ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 23, 2008

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, January 23, 2008, in the Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman

Russell Meyer

Nancy Smyth

Marie Troiano

Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

Public Hearings: ONE

HDC #338 Extension of existing covered walkway on south side of 1365 Enfield Street and addition of covered drop-off area, and construction of seasonal screened room on existing concrete patio on north side of 1365 Enfield Street, both for the Felician Adult Day Care. EHDO Section 8

Ben Dion, Dion Construction Plus, Feeding Hills, Massachusetts appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated they are trying to get a covered unloading area for the patrons to come in and unload safely and stay out of the weather. It should be connected to the existing walkway that’s there now. It is going to be of wood construction with 6’ x 6’ posts with everything wrapped in a PVC style for maintenance purposes. There will be three columns proposed and it is going to be right over the drive so that they don’t have to do any asphalt work.

Chairman Tatoian stated this is on the south side and there is already a covered area. Mr. Dion stated there is a covered ramp but when they get dropped off, they get dropped off in the circle area which is out in the elements. The main structure is going to be in the roadway and it is 25’ to 30’ away from the building. The part that they are going to continue is a ramp roof which will work its way over to the roadway covered area. The existing structure that is there will continue until it gets underneath the covered area from the road.

Ms. Troiano asked if it will look like the existing walkway. Mr. Dion stated the walkway is a 24’ x 22’ structure with pillars holding it up. That is going to be the appearance. The existing walkway will be pretty much identical to what is there and that extends to this larger area. It will have the same color shingles so that everything blends together. Right now it’s white aluminum wrapped and this one will be a little fancier with the PVC so it gives it a more wood appearance. Ms. Troiano asked if the structure that the van is going to be parked under will have a top of asphalt. Mr. Dion stated it will be asphalt and the same color shingle. The underneath part will be white PVC.

Ms. Smyth asked if this is visible from Enfield Street. Mr. Dion stated not from the road. Mr. Dion approached the Commission with a picture of the site and showed where the walkway would be located. Some discussion followed regarding the exact location.

Chairman Tatoian stated the covered area is going to be extended. Mr. Dion confirmed it will be by ten or twelve feet.

Ms. Troiano asked when the existing walkway was built. Mr. Dion was unsure of the date of construction.

Mr. Meyer stated according to the sketch, it says a break away barrier. He asked what is a break away barrier. Mr. Dion stated that was listed on the plot plan and they did not remove it. They are not proposing to put the break away barrier there. Mr. Meyer noted the three black lines that indicate break away barrier are not a part of this proposal.

Mr. Meyer stated on the same sketch there is a rectangular block on the blacktop. He asked if that is going to be blocked so that you cannot use that driveway. Mr. Dion stated you will be able to drive underneath it. The posts are going to be on the grass and the road goes right through there so there will still be access.

Mr. Meyer asked if it is Mr. Dion’s intent to extend the road slightly curved to go on to the black top. Mr. Dion stated yes, it will go directly under the overhang which won’t be over the black top. It will be hanging over the grass and that portion won’t be in the road section at all. Mr. Meyer asked about the existing sidewalk and hand rails that are there now. Mr. Dion stated they will chop the hand rails at the bottom and continue the concrete over to the asphalt.

Mr. Meyer pointed out the car in the photograph and noted there is a considerable area to the right of the car. He asked why can’t all this work be done to the right of the car which goes directly into the building through a door which is at the end of this covered walkway. Mr. Dion stated the bottom of the ramp is more to the side and to go to that entrance you actually have to go up stairs. Some of the patients go through there on wheelchairs. So to go up that entrance doesn’t work.

Mr. Meyer stated this ramp shows it coming out the back of the vehicle. Mr. Dion stated the vans are coming out of the back and going over to the front with wheelchairs over to the ramp. They are not taking that side entrance unless they are walking. Mr. Meyer stated the only way they can get there now is by the back ramp through the covered walkway to the back of the building. He asked why can’t this entire operation be done on the right side of where the car is shown which is probably 25’ or 30’ long. Mr. Dion stated they would opt to just return and end up on the ramp which goes directly into the building. They would be putting pillars into the asphalt area and his concern is the posts. They are trying to keep the uprights that hold the roof out of the path of vehicles backing out. Mr. Meyer asked if there is any reason this ramp has to go down to the ground. The covered walkway is on an incline probably two feet high at the entrance. Mr. Dion stated he has not given thought to that part of it. Sometimes people aren’t coming up the ramp but just walking out of the vans. Mr. Meyer stated he would think it would be less expensive to have it go directly into the area off a covered ramp plus the extension being proposed.

Mr. Meyer asked if the ramp from the vehicle has to go to the ground or can it go to any level. Mr. Dion was not sure.

Chairman Tatoian brought up the second request. Mr. Dion stated on the north side of the house there is a patio there now which is approximately 30’ x 16’. He presented a picture of it.

Mr. Dion stated it is a cement floor with railings and the railings will stay. They will put a roof in that section and vinyl screen doors. Some discussion followed regarding location.

Mr. Dion pointed out that residents will come in through a doorway and it will not interfere with the ramp whatsoever. The porch area will be wood construction wrapped with PVC on all the posts and vinyl screen doors. It will be covered with asphalt shingles. There is a hip roof so that you don’t see a big gable. The porch is all white vinyl. The use of this is a screened area to keep the sun off the clients. It is a place where the clients can be outside during the summer months.

Mr. Gwozdz asked what are the posts going to be. Mr. Dion stated 4 x 4 posts. Mr. Gwozdz asked if this will be attached to the building. Mr. Dion stated it will be lagged to the building. Mr. Gwozdz asked if it will be lagged to the brick or to the mortar. Mr. Dion stated probably right into the mortar joints. Mr. Gwozdz requested that be a condition of approval.

Mr. Dion stated where the roof connects to the building there is flashing. Mr. Alsbaugh asked for and received verification that the flashing will step down the brick in the mortar. Mr. Alsbaugh asked about the awning and how it is connected.

Mr. Meyer asked if the addition of the screened porch is visible from Enfield Street. Mr. Dion did not think so unless you walk in a little ways. This is because of the tree line and the distance from the street.

Mr. Gwozdz asked if the asphalt shingles will be in kind to match the existing. Mr. Dion confirmed they would be the same color as on the existing building.

Mr. Alsbaugh commented the northern screen room has relatively low visibility because of the evergreen trees that are there. It will actually be less visible than the drop off area to the south. He noted the drop off area to the south is actually outside of the District and that Mr. Dion has changed the design significantly to provide a closed pediment style and thicker posts with decorative tops and bottoms that is more sympathetic to the Greek Revival design of the front side porches. Although the drop off area is more visible, it is outside the district. The part that is within the district is a portion of proposed walkway extension connecting to the covered walkway that’s already there. What the Sisters have agreed to do is to try to make the drop off area that covers the driveway to be more sympathetic to the Greek Revival columns on the south side of the building. The only other thing to be addressed would be the step flashing of the north side screen porch which has to do with making the mortar the point of contact. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission should be considering that once the awning is removed, will it be used elsewhere on the property in the district. If it is going to be used in the future, it would have to come back to the Commission. Whatever holes are produced in the removal of the awning should be repaired as sympathetically as possible.

Chairman Tatoian stated the construction on the north side is within the Historic District but part of the south side is and part is not. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the first part of the extension of the walkway is. The end of the extension of the walkway and the drop off area are not but the applicants have agreed to try to make it as appropriate as possible to the design reference of the Greek Revival style. According to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards, new additions shouldn’t look exactly like original portions of the building they are being attached to. They should have a life design of their own so that you can always tell that this is not something that was from the same period. The Commission has to judge how far away that reference can be to be appropriate.

Mr. Meyer stated he thought when this district was voted in l972 that there was a jog in the historic district to include the mansion. If it includes the mansion, why does it not include the walkway which is there now and their proposed change which to him would be in the district. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the covered walkway that exists now is within the district but when you actually scale the lines on the official district map to what is being proposed, only a portion of the angled addition is within that 25’. That means only a portion of that extension off to the side is within that 25’.

Mr. Meyer stated the intent of this new proposal is they will have this covered egress area which is west of the existing covered walkway connected to the covered walkway by an angled cover. He questioned why is it not entirely in the district because you are moving west or more into the district. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the drop off area and the southern end of that section are south of the district line. The district line that comes up from Enfield Street scales out to be about 25’ from the south end of the building itself.

Mr. Meyer stated the historic district was jogged to include the mansion. He asked does that mean that the east west line goes immediately adjacent to that house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it goes out 25’ and when you scale out where the extension and addition are being proposed to be located, it is further than 25’. Only a portion of that angled extension is within that 25’. The end of it and the drop off structure itself are outside the 25’. They are south of the district line.

Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience.

Sister Patricia, the Director of the Felician Adult Day Care, stated why they did the construction on the side to put the extension for the clients is they had to put it there because the vans have to come in and go down. It’s an exit and an entrance. Any other side would mean the turning of a van which would not help the clients at all and they are next to another building which is going to be occupied. This is going to be a freestanding area where private cars or vans can use it. Some of the vans open on the side and some open in the back. They did this to accommodate the clients that are either coming off the van on the side or in the back. The van will be totally under this little ramp. The clients’ safety is of utmost importance because it does get icy there. These are elderly people and they have almost been carrying them off the vans for their safety because they have had to walk them in. They do get vans coming from other towns and this has been developed for all vans coming in or private cars. The other part which is the patio is for clients that are debilitated. The screen porch will give them an extension of their fun time in a comfortable area. Right now when they take them out, they have to move them back and forth. The awning is not a sufficient coverage because of the wind. This will give clients more of the outside area. It will not take away from the building itself because the wrought iron and everything will stay. They have no plans to put the awning that is there anywhere else. Sister Patricia stated they love their building and are not going to destroy it in any shape or form to take away the architecture of the mansion.

Mr. Meyer asked Sister Patricia how long t hey have been in operation. Sister Patricia stated they started in 1990. The existing covered walkway was added before they got their certificate of occupancy. That was a requirement of the building code.

Mr. Meyer asked what vehicles have clients in addition to the Felician Sisters vehicles. Sister Patricia stated they have vans coming from Somers, Suffield, Ellington and even ambulances.

Chairman Tatoian closed this public hearing.

Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of an extension of an existing covered walkway on the south side of 1365 Enfield Street as well as the addition of a covered drop-off area, and the construction of a seasonal screen room on the existing concrete patio on the north side of 1365 Enfield Street, both for the Felician Adult Day Care. EHDO Section 8.

All proposed additions are as detailed in the application, elevations, and photographs and as located by the site plan, as submitted by the applicant, and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC #338. Any revisions to the motion and/or conditions, if applied, will be listed below under 'revisions to text'.

Revisions to Text

The following conditions were added to the motion:

1. The flashing and bolts for the screen room shall be attached to the mortar joints of the main structure on the north side of the building.

2. The awning shall be removed and repairs made conducive to the historic structure.

Mr. Meyer stated he has some reservations about this. Despite the fact that the proposal on the south side is technically outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, it is not a matter for discussion. His feeling is they could use the space directly opposite the entrance door of the building. He cannot support the motion and will abstain.

The motion was approved by a 4 – 0- 1 vote. Commissioner Meyer abstained.

Mr. Alsbaugh informed Mr. Dion that the letter of approval will be completed by tomorrow. Once the letter is signed by the Secretary and received by Mr. Dion, he should take that and it will be an approval to go forward to obtain a building permit.

1. HDCR - Review files, determinations of need for certificates of appropriateness: ONE

HDCR2007-004 Report on modification to approved application HDC #337, Felician Sisters, 1365 Enfield Street, Additional activity review of approval to convert the old high school / day care center building into 22 apartments

Mr. Alsbaugh stated what came across his desk was a proposal to add an egress staircase on the north side of the connector structure between the mansion and the building approved for apartments. That was being proposed because there was a building code requirement that once the structure was closed off from the building in the back there had to be a second point of egress for people living on the second floor of the connector. That came in and a quick review was done to see if it was visible from the street. The Chairman concurred that it was not visible because of the dense evergreen vegetation. When Mr. Alsbaugh was looking at the actual pictures of the structure, he did ask for clarification from the architect whether or not it was an option to have that egress on the south side of the building. When he looked at it, it turned out that it actually suited their purposes better for the reconfiguration of the interior. When they decided it would go on the south side, it was not an issue because it was not visible from the street at all.

2. Executive Session – Matters regarding pending litigation, specific employees, acquisition of real estate, and / or matters exempt from disclosure requirements, as needed. The specific reason should be stated for each session.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is no need for Executive Session because the legal issues are closed. There are pending procedural questions. When he reviewed the decision with the Chief Assistant Town Attorney and the Director of Planning, he questioned the actual decision where it was referred back to the trial court. Mr. Alsbaugh asked if we would have to wait for some action by the trial court. They thought at that time that it was not an issue and he could schedule a pro forma action on the agenda approving the original application. There were subsequent questions raised by the new town attorney and they then agreed they had to wait for action or notification from the trial court. Mr. Alsbaugh is still waiting for that. Because there is a new Town Attorney, they wanted to wait until he came on board so that he could participate fully. It was decided to postpone the informational session until Mr. Alsbaugh gets a full report from the Town Attorney’s Office on how to proceed.

Mr. Gwozdz asked about the Supreme Court decision in the Montessori case. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it rules in favor of the appellant and it makes specific mention of referral back to the trial court. In effect, however that process goes, it will come back to the Commission and the Commission will have to approve #301. There was a pertinent email from the attorneys for the Troiano’s noting that the application itself stated they would be removing the front parking lot. Mr. Alsbaugh is unsure how that is going to play out. He assumes the parking lot will be removed but since the Commission never instituted a violation order on that parking lot to begin with, it will probably stay there until some form of construction is begun on the proposals under HDC #301. The Commission does not know where the new building and the parking are at this point. They have to wait and see how that is going to play out. Mr. Alsbaugh stated most of the questions will be answered by the new Town Attorney. They will come and discuss it with the Commission following hearing from the trial court. That will determine how the Commission’s process goes forward. At some point, the Commission will be compelled to approve the application in some form that will be indicated by the Town Attorney. It would not be a public hearing process.

Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the Commission had any questions on the Montessori matter. He suggested the Commission review the decision and discuss it and Mr. Alsbaugh can assist in formulating questions. Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission had some comments from Attorney Chris Bromson which he thought were helpful. He has some suggestions for future meetings where issues are in controversy.

Chairman Tatoian thought the one about if there is a contested hearing of any complexity, the implication is that the Commission should not make a decision at that meeting and formulate a motion in more detail. His other comment that the Commission make a comment on the record that they have heard testimony or comments from the public but they are not necessarily relying on them is a valid point.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he made those two recommendations because even though the Commission did do that and were counseled by Mr. Alsbaugh to do that, they were making decisions based on the statutory requirements. What the town attorney was pointing out was the Supreme Court, he believes, substituted their own judgment for the Commission’s judgment which was wrong or at a minimum debatable. To counter act that sort of thing in the future to make it more clear, that there would then be no point at which the Supreme Court in the future could make that assumption by substituting their decision. Chairman Tatoian stated this is crucial because one of the things that the Supreme Court put great emphasis on was saying that the Commission made a mistake and should not have relied on comments from the audience. Where they came to that conclusion, Chairman Tatoian does not know because the Commission heard as they always do from people that wanted to comment but nowhere did the Commission say that they relied on what people told them as evidence. However, the Supreme Court said they put great emphasis on that and part of the error that the Commission made is they should not have relied on what people said or believed what they said. Chairman Tatoian questioned where in the record does it say that they did. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it doesn’t and that is where the substitution of their judgment over the Commission’s judgment came in.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is a procedural requirement that the Commission hear both sides of opinions. The Commission is being reprimanded for doing what they are required to do. The Supreme Court substituted their judgment saying that the Commission made their decision based on one over the other. That is not what the decision stated. The Commission specifically referenced the statute and what was allowed in the statute to make a decision about. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the front parking lot had nothing to do with the situation. It was simply part of the application. It was not germaine to the decision making process. Chairman Tatoian stated they seemed to put extensive comment on that and he referred to the footnotes in the decision. He doesn’t see in the Commission’s decision where they are basing it on what people said.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he would be very surprised if this doesn’t generate extreme interest on the national level especially with the National Trust. It is completely counter to historic support of Commission decisions and will be a very interesting dialogue.

Chairman Tatoian stated the Commission can discuss this with the Town Attorney.

Mr. Alsbaugh gave an update on the Ingraham violation. The Commission received a comment sheet on what occurred. Mr. Ingraham did file an appearance. Mr. Alsbaugh had not been copied on the letter from Maria to Mr. Ingraham but he has since received it. The Commission also did not receive the letter. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what’s occurred at this point is Mr. Ingraham has not done anything. He has not come to the Commission with any updated plans or proposals. He has talked to Maria about trying to go back to Americare but that doesn’t change any of the requirements of coordinating with the Commission.

Ms. Smyth saw a sign in front of the Ingraham home advertising an apartment for rent. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there has been an apartment upstairs in the back used by his daughter or granddaughter but he was unaware when that happened. Under current zoning, it is not allowed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Alslbaugh stated the Connecticut Trust is bringing forward a new barn grant process. The Trust has been trying to promote the documentation of barns in Connecticut. Mr. Alsbaugh is attempting to put together a program for Enfield because Enfield has many barns. He talked to a gentleman today about a barn that is on Ash Street in Hazardville and he is looking for help. He was able to tell him about this barn grant program. It is an important program because it is available to the private sector. This now will supply grant money for studying and possibly preparing private sector barns. Mr. .Gwozdz would like to see this program brought to the attention of local newspapers. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Connecticut Trust does advertise extensively.

Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the Northgate program. He gave the Commission the print outs of a set of plans that he received in November, 2003. How this came about was kind of back doorish. Northgate was going on from about 1999 and forward and was part of a beautification plan for the entire Enfield Street from the north boundary to High Street. The Northgate section was the first section. When we were doing the design for that, we were talking about pedestrian crossings. When they were talking to the DOT for approval, they said yes to Brightmeadow Boulevard but the one in the middle of that area that they wanted to put in, they would have a metered crossing. Mr. Alsbaugh was advised by the DOT to leave that one out because they are going to be resignaling the entire length of Route 5 in Connecticut. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they did send plans and what is circled on those plans are things that the Commission would have had an interest in had they been kept in the loop. However, there were not. Mr. Alsbaugh doesn’t know why the Commission got dropped from the loop. Had they been kept in the loop, Mr. Alsbaugh would have brought it to the Commission for further discussion and concern. Instead, the poles were going up and they were silver and the Commission was questioning why they were not brought into it. The more Mr. Alsbaugh looked into the question, the more he found out. While they were informed about it because of another project, Mr. Alsbaugh and the Commission were thrown out of the loop.

Mr. Alsbaugh suggested putting together some comments to the Council and the Town Manager that they would like to be informed of these things and that they are allowed by state law to comment on them. The Commission is required to look after the best interests of the Historic District and when the Commission is not in the loop, the town does the Commission a disservice because they can’t do what they are required to do under the law. Chairman Tatoian asked who should have informed Mr. Alsbaugh. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Town Manager’s Office and the Engineering Department. Engineering was getting the information from DOT. Mr. Alsbaugh thought he had made the connection through the Northgate process directly to the DOT and he got a set of the plans copied to him when the DOT sent the project sheets for review by the fire chief. He was in the loop up to that point and then totally out of it from then on. Mr. Alsbaugh discussed Frew Terrace and the need for a crosswalk in that area rather than the pedestrian crossing across Enfield Street. The determination by the previous mayor was that Frew Terrace was not in the Historic District but this is untrue. The district goes past Frew Terrace right up to the right of way on the north side of Mr. Tatoian’s property. Even though one pole is on the northeast corner and not in the district, the rest of it is in the district. Chairman Tatoian suggested the Commission send a letter to the Town Council regarding the design of Frew Terrace and that it is part of the Historic District.

Mr. Meyer requested an action item for next month on why the Commission cannot get the southern district sign replanted.

Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Alsbaugh has given to the Town Attorney the Commission’s new ordinances that were included in a previous meeting packet for the Commission’s review. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was to come back to the Commission again. Mr. Meyer requested this be included in next month’s packet.

Mr. Meyer stated there was discussion about inviting Scott Kaupin to one of the Commission’s meetings to discuss how he got the street lights in Hazardville. Mr. Alsbaugh put that off because he was expecting a large discussion on the Supreme Court decision. He will invite Scott Kaupin and Bill Lee to next month’s meeting.

Approval of Meeting Minutes – October 24, 2007

Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to approve the Minutes of October 24, 2007. Mr. Gwozdz made a correction to those Minutes. On page 8 “Chairman DiPace” should read “Chairman Tatoian.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a unanimous vote.

Adjournment

Mr. Gwozdz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________

Nancy Smyth, Clerk

jmr Enfield Historic District Commission