ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

JULY 25, 2007

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 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

Marie Troiano

Sonja Dean, Alternate

Lillian Troiano, Alternate

Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

PUBLIC HEARINGS

HDC#333: Jason and Amanda Mission, 42 Frew Terrace. Construct patio and walkway, and install a vinyl privacy fence with gates (converted from HDCR #1007-002). EHDO Section 8.

Jason Mission appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Mr. Mission stated the first part of the application is the walkway and patio. He was under the assumption that if it was already there, he could just pick it up and re-lay it. He apologized for not getting the permission first. The reason he pulled the walkway up was because it was under the ground and had completely grown over. The other reason was because if you look at his yard on a rainy day, there is a giant pond in front of his house. Mr. Mission stated he had to lift up the grade of the walkway so that there is proper drainage. The blue stone is something they would like to add from his wife’s grandfather. They will add the blue stone on with the brick edging. The brick was all existing and he added the process to bring it up to grade and the blue stone.

Chairman Tatoian asked if there was a walkway from the house to the garage before. Mr. Mission stated all that brick was existing. He discussed the poor design with the flower box in the area which pushed the water down and in instead of on the sidewalk where it was supposed to go. Mr. Mission put the patio to the right of the flower box and turned it a little bit for grading purposes. There was a walkway from the garage to the front of the house and it was brick.

Mr. Mission stated the walkway was the existing brick. He used to be in landscaping so he knew exactly how to do this. The soil and grass had grown over and was starting to erode into the brick. He ripped it all up and went through it brick by brick to determine which bricks to keep. He brought in the proper stone material to re-lay it so that it wouldn’t sink back into the ground.

Chairman Tatoian asked if he built the patio. Mr. Mission stated for the patio he took some material that he had left over. He had to bring it up a little bit. It is a little bit higher than the surrounding ground by it and this is to make sure the water distributed properly.

Chairman Tatoian stated the other part of this application is the fence proposed.

Mr. Mission stated he has two girls and another on the way. Route 5 is a little busy and there are a lot of people coming by. He would like the fence for his girl’s safety. He doesn’t want to completely fence in his yard but it is just that end piece right on Route 5 and he would like to gate the yard. If his girls are outside playing, he can shut the gate and it would give him more piece of mind. Another reason for the fence is aesthetics. The bushes that are there now due to the shade of the trees are not as thick. He thinks the fence would look much better than bushes struggling to survive in the shade of the large maple tree.

Chairman Tatoian stated the fence is proposed with a gate on Enfield Street and the fence coming around Frew Terrace. He asked if the shrubbery would be removed.

Mr. Mission stated the fence is proposed to be in front of the shrubbery. He is not planning to remove the shrubbery.

Chairman Tatoian stated with the driveway, there would be a gate in front of that and the fence would be on the corner of Enfield Street and Frew Terrace. He asked how many feet it would extend. Mr. Mission stated it would be to the first electrical pole or twenty to twenty-five feet. In the shade of the tree, the bushes get very nice and at that point the shrubbery gets scarce. That is where he would like to start it.

Chairman Tatoian asked if the driveway gate would remain open. Mr. Mission stated it would be open and it would be closed when the girls are playing. It is a little extra safety step.

Chairman Tatoian stated the fence is proposed to be vinyl with a vinyl gate. Mr. Mission stated the vinyl has a grain paneling texture to it. There is a picture showing the gate.

Chairman Tatoian asked what is the height of the fence. Mr. Mission stated six feet. It is 6 x 6’ panels with cut lines to give it the appearance of a planked fence.

Chairman Tatoian asked about the length of the fence along Enfield Street. Mr. Mission stated it would be thirty to fifty feet. It would be at the corner of where the sidewalk comes. It would be to one side of his driveway, then a gate, then the fence down to the corner of his lot. Chairman Tatoian stated that would be about thirty feet to the corner. From the end of that to the gate, there would be only shrubbery.

Mr. Mission stated the gate would be set in and not right up against the sidewalk. The shrubs take a turn and he would set it more on the end so they can access his mailbox. The gate would be right at the end of where the shrubbery is.

Chairman Tatoian asked about the caps. Mr. Mission stated on each post you have to get a sleeve and he would like to put copper capping on every post. The distance between the caps is six feet.

Ms. Dean had a question about putting a structure in the right of way. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he would help them submit the application to the state.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the fence would have the board across the top or the slightly rounded boards. Mr. Mission stated it would have the board across the top. He showed the photocopy which is the Princeton paneling.

Ms. Marie Troiano asked if the fence could be put behind the shrubbery. She felt this would look better. Mr. Mission stated they thought about that. The only thing they run into is the giant maple tree. It would have to be a ways back so that you go behind the maple tree or it would have to be in front of it. He could stop it but it is really hard to put in two posts next to a hundred year old maple. He noted it would look better but it would be hard to do. He would rather go in front of the maple so as not to cut into his yard.

Mr. Meyer asked the age of the house. Mr. Mission stated it was built in 1904.

Mr. Meyer stated the proposal is to put in a plastic fence for a house built in 1904. Mr. Meyer did not feel this was appropriate. He would like to see a wood fence which is more appropriate to the age of the house.

Mr. Mission stated he looked at it from a maintenance and cost saving point of view. The vinyl will not have an appearance of plastic. Their goal is to find a fence that fits. Regarding the cost difference, wood is a little more expensive per panel. Then you would have to paint it every few years. Mr. Meyer suggested cedar or pine fencing so that it ages with the property. Mr. Mission stated they would like the fence to match their house. They have a white garage, a white house and they would like to continue with the white theme so that it matches.

Mr. Mission added the house is aluminum sided in white. He didn’t think the wood would really match his house.

Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Mission indicated he was not sure what kind of caps would be on top of the posts. Mr. Mission stated he would like the copper caps.

Ms. Dean questioned the date of the house and wondered if that was the house that was moved. It has a concrete block basement. There was a house on the Frew parcel that was moved in 1910 or 1911 to the north and put on a concrete foundation. Mr. Mission stated he hasn’t done that much research concerning his house. He has only lived here a year.

Ms. Marie Troiano asked if Mr. Mission looked into a fence that had more open slats. To her, this style of fence looks like such a barrier wall. It would look better if it was more of an open slat fence. Mr. Mission stated he did look at them. They make a similar fence with a gap in between it. His ultimate goal is to keep the girls in. The proposal is the look Mr. Mission likes.

Chairman Tatoian stated his understanding is originally this property was all part of a farm which was purchased. The original land grant was in 1690 and there was a house that was on the property at 1106 Enfield Street. That property was part of the original grant and it went with thirty acres from the highway to the Connecticut River. Then later in the early 1900’s the property Mr. Mission lives on was separated from it. The house that was on the property at 1106 Enfield Street was moved next door. The house was built about 1750. It was moved and later demolished when they put in Route 190.

Ms. Dean stated her home was built in 1910. She discussed records that are available at the Historical Society which show the Frew track and how it was subdivided and the dates that all the homes were built.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience.

Colleen Cross, 1116 Enfield Street, an abutting neighbor, stated she agreed the sidewalk was there. She agrees there is a safety issue with the girls. Something should be done for the girls. She hopes the Commission will agree to the fence even if it is inside.

Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.

Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove, re-grade, and replace an existing brick walk way, to install a blue stone stepping path and 11’ x 12’ brick-edged blue stone patio, and to construct a vinyl tongue & groove privacy fence with 4” x 4” posts with copper caps and driveway and front pedestrian gates.

Such material(s) and product(s) 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 #333, and as shown on any site plans, in any product sheets or sight photographs, in any elevations, and per any samples as displayed during the above mentioned public hearing.

Ms. Dean stated she has concerns about any kinds of vinyl fencing and how it will reflect the light. She acknowledged the safety factor and noted the halfway house in the area. She also noted the vandalism that has occurred on her property.

Mr. Mission stated his children are six and a year and a half and they are important to him. Ms. Dean felt it was important to find an appropriate fence for this type of an application. She also felt that any opportunity to have a fence shielded by greenery would be beneficial to the district.

Chairman Tatoian noted the fence is proposed to be in front of the greenery. Mr. Mission stated the reason for this is you can’t put a fence in front of a large tree. Ms. Marie Troiano asked if he could do a cut out and go around the tree. Mr. Mission stated it could be done but his daughter has a swing in the area.

Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if Mr. Mission should go to the other side of the tree towards his house, how many feet from the sidewalk to where he is putting the fence would there be. Mr. Alsbaugh stated with a large maple tree, you would be in at least twenty feet. Mr. Mission stated such a proposal would cut into his yard considerably.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if there are shrubs along Enfield Street. Mr. Mission stated there is a six-foot hedge row.

Mr. Alsbaugh suggested to the Commission to see if there is any possibility of stepping the fence back a little bit and see if there is space to put in some greenery. If the boxwood shrubs that are there are six feet tall, you will not be able to cut them back to where they will fill in no matter where the fence is. At this point, it might be beneficial to allow Mr. Mission to take the shrubs out at least along Enfield Street and put the fence back a little way. In this way, you could put some arborvitae in front of it to give some relief to the barrier wall and still give Mr. Mission the room to work with where he doesn’t lose twenty feet of his yard.

Mr. Meyer stated the public hearing has been closed. He is not in favor of a plastic fence in front of a 1904 house. Fences of that era were never painted and they were basic wood. If it comes to a vote, Mr. Meyer would not support it. If there are other questions that are significant like moving the fence, then perhaps Mr. Mission should come back with a new plan. As far as halfway houses or other considerations, they are not part of this application. Mr. Meyer cannot support the fence the way it has been proposed.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has made their motion and they have the authority to revise or change anything that they want.

Mr. Mission stated he doesn’t see many aged cedar fences along Route 5 but he sees a lot of vinyl fences. He gets his ideas from other houses and everyone around him has white fences and vinyl fences.

Ms. Dean discussed privacy fences and the fact that there was not a need for them when these homes were originally built. With the changes in life styles today, people are more accepting and wanting of such fencing. It is a challenge to the Commission to get some type of a privacy fencing but doing it in the context where there isn’t a historic precedent.

Mr. Meyer stated he has no problem with a fence. He felt the Commission has to look at it from a historic standpoint and whether it adds anything to the district. His feeling is if the fence is plastic, it is not appropriate and it should be wood.

Ms. Smyth agreed that a fence is needed. She is not sure she likes this particular fence. There are other homes on Enfield Street that have vinyl fencing. One up the street has a picket fence. However, to Ms. Smyth, the fence proposed looks like a barricade. She would be more in favor of a picket type fence.

Mr. Mission stated a picket fence does not do a whole lot for privacy. He is trying to deter people from entering his property.

Ms. Lillian Troiano stated she would prefer a different type of fence with some greenery in the front. She did see a need for the privacy for his children.

Mr. Mission stated he would come back with an alternate proposal.

Mr. Gwozdz saw a need for a plan showing the exact fence and where it will be located. The Commission would like to see a plain view of the property and where it sits on Enfield Street. Mr. Gwozdz suggested voting on everything but the fence. Mr. Alsbaugh will work with Mr. Mission regarding the fence.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the fence change should be advertised again as a separate public hearing. Some discussion followed on whether to schedule a special meeting. Regarding which alternate would vote, Chairman Tatoian stated it would be whoever is available. It is treated like a new meeting.

Mr. Mission stated the Commission wants him to provide a plan as if a helicopter is over his house and show what it would be drawn out to spec with measurements. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would be a site plan. Mr. Mission stated he will also bring some pictures that are not photocopies so that the Commission can see the texture of the proposed fencing.

Mr. Alsbaugh will get back to the Commission regarding a special meeting.

Mr. Mission asked if he could cut around the tree towards Enfield Street and then come back in. The tree would still be in his yard but the fence would be set back and he can put greenery in front of it. Around the tree, it might not have deep fence posts but he can put braces in. Ms. Marie Troiano stated her concern was not having it look like a barricade.

Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Mission should come back with where the fence is going to be and an alternate material and work it out with Mr. Alsbaugh. When the fence proposal is ready, Mr. Alsbaugh will notify the Commission and they will discuss it. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if another public hearing is necessary, it should be scheduled in the evening.

During the discussion, the motion was revised to approve only the patio and walk way. The fence was denied and will return, with revised plans and materials and with the assistance of Commission staff, under HDC #334 at a public hearing at a date to be determined. The motion, as revised, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.

The reasons for approval of the walk way and patio are: 1) the materials (blue stone and brick) are appropriate for the project and the property, and; 2) the grading and design address serious drainage flaws previously existing. The reasons for denial of the fencing are: 1) the prominence of the location would highlight the inappropriate finish of the vinyl products, and; 2) the barrier-like presentation of the fence design along Enfield Street, unbroken by any ameliorating vegetation, would produce an unacceptable negative visual impact.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Meyer stated he talked to Mr. Alsbaugh about the Roger Ingraham situation. He asked that Mr. Alsbaugh give an update to the Commission. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he finally got a response from his boss and the Town Attorney’s Office. They have a first draft of the summons to go to Superior Court. They are making major edits to this summons and Mr. Alsbaugh expects to have those by tomorrow. He will make the first draft available to the Commission at their next meeting. Further discussion followed.

Chairman Tatoian asked about the status of the Montessori School. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the State Supreme Court has taken an interest in the case. Chairman Tatoian noted in reading the material that they are transferring this case from the Appellate Court to the State Supreme Court of Connecticut. Further discussion followed.

Mr. Meyer stated the Commission has been watching three homes in the district: the Ingraham’s, Fire Chief Richards’ house and the white house south of the Town Hall museum. He noted the Richards’ house is being worked on and he is pleased to see this.

Ms. Marie Troiano brought up the home across from Tony’s store which is in deteriorating condition. Mr. Meyer stated this is the old Ingraham house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they came in for a roofing approval a couple of years ago. The Commission cannot legislate condition. Further discussion followed about the possibility of a demolition by neglect ordinance.

Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to add HDC#317 to the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously.

HDC#317 – Request to modify a previous approval for a fence at 1120 Enfield Street – Perry Cook and Sonja Dean, Owners

Mr. Alsbaugh stated what was approved previously is the tongue and groove vinyl fence with a cross board across the top and the bottom for Perry Cook and Sonja Dean. What they would like to do is a dog eared wood fence instead.

Ms. Sonja Dean appeared before the Commission regarding this modification. The initial issue was they were looking for some type of a privacy fence because they have some challenges with the neighbors behind them. They looked long and hard to find a vinyl fence that looked like wood but were not able to find one. Ms. Dean discussed other fence possibilities that were in the $10,000 range. They are looking at a lot of options. Ms. Dean noted because privacy fences were not around at the time this house was built, it didn’t seem like there were a lot of options available. The options were vinyl or wood and the only options were either stockade, dog ear or the traditional board and batten. The wood fencing that would match the more formal style is expensive and in the $15,000 to $20,000 range. She discussed the problems with the neighbors and the fact that they don’t expect the fence to last more than a few years. They want something that looks nice but not something unusually expensive.

Ms. Dean stated the revised proposal is using the same exact fence poles that they have now and boxing them in with wood and having the bad side in the same as the other proposal.

Mr. Meyer asked the difference between what is being proposed and what was approved. Ms. Dean stated what had been approved was white and instead of having the boards across the top, they are proposing a dog ear-type top. This is a straight board with a curve along the top of each individual board. The original proposal was for boards with a flat rail across the top of them and end caps on the posts. The new fence is wood. It would not have any visible posts and it would not have any type of top cross board. It is as shown in the photograph presented.

Ms. Dean stated part of the problem is there is an existing chain link fence. They want to use the existing posts from the chain link fence because they do not want to get into a dispute with the neighbor who lives behind them over property lines or anything else.

Ms. Dean stated the existing fence attaches to the very back of the house and extends around in a box to enclose the entire back yard. On the north side of the house, there is a gate but you don’t see the left hand side. The right hand side is obscured by bushes that are on the outside of the fence. There is a long stretch of it that runs along both sides of the property going back and then it runs along the complete back. You cannot see the whole thing because the garage blocks it.

Mr. Meyer stated Ms. Dean is only replacing the existing fence that was approved with a new fence in the same location. Ms. Dean confirmed that to be the case. The material and style would be different. The wood has a stain on it to make it cedar looking.

Mr. Gwozdz asked how much of the fence is facing Enfield Street. His concern is the barricade look. Ms. Dean stated when you are driving south on Enfield Street, if you look in the right place, you can see the bushes and you can see the fence going diagonally between the two houses. It is not a huge expanse and it is not that visible. On the other side, the biggest concern is the driveway. That span is shaded by trees on one side and the house on the other. If you look at the right point, you see the fence completely as a gate covering the driveway. Ms. Dean stated she would be open to suggestions as to what to do or even if they should close that off. Right now, if you drive by, there is a lovely view of her car sitting there right next to the garage. They would for the purposes of this application leave that whole section off and pursue it at a later date.

Mr. Meyer reiterated that Ms. Dean is doing nothing more than changing the style and material but not the location that the Commission approved previously. Ms. Dean confirmed that to be correct.

Mr. Gwozdz asked if something could be done to the front to give it that fence post look. Ms. Dean stated what she would propose now is to do the perimeter fence and not the gates themselves. Leave the gates off until they can figure out how to use the materials to make something that would be more appropriate.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the expanse Mr. Gwozdz is concerned about is the width of the driveway. You have to have at least four posts there to support the gate structure. You have to have a small section of fence next to the house and another post to join the gates for a small section of fencing on the side. If you are putting the fence across there, there is no reason why you can’t box fake posts where the regular posts are going to be. This would break up the facade.

Ms. Dean stated it is such a small span, less then twelve feet. The other consideration is the brick work planters. From the road, you only see the top two-thirds of the fence on one side, you see the whole part that’s in the driveway and the rest of it has a bow window in front of it.

Ms. Dean stated what she would like to do is come back before the Commission to decide what to do with the gate itself but do the rest of the fence.

Mr. Meyer asked if Ms. Dean wants the Commission to allow a modification to change to wood in a different style. Any other changes cannot be considered unless Ms. Dean wants to come back with a separate application.

Ms. Dean stated they are not going to change the location because they are going to use the existing fence posts.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience.

Colleen Cross stated she has no problem with this fence.

Ms. Smyth made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the modifications to HDC#317 as proposed. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lillian Troiano voting.

MINUTES

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the Minutes of June 27, 2007. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Dean voting.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Colleen Cross, 1116 Enfield Street, brought up the State of Connecticut’s lighting that went into the Historic District. No one likes them. The Commission had no say in the matter but they are ugly and don’t belong in a historic district. They were told that all the lights would at least be painted black within the Historic District. Now, Ms. Cross looks out her window and sees those awful lights at the intersection. They are still silver. She emailed the Town Manager, the Mayor and Mr. Alsbaugh. She asked that the lights be painted black. The final response she received was the opinion of the Mayor that the light poles are not within the Historic District. Ms. Cross’ response was they are clearly within the Historic District. Her home is the third house in the historic district. It is the gateway to the historic district and the lights are ugly. She doesn’t know where to go from here. She would feel better if they were painted black but they don’t make her happy. She doesn’t understand why they would be that much more expensive. The State of Connecticut has been arrogant in making these changes without any regard to an area. She bought property in the historic district hoping that in twenty years down the road the district would look very similar to what it looked like at the time she purchased her home.

Mr. Meyer discussed the installation of colonial lights in the Hazardville District. He asked why can’t the lights located in Hazardville also be installed on Enfield Street.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked that the Commission focus on this specific issue - the traffic lights that were changed and the signalization that was done all along Route 5. Ms. Dean stated the Commission should also discuss the large refrigerator-like signalization boxes that were installed in connection with the lights.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked Ms. Cross if her involvement and discussion originated with the Beautification Committee. Ms. Cross stated the Beautification Committee has not discussed the lighting formally.

Ms. Cross stated it is her understanding that they have painted all the other lights black except the one she has described.

Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that a letter be drafted under the Chairman’s signature to the Town Council through the Town Manager’s Office indicating the Commission’s dissatisfaction with the way the traffic lights and attendant mechanical boxes have been installed in the Enfield Historic District.

Mr. Gwozdz would like any letter sent to include that the area Ms. Cross is referring to is part of the Historic District. Chairman Tatoian confirmed the Historic District starts at the 190 bridge. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it starts at Mr. Tatoian’s northern boundary on the west side, crosses and goes down to the south boundary of the 190 right of way. But the box includes the Route 5 right of way.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will include all the documents in the street light file in the letter.

Mr. Meyer asked if there is any movement in replacing the south sign to the District. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he has not heard anything from the Town Manager’s Office. He will include this in the letter to the Town Manager.

Mr. Meyer noted the need to schedule another subcommittee meeting on the ordinances. Mr. Alsbaugh will schedule such a meeting and let the Commission know the date.

Mr. Alsbaugh presented pictures of the Cook-Dean property at 1120 Enfield Street and the garage restoration.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Lillian Troiano, Acting Clerk

Enfield Historic District Commission

jmr