ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, January 26, 2004, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Nancy Smyth
Roman Polaski
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Mr. Gwozdz was seated as a regular member.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commission Clerk Mrs. Smyth read the legal notice
HDC #305: Anne L. Reveruzzi: enlarge and replace left garage door of detached 2-car garage at 1424 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8
Mr. Reveruzzi appeared before the Commission to represent the application.
Mr. Reveruzzi stated that he had replaced the door in question to accommodate a new vehicle he acquired that needed more clearance to be housed in the garage. He questioned the Commission photo dated 11/16/2000, asking why it had been taken. Staff responded that the entire Local Historic District had been photographed in 2000 to establish a visible 'base-line' to document the district and determine when changes have been made after that date. It was also done to supply three views of structures (left side, front, right side) to determine what future proposals for change might be visible from the street.
Mr. Reveruzzi continued, stating the height of the new door is 83.5 inches compared to the height of the remaining old door of 79 inches - a 4.5" difference. He noted that the new door was not painted at the time the second set of staff pictures were taken on 9/23/04, and that now it blends very well with the facade of the other door.
Mr. Reveruzzi went on to say that the garage is only approximately 20 years old. There was previously an older accessory building further to the back of the property. Members asked when it was removed. Mr. Reveruzzi answered that he had moved in about 1973. It was not determined when the older structure had actually been removed.
Mr. Reveruzzi informed the Commission that he was unable to get another replacement door product sheet from the supplier. Staff had requested this for the Commission to review with the application. Mr. Reveruzzi agreed that the door panels are larger than the old door panels, but stated that the materials and design are the same. He noted that the arch at the top of the opening is right under the old header. As nothing structural was changed, there most likely was no need for a building permit.
Commissioner Polaski asked if Mr. Reveruzzi could trim the opening of the right hand door to achieve symmetry with the new door opening. Mr. Reveruzzi stated he could have a carpenter assess that scenario. He felt he could achieve the same shape but was uncertain the opening could be the same height.
Mr. Meyer observed that the main house on the property is one of the oldest in the district. He also reminded the applicant that the roof had been changed without a Certificate of Appropriateness not too many years ago. Mr. Reveruzzi responded that he had acquired a building permit but didn't believe the re-roofing was an issue. He realizes that then and now a certificate would be required for both activities.
Mr. Meyer went on to observe that the doors could have been made to look the same at the time the work was done. Mr. Reveruzzi responded that that was indeed the case, but it would have cost an additional $800 or so to replace the right hand door at the same time. He went on to further say that he believes he can make it look the same from the street. However, it would not be an exact match because of the 4.5 inches difference in height between the two doors.
Mr. Meyer asked why the applicant had not appeared at the last meeting where this issue was discussed. Mr. Reveruzzi responded that staff had told him it was not necessary to attend because of the nature of the proceedings. Staff was unable to remember the particulars without research. (Research later showed that in the letter to the applicants notifying them of the previous meeting (9/16/04) that they did not need to attend as the Commission was merely determining whether or not a certificate would be required. That determination process was continued to the October meeting as well. Additionally, no meetings were held in November or December of 2004.)
Mr. Meyer also asked why Mr. Reveruzzi had not applied for, or at least inquired about, a certificate of appropriateness for the modifications to the garage door. Mr. Reveruzzi again stated his belief at the time was that it wasn't a significant change, but he can now understand the Commission's position.
Mr. Gwozdz felt compelled to mention certain observations. He noted that the whole activity would not have been such issue had the applicant just contacted the town (staff or Commission chair) to confirm what was required. He noted the Commission's main duties and philosophies revolved around the stewardship of the district resources, and that there was a continuous problem with property owners in the district doing things without even asking if a certificate of appropriateness is needed let alone applying for one. Mr. Reveruzzi stated that he agrees with the intentions of the Commission and is happy to see that all owners are being held to the same standards in the district
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Polaski, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to:
1. Remove the southern door of the existing detached, 2-car garage, and;
2. To enlarge the opening as necessary to;
3. Replace the door with a taller door;
All of which is to allow parking a larger-than-normal Sport Utility Vehicle in the southern garage bay.
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 HDC #305, and as shown in any product sheets and site photographs.
Some discussion followed regarding the proposed motion. Mr. Polaski questioned why the door on the right cannot be done the same as the door on the left. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the need to purchase an additional door. Mr. Polaski stated an alternative could be to purchase one panel, the taller panel, so that an entire door would not have to be purchased. The one panel could be installed at the top and that would give the extra space needed. Mr. Polaski felt the present door situation is unbalanced.
Chairman Tatoian stated the suggestion by Mr. Polaski is that the right hand door matches as closely as possible the left hand door in appearance.
The motion was revised by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mrs. Smyth, to include:
1. The facade opening for the northern garage door shall be the same dimensions (shape, height, width) as the new southern one approved under this application, and;
2. The means to accomplish this shall be at the applicant's discretion, whether an additional panel or panels are required or door replacement.
The final shapes of the garage door openings must be the same, and the garage door surfaces (finish) must look the same from the street.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
HDCR - Review files, determinations of need for certificates of appropriateness:
There were none on this agenda
MINUTES
Mrs. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the Minutes of October 27, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Meyer abstained.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Commission received a commentary on the revised “Roberts Rules of Order.” There seemed to be a concern about the original version and Mr. Alsbaugh noted it is up to the Commission whether they want to change to the revised rules. He did not feel these revised rules will significantly affect the present practices of this Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission also received a copy of the Connecticut Preservation News, the Forum Journal and two issues of the Forum News.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed a conference in Wethersfield on Saturday, March 5, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. Three Commission members stated they would attend and other Commissioners will let Mr. Alsbaugh know regarding their attendance.
OTHER
Mr. Meyer brought up the Committee of this Commission that is reviewing the ordinance revisions. Chairman Tatoian stated a meeting was scheduled in January but had to be cancelled because of illness. He saw a need to schedule a Committee meeting for February.
Mr. Meyer stated the Commission previously discussed including Hazardville as a historic district and there was general agreement about this. Mr. Meyer questioned if this is worth pursuing and, if so, how would the Commission do so. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a National Register District and Mr. Meyer is discussing a local district. While this was probably considered at one time, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the level of acceptability was that a National District was acceptable but there were concerns about a local district.
Mr. Meyer stated he is concerned that Enfield is gradually creeping into Hazardville with various development. He would hate to see the intrinsic beauty of Hazardville destroyed by some modern installation. He personally would like to see a local historic district in this area similar to what is in place on Enfield Street. Mr. Meyer asked about the Commission’s reaction to examining this area with the possibility of including it as a historic district in the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there has to be consensus in town between the concerned parties which at this point would be the Town Council. Mr. Meyer agreed this proposal would have to be presented to the Council. Mr. Alsbaugh stated such a district would be created by the Town Council and is a legislative action. However, before they do that, there has to be a consensus to go forward and do the study. Once they do have a consensus, they do have to make a decision on whether to go forward. Such an action may then hinge on the final vote of the property owners. Prior to that, it would go to the State Historical Commission who would decide whether or not an application could be submitted.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this Commission could present a proposal to the Enfield Town Council that such a historic district in Hazardville would be desirable. It would then be up to the Council to address this Commission’s recommendation. The procedure would be a vote by this Commission to bring the matter before the Enfield Town Council.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Town has determined that the best way to go forward with Hazardville is a village overlay zone and they did approve that. When the Planning Department was assisting the consultant in gathering information to make recommendations, the recommendation from Planning was that the entire National Register District that already exists be made a village district. However, it was the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission that it be a phased process and only the properties fronting on Hazard Avenue would be in the village zone at this time.
Mr. Meyer requested that Mr. Alsbaugh review what has to be done by this Commission and present an outline and that this be a discussion item on the next agenda. The Commission agreed with this proposal. Further discussion followed on the controls in place because the area is a National Register District, and the improvements done by the town to Hazardville which included lighting.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the big issue regarding the lighting is whether the DOT will allow the removal of the old lighting in Hazardville because it is a state road.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the process will pretty much be the same as the previous process. The Commission will need to discuss the desirability of a local historic district and the parameters of that local district.
A Subcommittee Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission to discuss ordinance revisions was scheduled for Tuesday, February 8, 2005, in the Planning Office.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Russell, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr |