ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING

SEPTEMBER 7, 2005

A Special Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 in the Enfield Room, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Tatoian called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman

Russell Meyer

Nancy Smyth

Roman Polaski

Lillian Troiano, Alternate

Sonja Dean, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to reverse the order of the agenda and consider HDCR#310 at this time. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

HDCR#310: Robert and Traci Artioli, 1204 Enfield Street, Installation of stone walls, walks and lighted columns. EHDO Section 8.

Robert and Traci Artioli, the owners of 1204 Enfield Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Mr. Artioli stated his home was built in 1806. There were some wood fences existing around the property and they have removed those. They would like to put stone walls in the same spots where the fences were located. They would also like to install some walkways where there are no walkways now. On the north side, there was a wood fence that was adjacent to a chain link fence and both have now been removed.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the north wall which will run the length of the property is partially a retaining wall and partially for aesthetics. Mr. Artioli responded that is true. It will run the length of the north side of the lot from the back corner and end at the front line of the house where it will turn and meet the porch. He also presented pictures of the stone that will be used which is slate (granite?).

Mr. Artioli stated they were not quite sure if they needed to come before the Commission and work was begun prior to tonight. There was a wood fence on the south side that had a driveway gate to the back yard and parking area. On that side, there will be a low stone wall coming from the house to the driveway where stone pillars will be placed on either side of the drive. The pillars will be of the same stone and there will be light fixtures on the top of each pillar. There is a short walkway from the front porch that will be extended to the town sidewalk and one from the south side porch to the driveway that will be replaced with new stonework. Both will be slate.

Chairman Tatoian asked about the type of walk that is there now from the front porch. Mr. Artioli stated presently there are two stones not connected to anything. There is a walkway on the south side but it consists of just stones with grass between them.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the slate stones proposed will be affixed with mortar. Mr. Artioli stated they will not but instead they will be put down dry even with the base. In the back of the yard, the wall is retaining on the north side and is about five feet at its furthest point in the back. It will run right out into the grass at the front porch line.

Mr. Polaski asked what type of light fixture is planned for the posts. Traci Artioli stated they would like something like a lantern and nothing overly large. Mr. Polaski asked if the proposed lighting will be as close to a period piece as they can select. Traci Artioli stated they would like to install something antique if they can find such lighting. She added the lighting will not be modern looking.

Chairman Tatoian noted where the columns are is somewhat of a distance from Enfield Street. Mr. Artioli confirmed the area is almost at the back line of the house.

Mr. Meyer asked how Mr. Artioli got the building permit to do the work. Mr. Artioli stated he did not get one and did not know he needed one. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed a building permit is not required because such walls are not considered structures.

Mr. Meyer asked if the wall is going to remain level on the north. Mr. Artioli stated it will be eighteen inches above grade. Part of it is retaining because the ground is much higher at 1200 Enfield Street and then it tapers down to the ground. They graded everything on the north side and graded up to the wall so that it is all level.

Mr. Meyer stated he read in the material that this work was being performed because of wash out Mr. Artioli confirmed that to be the case and noted you can see the drainage coming down and it is leaching into the back. He has no fear of the wall falling over. (Staff note added to minutes: Erosion not mentioned in staff comments; re-grading is being done to correct drainage problems.)

Ms. Dean asked how will the removal of the old gate and installation of the stone pillars affect parking. Mr. Artioli stated the driveway will remain the same. There was a big wood gate that had to be unlatched. Now it will be open and you can just drive in and turn around. They eventually want to pave the driveway. Mr. Artioli asked if the paving of the driveway would require them to come before the Commission.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is not necessary to come before the Commission for a residential driveway unless there is a substantial change to the shape of the driveway and even that is in question. He further noted this property was approved for paving for the prior owner and that approval remains valid.

Mr. Artioli asked if you pave to the sidewalk or go across it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated you retain the sidewalk. In other areas where there is blacktop at the sidewalk crossing, it is because the town policy has changed. However, it would be advisable to leave the cement in the Historic District. Mr. Alsbaugh also informed Mr. Artioli that whatever he is going to do in the right of way which begins about 20’ from the front stoop, he would need to contact the permitting section of the DOT in Rocky Hill and obtain the necessary permit from them.

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

Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve HDCR#310 for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install rough cut granite stone walls and lighted columns and slate walkways as shown on the site plan submitted with this application. Said site plan is a revised copy of the Bown site plan submitted under HDC#279. Staff is to confirm that the lighting fixtures to be installed are period ones.

Such products and 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 HDCR#310, and as shown in any product sheets and site photographs.

Mr. Polaski requested that Mr. Alsbaugh check out the lights before they are installed because even though they are an accent piece, they will be a high point. This request became an amendment to the motion.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian, Nancy Smyth, Russell Meyer, Roman Polaski and Sonja Dean, Alternate, voting.

HDCR #309: Roger Ingraham, 1443 Enfield Street, violation of previous approval, work done without Certificate of Appropriateness. EHDO Section 12.

Roger Ingraham appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Chairman Tatoian stated with respect to this hearing, the Commission’s records show that in December, 1989, there was an application made for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install vinyl siding at 1443 Enfield Street. That application was approved subject to the condition that the appearance of the house from the street would not be substantially altered. Chairman Tatoian noted there has been work done on the house recently and he asked Mr. Ingraham what that work was.

Mr. Ingraham stated work was done to try to repair and replace the water runoff system.

Chairman Tatoian noted that whatever work was done, it was not the installation of vinyl siding on the house. Mr. Ingraham stated he would say that (the work to be done involved in placing vinyl siding on the structure - added by staff for clarity) has become a complete change over. At the present time, he doesn’t have any plan to do the vinyl siding so this would require a change. He noted vinyl siding was never installed on the house. At the time, he thought that the trim work would be colored even though it doesn’t say that.

Chairman Tatoian asked what was actually done to the property. Mr. Ingraham stated some of the aluminum and vinyl under the overhang was started by his son when he lived in the home ten or fifteen years ago. The upper overhang trim was installed. Regarding when this work was started, Mr. Ingraham stated his son started the back quarter of the house ten years ago when he lived there. The most recent work was done at the beginning of the summer but it is not yet completed.

Mr. Ingraham stated he received a stop work order from the Building Department. Chairman Tatoian noted Mr. Ingraham received this letter telling him to stop the work approximately August 1, 2005. Chairman Tatoian asked if other work was done after receipt of the letter. Mr. Ingraham responded no.

Chairman Tatoian asked if Mr. Ingraham stopped all work as of August 2, 2005 and he responded he did. Since that time, Mr. Ingraham noted somebody vandalized part of his house. He had some staging on the south side of the patio and whoever did the vandalism had to go on to the roof and push it over. When it went over, it hit a brand new gas grill. When he came home that night, he couldn’t even get his wife, with a wheelchair, into the house. He happened to have a ladder up on the north side of the house and in some places it kicked out the pieces of a good sized air conditioner which pulled a storm window almost off. Mr. Ingraham stated the vandal was not caught. He had a police officer at the house and when he has attempted to contact the officer since the vandalism, he has been out of the office. Mr. Ingraham noted a lot more harm was done to the two main support columns on the front porch and all the railings. They almost tore them completely off the house. When he came home, they were down in the bushes in the front.

Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Ingraham indicated once he received the stop work order, he stopped work. According to the letter written to Mr. Ingraham by the town, which Mr. Meyer read, it stated Mr. Ingraham continued to work on the front of the house contrary to the direction of the staff. Mr. Ingraham stated this may be referring to scraping or painting the trim. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he stands by the statements in the letter. Mr. Meyer acknowledged it could have been scraping and painting or also more than that.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated when the letter was sent out, only a partial portion of the front soffit and associated areas was done. When he visited the site on August 23^rd with Mr. Gilman of the Building Department, the front had been finished across the top.

Mr. Meyer noted there was a statement made about the brackets. In order for them to now be perpendicular, the boards had to be nailed in place. He asked if Mr. Ingraham had cut back the front of the roof and taken out the brackets to gain access. Mr. Ingraham asked if Mr. Meyer is talking about the trim brackets and noted they are basically trim that support nothing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the wood soffit up there has been covered with vinyl.

Mr. Meyer asked how much Mr. Ingraham cut back on the front of the roof. Mr. Ingraham responded nothing. Mr. Meyer noted the photograph shows there was some cut back. Mr. Ingraham stated that was a roof control holding up the water creating all the damage. This is what he wanted to do away with.

Mr. Meyer noted Mr. Ingraham is saying the main architectural feature of the roof remains as it was with the exception that the control has been removed. Mr. Ingraham stated that is correct. He further noted the brackets have been taken off to be scraped and painted and they will all go back up in the same position. Mr. Meyer stated that is after Mr. Ingraham covers the existing wood with vinyl and he asked if that has been accomplished. Mr. Ingraham responded on the front only.

Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Ingraham is proposing to replace the overhang trim band board where the brackets have been removed with wood similar to what is in the front. Mr. Ingraham stated that is vinyl under there, the same as what is seen on the front. Mr. Meyer asked if it has already been replaced with vinyl. Mr. Ingraham stated it has not but that was the plan. Mr. Polaski noted the area is all vinyl siding but that it looks like boards. Mr. Meyer asked if in the area covered with aluminum, the brackets are still wood. Mr. Ingraham confirmed they are wood. Mr. Ingraham noted that you cannot cover the brackets. The main thing is to go up and paint at a height you do not want to go to very often. He plans to put up an external gutter system rather than the old fashioned integrated internal wood type. He stated there was more or less of a wood molding type three inches high that held the water up and which would run off whichever down spout to the overhang. This was causing all the trouble. It would freeze, split and rot would begin. Mr. Ingraham is proposing an external control after the face is covered with aluminum. Mr. Meyer questioned if it would be vinyl or aluminum. Mr. Ingraham responded that gutters are aluminum and he is not aware of vinyl gutters. When Mr. Meyer noted his own gutters are vinyl, Mr. Ingraham noted that whether they are vinyl or aluminum, the appearance is the same.

Mr. Polaski noted that the control system dammed the water and it flowed over to the side. Mr. Ingraham confirmed this and stated the water went right through the downspouts in the overhang.

Mr. Polaski felt that putting on exterior gutters will change the appearance of the roof line. He asked if Mr. Ingraham looked into replacing the system that was there. Mr. Ingraham stated it would be nothing but further trouble to do so. He added he has been up on the roof many times tarring and trying to prevent water from going through in the flashing up there.

In order to return the discussion to pertinent matters, Chairman Tatoian stated tonight is not an application before the Commission but an effort to determine whether there was a violation. The question before the Commission is, was work done that did not have approval. The Commission has reviewed the application which said that vinyl siding was approved but the appearance of the house from the street should not be altered. There has been work done other than putting vinyl siding on the house. The work consisted of removal or modification of the existing internal roof drainage system and the brackets being removed.

Mr. Ingraham stated these items were removed for painting only. They are going to go back. Chairman Tatoian added that synthetic coverings have replaced or been installed over the original trim elements. The configuration of the soffit boards has been changed in that the new covering is perpendicular to the facade rather than horizontal.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the staff comments it calls out what he sees as having been changed. He added if you look at the photographs, the area where the wood cornice or water guard has been cut back results in a loss of the profile of the house and the moldings on the outside are now perfectly flat without any of the profiles that existed. Both the soffit and the cornice trims have also been covered with vinyl products, which lose even more of the trim profile. It has gone from a stepped down sequential cornice treatment with rounded moldings to a much simplified square and flat profile. The only thing that remains the same is the original wood brackets.

Mr. Alsbaugh reiterated that at the moment those are the areas in question – changes to the profiles designs, and materials from the top of the previous roof line which is the old drainage containment trim to beyond the wood brackets and the fascia and moldings associated with that area. There is also a change in the soffit materials and the direction that they run. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the most obvious changes are shown in the second picture in the staff comments – the close up of that southwest corner of the roof line.

Mr. Ingraham stated that stands out due to the fact that it was painted black. He intends to do away with the black color and have an aluminum gutter on the fascia.

Mr. Polaski stated the difficulty he has with that is the fact that Mr. Ingraham will have to maintain a particular drop. He will end up with an externally applied gutter being high on one side and dipping down on the other side in order to drain properly. There will have to be an accommodation made to maintain it. Otherwise, the result will be a straight line of roof. Mr. Ingraham stated he thought he would have it run to the center.

Mr. Polaski stated that is probably why they went with the integral system that exists on the top of the roof. He suggested Mr. Ingraham investigate the possibility of running the PVC pipe down and that way he could maintain the roof line. Instead of tarring, there is a membrane material that will waterproof the entire roof. Mr. Polaski stated he is concerned about a gutter being placed in front of the roof line. If you look at the length, it will be quite noticeable. Mr. Ingraham felt it will be better to have the water run off.

Mr. Polaski stated he knows there is a need for drainage but this plan would make it difficult on this type of house and affect the roof line.

Chairman Tatoian questioned Mr. Alsbaugh that acknowledging that this work has been done, what kind of correction, if any, can be done at this time. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission needs to decide by a motion whether or not they find that there is a violation of the 1989 approval and what specific parts of the building are affected by the violation.

Mr. Ingraham asked if it would be possible for Commission members to look at his home and see for themselves how the front looks with the basic sides that have not been touched and the improvement difference that it makes.

Mr. Alsbaugh reminded the Commission that this is not an application but a determination as to whether there is a violation. If there is, what it is and what, if anything, needs to be done to remedy the violation as stated by the Commission would follow the Commission’s determination. An application to discuss options is not appropriate at this meeting.

Mr. Polaski noted it would appear to him based on the literature that if only vinyl siding was approved, anything beyond that is outside the scope and it is a violation. Regarding what appropriate steps to take, he will defer to others to decide.

Mr. Ingraham stated he will agree with Mr. Polaski and the fact that it requires a lot of revision.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he would be happy to clarify anything for the Commission. He referred them to the second photograph where the area under discussion begins at that bottom fascia halfway below the bottom of the bracket and ends at the old internal gutter stop at the top of the roof line. In between, vinyl has been installed over the original wood soffit perpendicular to the boards underneath, and also to the upper fascia.

Following some discussion of the exact wording for the motion, Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Polaski, that the Commission determines there has been a violation with respect to the December 13, 1989 approval for Roger Ingraham, 1443 Enfield Street, as set forth in the staff comments of September 6, 2005.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Polaski, Ms. Smyth and Ms. Troiano, Alternate, voting.

Chairman Tatoian began to discuss what action the Commission should take regarding this violation.

Ms. Troiano asked for a confirmation of what has been altered. Chairman Tatoian stated the front and the south side of the home have been changed. Mr. Ingraham stated nothing has been started on the south side other than repair and maintenance of the brackets. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only additional reference to activity he heard earlier in the proceedings was relating to aluminum on the soffit in the rear but such work is not visible from the street.

Mr. Meyer stated the work to the rear was done by Mr. Ingraham’s son. Mr. Ingraham confirmed this to be the case and stated it was done ten to fifteen years ago. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this was after the original approval for vinyl siding only. Ms. Troiano asked if the Commission has a picture of the rear of the house. Mr. Alsbaugh reminded the Commission that improvements that are not visible from the street do not require a certificate from the Commission.

Mr. Ingraham stated it is just an overhang like on the front without any brackets. There are only brackets on the front and sides. They were never in the rear. Mr. Alsbaugh stated complete photos of the exterior of this property are available in his office.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the trim is covered in aluminum or vinyl. Mr. Ingraham stated sheet aluminum.

Mr. Meyer stated he does not like the idea of removing the old roof drainage system but on the other hand the controls are there, are unserviceable and have to be replaced. He agrees that the change does alter the front appearance of the house.

Mr. Polaski suggested two avenues to consider. Either something gets done with the original controls or the alternative is if there is a facade change, every effort should be made to maintain the roof line. He noted there is a product called a water replacement system that looks like a small louver that is narrow and it would go with the roof line. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this would disperse the water and the water would go down on to the roof below. Mr. Polaski stated he understands that but it mists the water rather than letting it drain over the side. He asked if the lower controls are in bad condition.

Mr. Ingraham stated they are as bad as the top gutter creating a lot of rot.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated deferred maintenance is not the issue.

Mr. Polaski stated he was looking for an alternative to replacing the controls. There is no way you can put an external drainage control system (gutters) on the house without it sticking out. In his opinion, the original roof drainage system is appropriate. With new PVC downspouts and with the removal and replacement of the proper collection system, the house could be maintained as it is.

Mr. Polaski felt the Commission has two choices. The first choice is to remove this and say the system in there has to be maintained and the second choice is to accept the application of an external gutter system on this house and that it will change the roof line.

Mr. Meyer suggested that Mr. Ingraham study the problem and come back before the Commission with a solution.

Mr. Polaski felt a plumber or craftsman could figure out what has to be done. He noted this is almost a flat roof and the water falls and runs to the edge of the roof. This roof is almost flat and catches the water and directs it into drainage holes in the roof. The holes drain the water into down spouts and away from the house. Mr. Polaski noted these systems can be leaky but they are found on porches throughout Enfield. He added the problem with this particular house is not that you couldn’t put controls on it but because the roof line is so narrow, the water drains out of this corner. There is no way you can put an exterior gutter on this. Even if you were to put it in the center and drop it below, there will be a change to the roof line.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the existing control is not a gutter but a formation of the roof which directs the water to the sides of the house.

Mr. Polaski felt the repair is you have to fix the roof. If you use modern materials, you can reform them to get the area to drain properly. Mr. Polaski felt the present system components could be replaced with modern materials and it will not be visible.

Mr. Ingraham stated there are downspouts.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the collection system is part of the house design and there are no exterior gutters.

Mr. Meyer reiterated that Mr. Ingraham should study the problem and come back with a recommendation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is not an application and it is up to the Commission to come up with a remedy to the violation. He stated the Commission can direct him to obtain additional information but it is the Commission’s decision.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can decide it is not right and request that the added material be taken off and the old parts of the home restored. They also might find some lesser solution than a full restoration. He asked that if the Commission does not have a clear idea of what is necessary as a remedy that they direct their questions to him and he will get back to them.

Mr. Polaski asked that Mr. Alsbaugh examine this and see if it is salvageable. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is substantial dry rot and a substantial amount of work that has to be done. If these things are done, the existing old fashioned collection system can be as effective and long lasting as the less appropriate solutions that have been done. Mr. Alsbaugh further noted that either system that is chosen requires maintenance. Deferred maintenance cannot be used to justify the need to change something.

Mr. Polaski reiterated his request to see if the present system can be maintained using modern materials. In his opinion, this is the only solution. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it can be done and the products and technology are available.

Ms. Dean agreed with Mr. Polaski’s recommendations. Her concern is by doing anything else and allowing gutters that would not be appropriate for the house will change the architecture. This would set a very dangerous precedent for deferred maintenance being used to alter structures.

Ms. Dean added that as much as the current collection system may have faults, it has worked since the house was built. The introduction of modern materials to reconstruct the original system and correct the problem is clearly the way to proceed. To do otherwise would set a dangerous precedent.

Chairman Tatoian summarized that the consensus is to move in the direction of stating that as a remedy that the system of the house be restored to its former or present configuration of drainage using modern and appropriate materials to update the existing system.

Chairman Tatoian stated there is also the issue of the violation with respect to the adding of the aluminum siding. Mr. Alsbaugh questioned if the soffit is aluminum or vinyl. Mr. Ingraham stated the soffit is vinyl and the casements underneath are aluminum.

Mr. Ingraham asked if the Commission could stop by and see the front of the house in reference to the side and also check the improvement overall.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the remaining vinyl is the only remaining violation beyond the drainage system. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission dealt with the drainage system and there is still all the molding, the soffit, the fascias and the other moldings that make up the entire entablature.

Chairman Tatoian noted that twenty-five percent of the entablature around the house has been changed.

Mr. Ingraham stated the front has not been done but the rear has been done. The sides have not been done. He suggested the Commission check the front personally as the pictures may not show the area fully in relation to the sides.

Chairman Tatoian noted another issue is the entablature. The rear has already been done. The front has been done but the sides and the porch have not been done.

Mr. Ingraham reiterated it would be best if Commission members visually inspected the face and the sides of the house and come to their own conclusion.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has determined that the home does not look better with the violation. If the photographs are not adequate to show the home, Mr. Alsbaugh suggested the Commission table the public hearing and deal with this at their next meeting. The intent of tonight’s meeting was to try to expedite things for Mr. Ingraham.

Mr. Alsbaugh responded to Chairman Tatoian’s questions and noted tabling this tonight would be in effect continuing this public hearing to the next meeting. The Commission still is reviewing what corrections they feel are necessary to address the violation.

Mr. Meyer was in favor of tabling this until the next meeting because this may require an on-site inspection.

Mr. Ingraham stated there is no gutter on the front porch itself as yet to direct water.

Mr. Alsbaugh informed the Commission that if they visit the home with a quorum, it would be considered a meeting. He suggested Commission members visit the home individually or in pairs and look at the specific parts of the entablature and take notes without discussion and see how they feel about what was there and what is there now on the front.

In response to a question from Mr. Ingraham, Mr. Alsbaugh stated he can take the brackets down without a permit. Mr. Ingraham noted they are in the process of taking them down and scraping and painting them. He personally invited Commission members to come to his home and look at it at any time.

Ms. Troiano made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to table any further action by the Commission regarding 1443 Enfield Street to the next Regular Meeting of the Commission pending on site individual visits by Commission members. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Chairman Tatoian, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Polaski, Ms. Smyth and Ms. Troiano, Alternate, voting.

MINUTES

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the Minutes of July 27, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

STAFF REPORT

Mr. Alsbaugh brought up HDCR2005-007, the Enfield Montessori School and stated the concern was the awning that used to be over the front steps. It was deteriorated and they took it down a few years ago. Also, all the flat low pitched roof areas had a new membrane put on. Mr. Alsbaugh verified the work that was done with the contractor and determined it was repair and maintenance.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated regarding the steps at Enfield Montessori School, he spoke with Sister Anastasia to see if she wanted to come to this meeting with a new design proposal. She stated they decided against doing that part of the work and were going to repair the existing cement.

Ms. Smyth asked about the metal poles being installed on Enfield Street and are they going to put a stop light in the center of the street. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that is the plan. It is part of a re-signalization of the entire Route 5 with new signals.

Ms. Troiano stated in Newport they have done something along the same idea but it is much more decorative. It is black and across the roadway is an arch. She suggested doing something different in this area because it is in the Historic District. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will format such a request to the Town Council on behalf of the Commission. He will also attempt to get photographs of the Newport traffic signal poles.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________

Nancy Smyth, Clerk

Enfield Historic District Commission

jmr