels in Wilberham. Ms. Ryder stated she has not. Mr. Gwozdz stated he has a concern that there will be a noticeable difference with the installation of the acrylic panels especially because it is only being proposed on one side. Mr. Gwozdz also noted that acrylic will cloud and scratch. His major concern is if this side is not being looked at straight on, there will be a noticeable difference in appearance.

Mr. Clement stated while he agrees in theory, there is quite a distance to see the side at that angle. He also noted the location of the house next door and the existing trees. It is pretty difficult to see through to that side.

Ms. Ryder stated it would be cost prohibitive to install storm windows. Mr. Clement stated they are trying to address a problem at a reasonable cost. The proposal will still cost thousands and it is still an expensive alternative.

Mr. Meyer stated he cannot imagine a piece of acrylic of this size not being affected by wind.

Mr. Alsbaugh noted a piece of glass would do the same thing. You would either do a storm window or you would split it into three sections with double-seat divider tracks between the panels. He then noted that the proposal is a responsible attempt to put a stop gap measure in place. There is serious deterioration of those windows and the most important thing at this point is to stop it and protect the windows from additional weather damage. How much the church can afford to do is another issue. Wood framed storm windows can be done but they are very expensive. They are spending $2,000 on the sills and the general repairs for the windows and then another $10,400 for the acrylic. Also, the proposal to stop the deterioration is amounting to a project cost of $65,000 and this is a huge amount of money for a congregation to undertake.

Mr. Gwozdz asked how many windows are involved. Mr. Clement stated there are four complete windows.

Mr. Clement stated they have a building behind the church known as the scout cabin. They plan to re-roof that building in the near future. It would be done using the same materials that they did on Fellowship Hall. It would be the black architectural shingles that were used on Fellowship Hall last year. Mr. Clement wanted to alert the Commission to this repair and maintenance item.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.

Mrs. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Ms. Troiano, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install protective exterior acrylic 3-panel systems over the north windows of the sanctuary at 1295 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.

All construction and site work will conform to the plans, photographs, and elevations submitted and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC#298.

Mr. Meyer amended the motion to add that the contractor be requested to examine oil based primer rather than acrylic. Also, when the shutters are removed from the sanctuary and Fellowship Hall that they be examined and any repairs necessary be incorporated including the replacement of the slats on the south side of Fellowship Hall. A further item would be that the church officials request the contractor, John Leacock, to examine the urns and return to the Commission with an estimate for the repair or replacement of the urns at the base of the spire. A final item would be the use of high pressure washing is not allowed.

Mr. Meyer added that he has a concern about the longevity of the proposed acrylic panels.

Ms. Troiano questioned if the condition regarding the repair or replacement of the urns could be added since it is not part of the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Meyer stated the statement was made that they intended to have the church go back to its original condition. Ms. Ryder clarified that they would like to bring the church close to its original condition.

Mr. Meyer stated the Commission would like the church to look as good as it has ever looked and with the missing urn and others that may be in disrepair, he is requesting that the church come back, outside of this proposal.

Chairman Tatoian stated the application for the certificate is a request to install the acrylic panels. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission cannot require that additional items be done. The Commission can put on a stipulation regarding no power washing to avoid additional damage.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the issues raised by Mr. Meyer in his amendment can be given to the church in the form of a recommendation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they can be recommendations and he will work with the church to look into all the issues Mr. Meyer has brought up.

Chairman Tatoian asked why the Commission can address the issue of power washing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is part of the proposal and there are known destructive qualities about improper power washing and sand blasting. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the various levels of power washing and how, if done improperly, the building can be damaged.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can make it a requirement that the contractor coordinate with staff regarding the power washing. If the contractor plans to use water on the building, he should be aware of how much moisture content is in the wood before painting begins.

Mr. Meyer read about preparation of the building prior to painting. It included a recommendation to use a low pressure wash since water under high pressure can be as harmful as sandblasting. Mr. Meyer stated his point is that the contractor mentions power washing and it should not be a high pressure power washing.

Chairman Tatoian discussed the proposed amendment and stated it should include the power washing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will coordinate with the contractor and find out the procedures planned. Also, the Commission can dictate the issue of moisture content.

Mr. Meyer read from some literature regarding the type of power washing that should be done.

Chairman Tatoian stated the other items contained in Mr. Meyer’s proposed amendment would be recommendations from this Commission rather than a part of the motion.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the question he has about the urns is when was the activity with the urns done and what, if any, approvals were given for the activity.

Ms. Ryder stated the church has not approved having the urns repaired. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission would be making a recommendation only regarding the repair of the urns.

Chairman Tatoian estimated the urns were repaired about five years ago.

Mr. Alsbaugh would recommend that he try to work with the church and determine where the materials might have ended up and try to recover them. This could be dealt with in a future application.

Mr. Meyer noted the Commission does not have the proposal that is going to be presented to the church this Sunday. It is a broader recommendation and includes more than tonight’s detail based proposal. Ms. Ryder stated they will be requesting a sum of money to do the repairs on the exterior of the church.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the church members will have to discuss any other repair work the church may need.

Mr. Meyer stated he would ask the church to examine the urns and finials to see what has to be done to bring them back to their original condition. Mr. Alsbaugh stated legally the Commission cannot request an estimate on the urns. As a church member, Mr. Meyer can make such a recommendation and then it would need to come back before this Commission.

Mr. Meyer stated he asked the church officials to examine what has to be done to repair or replace the urns. He is informing the Commission that the proposal coming to the church on Sunday could include that without adding any other words to the proposal.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated even if it is brought to the church and it ends up including finials, it has no bearing on tonight’s application. It would still have to come back to the Commission.

Mr. Meyer stated the finials that are there now he believes are not in great shape and one is missing. The proposal coming to the church on Sunday does not address that specifically but it is a very broad brushed estimate. What they have done is gone to a contractor, Mr. Leacock, and informed him of the proposed amount of money they will have to repair the church and asked for an estimate of the work to be done.

Ms. Dean stated what the church is addressing on Sunday has nothing to do with tonight’s application.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the request for money coming before the church on Sunday will be for x number of dollars to do work on the exterior of the church. If the Commission feels that that particular request for money is not clear enough then it is up to the church members to clarify it at that point. Legally, the Commission cannot consider this.

Chairman Tatoian stated there is a motion to approve the application on the floor and it was amended. There were also recommendations added. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will work with the church officials and their contractor to investigate the oil based primer and to see if the contractor has any opinion on the urns at this time. Mr. Meyer clarified his amendment and stated that it would only include the issue of power washing and the moisture content as well as the use of oil based primer. Mr. Gwozdz seconded this amendment.

Mr. Gwozdz felt the proposal will help the preservation of the church and this fact outweighs any other concerns.

Chairman Tatoian stated this is a very important building in the Enfield Historic District. Anything that is done to this building will have an impact on the District in general. Chairman Tatoian stated he is uncomfortable with approving something that he has not yet seen. He noted his thoughts have to be weighed against the preservation of the windows and the cost. Also, the installation of this panel system is not something that is permanent.

Motion as made and seconded:

TO APPROVE the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install protective exterior acrylic 3-panel systems over the north windows of the sanctuary at 1295 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8

All construction and site work will conform to the plans, photographs, and elevations submitted, and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC #298.

Motion as revised and seconded:

1. The commission recognizes the non-certificate nature of the mentioned painting of the sanctuary and Fellowship Hall. However, the 'power washing', if done carelessly, is a recognized threat to component integrity on old structures. It is therefore required that the contractor consult with commission staff to verify the process and protection of the structures before any exterior power washing is begun. The two following issues must be addressed:

2. Water pressure levels must remain below any damage threshold (< 100 psi) or the point that soft fibers would be damaged or removed, which ever occurs first. Such threshold must be demonstrated to commission staff and be utilized throughout the project. No abrasive materials should be added to the water mixture.

3. As power washing drives moisture into cracks and crevices, as well as wood fiber itself, each portion of each façade must be tested for moisture content. Before painting may begin, the moisture content must be 14% or less. Depending on weather conditions and humidity, this may mean up to three days between cleaning and beginning to prime and paint.

The motion, as amended, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lillian Troiano voting.

Reason(s) for revisions & approval:

It was determined that:

· Although acrylic will deteriorate both physically and visually, it is expected to have a life cycle requiring periodic replacement.

· In addition, even though the glare or refractive quality of the acrylic will cause visual distortion of the normal views of the windows, the 'stop-gap' nature of this activity is the most practical and beneficial course open to the congregation at this time.

· It is also recognized that this attempt to conserve energy and to protect the windows and sills from further deterioration is completely reversible should the panel systems fail to perform as desired and projected. Other, more permanent options may be explored at a future time.

Recommendations:

· Alkyd-based primers are recommended, although proper surface preparation must occur. Washing with mild soap and water, sanding and scraping and removal of residue, and proper drying (including proper moisture level readings) should be achieved prior to priming.

· A maintenance log should be kept regarding the condition of the shutters as they will be removed for the painting project. This should help to determine those needing any immediate repairs, as well as helping plan out a future schedule for those that can have maintenance postponed.

· The commission strongly recommends that the decorative urns, and any other significant architectural detailing, be inspected for condition and potential failure. Commission staff will be available to help ascertain more immediate needs and with any short or long term planning needs.

HDC#299 – Wayne and Nancy Smyth: installation of traditional design metal fencing to rear and side of main structure at 1259 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.

Alternates Lillian Troiano and Raymond Gwozdz participated in this application.

Nancy Smyth appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She stated they have a split rail fence that extends three feet in from the corner of the garage and goes out towards the back yard which is severely deteriorating. They would like to replace this fence with a metal fence. Ms. Smyth presented a picture of the proposed metal fence which would be aluminum, black in color and 4’ high.

Ms. Smyth stated the intent is to replace the existing fencing or approximately 30’ of fencing. The fence would not have a finial but would be flat with a square cap.

Mr. Meyer asked for a confirmation of the color of the fence. Ms. Smyth stated the fence will be black.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.

Ms. Troiano made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz.

Motion as made and seconded:

TO APPROVE the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a traditional design metal fencing to the rear and side of the main structure at 1259 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8

All construction and site work will conform to the plans, photographs, and elevations submitted, and to all discussions and conditions as recorded in Public Hearing HDC #299.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Troiano and Gwozdz voting.

Reason(s) for approval:

It was determined that:

· The materials and design of the proposed fence are compatible with both the house and the district in general.

MINUTES

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Dean, to approve the Minutes of April 28, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Commission received the approval letter for the Troiano’s at 1221 Enfield Street. The Commission also received some information relating to the insurance discussion on the agenda. There is a letter to Attorney Grant notifying him that he has the successful proposal to acquire the (town-owned) Wilson-Haas Barn. Mr. Gwozdz requested that Mr. Alsbaugh send Attorney Grant a thank you letter on behalf of the Commission regarding the barn.

Mr. Meyer stated there is a sledge in the loft of the Wilson Haas Barn which the town wanted removed. The CCC Museum in Stafford has agreed to take this sledge. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will try to get a commitment from the Town Manager to make this happen.

Mr. Alsbaugh brought up the original study group property list of the District. He noted there are several errors. There is a fully corrected property list that includes every property and reflects what has changed. The only things that may not be current at this time are the owners’ names because some of the properties may have sold. This list will be submitted to the Department of the Interior, the State Historic Council, and the town’s building department.

Ms. Troiano stated there is a star after her address meaning the house was moved in part or in full. She asked if there are any records of such a move. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is one of the original notations from the original study committee. However, he does not have copies of the individual property sheets.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has received documentation of an email discussion between Roman Polaski and himself. There is a copy of the Forum Journal along with sections of Preservation Magazine and the April/May Connecticut Preservation News from the Connecticut Trust.

Mr. Alsbaugh reported they did get the Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Grant but not in the full amount. $3,500 was received instead of the $5,000. Mr. Alsbaugh received a commitment from the Town Manager today to take some of the surplus from this Commission’s budget to cover the shortfall in the grant award. The grant was meant for educational and informational purposes and special projects. The Town Manager agreed that picking up the remainder of the consultant’s fee was an appropriate use of this Commission’s budget.

Mr. Alsbaugh reported he has had no response from the Town Attorney’s Office regarding 42 Frew Terrace. Some discussion followed regarding 42 Frew Terrace. Chairman Tatoian suggested that when this property changes hands, the new owners should be informed about this home being in the District.

Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the draft administrative review booklet. The way the local historic district ordinance is written, it appears that anything on the exterior or on the property within the district is included in this Commission’s responsibilities. Mr. Alsbaugh has since gone back to the statute itself and the statute explicitly exempts things that are not visible from the public way. The Commission has been moving in that direction. What is necessary is for the Commission to set up sight lines to determine what is not visible from the street. When someone comes in with a proposal to Mr. Alsbaugh, he can go out and confirm whether or not the item is visible from the street. If it is not, it would not have to come in for a Certificate.

Chairman Tatoian stated one of the Commission’s goals is to produce a booklet containing all the regulations and guidelines. He asked that the Subcommittee be reconvened to work toward that goal.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he needs to produce an administrative document that explains the normal repair and maintenance aspects and will tell people what they can or cannot do without a Certificate. It would also give a process to verify these things. This will eventually become part of the entire guideline which includes all the recommendations to property owners.

Mr. Meyer noted the blight going on with junk cars on the street and the need to correct this because it is becoming a problem. Mr. Meyer saw a need to define and come up with strict guidelines to correct this problem. He further noted the house that sells flowers and has a greenhouse out on the road. Further discussion followed.

It was the consensus of the Commission to reactivate the Subcommittee and have a meeting some time in July. Chairman Tatoian will work on setting a date for such a meeting.

Mr. Meyer requested that the phone numbers of Commission members be included on the attendance sheet (they appear on the membership list already). Mr. Alsbaugh will add the numbers to the attendance sheet.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Dean, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

Nancy Smyth, Clerk

jmr Enfield Historic District Commission