ENFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Historic District Commission was held on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 in the Town Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Richard Tatoian called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Richard Tatoian, Chairman
Russell Meyer
Roman Polaski
Nancy Smyth
Marie Troiano
Lillian Troiano, Alternate
Raymond Gwozdz, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
HDC#341 – Request for 22 replacement windows, Martha A. Parsons Memorial Trust, 1387 Enfield Street. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Meyer recused himself from this public hearing because he is a member of the Martha A. Parsons Memorial Trust. He would like to comment that if replacement glass is needed, there is a lot of old glass that he has access to which is of period age.
Richard O’Brien, Chairman of the Martha A. Parsons Memorial Trust, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They maintain the Martha A. Parsons House Museum at 1387 Enfield Street. The building is really in two sections. The colonial section is the original section built in 1782 and it is in the front. There is an apartment in the back which is twentieth century that is not really a part of this discussion. They are applying for permission to replace all of the windows in the colonial part of the house. They total 19 windows if you exclude the back of the house. There are five more in the back for a total of 24 windows.
Mr. O’Brien noted the part that is in danger right now is the north side. There is some bad rot there and the windows are in need of replacement. There are a few windows on the Enfield Street side on the dining room which is the southern part of the west side of the house on the first floor. A total of six windows need replacement right away and the others will be replaced over the next few years.
Mr. O’Brien presented a letter to the Commission from Stephen Marshall who has done much of the restoration work. He did all of the work on the exterior of their property at 12 Post Office Road. They did also redo all the windows over at that house this past year. The glass is going to be reused as possible. They do have a lot of replacement glass and Mr. O’Brien has all the glass from the Hazard Institute. Whatever glass they do have to replace will definitely be antique glass.
Mr. O’Brien stated they are proposing to use Spanish cedar which is a rot resistant mahogany as opposed to the original pine. The old pine that was used in eighteenth century houses was much more durable than what you can get right now. It is also important to note that the windows that they are replacing are twentieth century windows. As far as he can figure out, they were replaced when Martha Parsons actually occupied the home. Nothing has been replaced window wise since the Trust took over which would be in the 1960’s. The existing windows are at least fifty years old.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the existing windows are pine. Mr. O’Brien stated they are pine and they have not held up well. He thinks they are at least fifty years old.
Chairman Tatoian asked if when the windows were replaced in the 1950’s it was a replacement of the original windows. Mr. O’Brien did not know. One problem is central heating. Before there was central heating or before 1910, windows held up much better because the inside of the house wasn’t so warm during the winter. There were some sort of storm windows on the exterior of the house. Right now they are using plexiglass on the inside and they find it is very efficient. It doesn’t show from the outside.
Chairman Tatoian asked if when the windows were put in last time if they used antique glass. Mr. O’Brien stated they replicated the original windows and used antique glass. Mr. O’Brien stated it is a possibility that the original glass of the house was used in the first replacement of these windows. They are twelve over twelve windows and definitely are replicas of what would have been there originally.
Chairman Tatoian asked if putting in new windows there is the possibility of some of the panes being damaged. Mr. O’Brien responded very few. There are a few panes that are broken right now but they have an abundance of old glass. The intention is to use the antique glass in the new windows. As each window is taken out, the opening will be covered with plywood. The old window will be brought to Steve Marshall’s shop. He will have the frame ready and he will take out the old glass and put it into the new windows. Mr. O’Brien will make sure he has a good supply of the glass they want to use.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the intent is to do the Enfield Street part first. Mr. O’Brien stated they will do the north side which is the driveway side and a few windows in the dining room on the Enfield Street side. Ultimately, they will have to do all the windows.
Chairman Tatoian asked when the apartment to the rear of the house was added. Mr. O’Brien stated it was done around 1970. There has always been some sort of lean to back there. When Martha Parsons was living, she had her kitchen back there. The apartment was totally rebuilt once the Trust took over the property. It is occupied by two residents.
Ms. Lillian Troiano asked how long this project will take. Mr. O’Brien would like to say before winter but the project will start right away. It is then up to them as to whether they want the others done.
Chairman Tatoian opened this hearing to the audience.
Russell Meyer stated he has two questions. He is not involved financially at all except from a cursory point of view. Whenever you do windows there is a chance when you take the sash out there may be damage done to the side jams. He wondered if the application should be expanded to include any damage done to the framing that supports the windows. Secondly, the photographs the Commission was given indicate that the windows do not look like the windows of today. They look like pins or nails in the sash. He wondered if the Commission would require that the windows in repair look like the window photographs that the Commission has in front of them.
Chairman Tatoian asked what is Mr. Meyer’s point in regard to the possibility of some damage to the window frame. Mr. Meyer stated his point is when you take out a frame from an old house and the frame is in bad shape, the side jams or the upper and lower jams may also be damaged and have to be repaired. That is not included in this application. He suggested the approval be extended to include repair to the side jams or any other supporting structures of the sash. Otherwise, if there is damage done to those, then the Trust will have to come back for additional approvals.
Mr. O’Brien stated that is covered in the last paragraph of Mr. Marshall’s letter. Mr. Polaski felt the way the application was worded would cover the window frames.
Mr. O’Brien stated their cost will be more than what is stated because they will also require finished painting on the windows.
Mr. Polaski stated the nails would have been wood pegs. Mr. Alsbaugh stated most of the windows have the peg pattern on the bottom rail of the upper sash. Mr. Polaski stated those pegs would be used to hold the mullions in place. He has never seen them so pronounced and noted they are normally hidden. Mr. O’Brien stated it is his understanding they were affected by the weather.
Mr. Meyer would like all the bases covered to avoid having to come back for an additional request.
Mr. Polaski made a motion, seconded by Ms. Lillian Troiano, to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing windows in the main body of the structure, and replace them, in kind, with Spanish cedar reproduction 12 over 12 sash windows and other as existing at present, at 1162 Enfield Street – EHDO Section 8.
All proposed work is to include replacement parts as shown and discussed, as detailed in any samples or sample sheets submitted to the application file, per any elevations and any photographs submitted, and as discussed in the public hearing under HDC#341.
Mr. Gwozdz stated he has no problem with the motion. They are going out of their way to replace in kind what exists. He thinks they are keeping the historic nature as close as is possible and he has no problem accepting this.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Raymond Gwozdz voting.
The reasons for approval are the proposed alterations are in keeping with the character of the house and also are appropriate in the sense that they are in keeping with the surrounding properties. They are a replication of what was originally in the house. Both the materials and design are appropriate.
HDC#342 – Initiative of the Enfield Historic District Commission to adopt Guidelines for the Enfield Local Historic District. EHDO Section 8.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the intent is to begin the public hearing process so that the Commission can formally create their guidelines for the local historic district. The actual formatting of the Suffield Handbook is taking longer than anticipated because there is so much that needs to be modified within the document itself to apply to the Enfield District. The biggest time lag is doing the history and the architecture and then inserting the photographic documentation.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he would like to go through the Suffield document so that he can get the Commission’s input on how the document itself should be modified.
Mr. Alsbaugh referred to the title page which will be an appropriate design for the Enfield Historic District. The next page is a letter to the property owners. Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the Enfield Commission would want to make this a permanent part of the document or should it be a cover letter to go out with the mailing of the document to all the property owners.
Chairman Tatoian likes the idea of just incorporating that letter as part of the handbook. It documents that it was sent out to property owners. The only suggestion he would have regarding the cover letter is maybe to have the date on it.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he is not sure if it is particularly important to include the date because the date of the main document is going to be associated with its effective date.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there is any reference in the main document as to when it was adopted. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the title page that the Commission will eventually get will include the adopted date and the eventual effective date.
Mr. Alsbaugh reviewed the table of contents of the Suffield document.
Mr. Meyer stated he would like to see something relative to Enfield and its historic past rather than Suffield and its historic past. It seems to him this is an Enfield document. Mr. Alsbaugh stated nothing in the Suffield document will be in the Enfield document. He is going over the Suffield document to look at its format, not its content, to see how the Commission wants the format of the Suffield document to be reflected in the Enfield document. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the history has changed and there is a discourse on the architecture.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has opened the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing which can be held over many meetings is to have it open to the public as the Commission is going through the process.
Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Alsbaugh was requested to feather into the Suffield document the essence of what the Commission has discussed for the last thirteen years.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the paperwork before the Commission includes those items. The sections that the Commission stated to feather it into was pages 15 and 16 but that is probably not the area where they should go in. This is part of the reason why Mr. Alsbaugh wanted to review it with the Commission tonight – to point out the area for the location where he thinks it is appropriate.
Mr. Meyer asked if there is anything in the document which indicates what has been discussed in the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Alsbaugh stated all the Commission is doing with the Suffield document is going over the formatting to see whether or not this is how it should be.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the documents before the Commission are the Suffield document, a page of items not requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness, pages 15 and 16 for comparison, and a three-page section 9 and section 14 amendments to the Enfield Ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the ordinance needs to be amended in certain areas. Some of the things that are being put in the guidelines also become law under the ordinance.
Chairman Tatoian stated when a completed handbook is adopted the ordinance included would be Enfield’s.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked that he be allowed to review the Suffield document for formatting. He can then email the Commission the document and they can look at it and by the next public hearing the Commission may be prepared to take a vote. That is unless the Commission decides there is something they want to continue the public hearing for. Mr. Alsbaugh saw a need for at least two more sessions. One session would be to discuss the document and the second session to vote on the document.
Chairman Tatoian asked if the Commission adopts a handbook after the public hearing, does the Council have to act. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Council does not have to consider guidelines. Under the statutes, the Commission is allowed to do that themselves. There are particular things that the Commission wants to include in the guidelines that will require them to look at certain things by an amendment to the ordinance itself.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Council would have to be on board because of such items as car sales. To put the items not requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness into law helps also. Chairman Tatoian asked how that would be presented to the Council. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would be presented as a request for an amendment to the ordinance. This would be at a minimum Section 9 and adding Section C which states any change or proposed work to the exterior of any structure shall be reviewed by the Commission staff of the Planning Office under Historic District Commission review to determine if a Certificate of Appropriateness is required and to allow tracking of activities within the district if a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required. This was to get the tracking information the Commission wanted if something did not require a Certificate. To do this legally means amending the ordinance and having it in the ordinance so that the Commission can accomplish that.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the second one is Section 14, Exempted Acts. This is where the Commission places all the things that they want to have where legally they do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness. They can be included in the guidelines but really should also be included in the ordinance to make it a legal process.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission can create guidelines. The things that do not need a certificate are a legal issue. The Commission wants to incorporate that into their legal document or their ordinance.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is important for the Commission’s process to be open to the public. Mr. Alsbaugh again stated he would like to review the Suffield document to get the Commission’s opinions regarding formatting. The content will be changed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next section of the Suffield document is a history of Suffield. What Mr. Alsbaugh has in mind for Enfield is more of a discussion of the development of the architectural and design particulars of the district. He would take this information from the nomination packet that was approved by the state and federal government. The history of Enfield is going to be more in relation to the history of how the architecture and design developed within the district. In the guidelines, it is more important to explain to the residents what is the history of the design and architecture within the district and how did it develop over the centuries.
In response to a question from Mr. Gwozdz, Mr. Alsbaugh stated there will be visuals and there will be a glossary within the guidelines so that people can get the basics.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next section of the Suffield document is directly from the nomination application form. He will be transferring Enfield’s data to this location. The formatting will be slightly different. The map is next and Mr. Alsbaugh has a question. He can reproduce Enfield’s map to a one page size but he thinks it would be important to include a disclaimer on the page that because it compresses such an extensive distance that the accuracy should be taken into consideration. Mr. Meyer asked if there will be a scale with the map. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there will be a scale but when you compress a two mile district into one page this size, the accuracy becomes irrelevant.
Mr. Meyer noted Enfield Street does not have a common width. Mr. Alsbaugh stated Enfield’s will reflect what the actual verbal description says – 250’ or the back line whichever is less. Then there are particular call outs and one is to include the 500’ to include the Orin Thompson House and the building behind it. It also includes the two farms at the south end of Oliver Road and Old King Street. There are a number of other distances which are called out. Those will be shown on the map also.
Mr. Meyer discussed the map of Suffield and noted it is his understanding that the Enfield Historic District does not include Route 5. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has already made the determination that it is their opinion that it does include the right of way on Route 5. The written description is intended to indicate the extent of the outside boundary and that the boundary itself encompasses the right of way.
Mr. Meyer stated anything that the Commission does must include the state right of way plus the outer boundaries. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a state statute that says anything within the right of way has to have an encroachment permit. Mr. Meyer is in full agreement as long as the public understands that. He thinks Mr. Alsbaugh will get some challenges.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next section of the Suffield document is the Overview. He thinks the most important thing here is the bold print which expresses the purpose of the ordinance. He thinks that should be replicated to a degree in the Enfield document and we should also incorporate something that references the guidelines in particular. The reference should indicate something about educating the public and the property owners in particular and to provide them with the means to make determinations of what is or is not required within the District as far as a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next section is where items of ordinary maintenance and repair that do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness should be blended in rather than on pages 15 and 16. There were a couple of things that Mr. Meyer wanted to add to this and one of them in particular was the issue regarding car sales.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding vehicles for sale. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the general consensus of the Commission was if it is going to be allowed, it should be within the driveway of the house and close to the house rather than on the front lawn or in the right of way.
Mr. Meyer felt it should be equal to or behind the setback of a particular house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission was heading towards recreational vehicles that have to be kept behind the front line of the main structure. He doesn’t know if there was a complete consensus on that restriction. He would like a verification of that from the Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated in the subcommittee meetings, the Commission was inclined to have such sales on the driveway or directly abutting the driveway. Mr. Meyer’s concern is to tighten it up equal to the setback of the particular house so that it has to be behind a line which runs in front of the house. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is what the Commission was heading towards in their subcommittee discussions – to change the wording of what’s in the Suffield document to reflect the subcommittee consensus that the wording be tightened up to indicate behind the front line of the house.
Mr. Meyer discussed particular motor vehicles and stated there will be someone that will say what they are selling is not defined in the guidelines. Mr. Alsbaugh stated if you say motor vehicle in the State of Connecticut, it includes trailers, ATV’s, recreational vehicles, cars and trucks. Where the Commission will have an issue is what if someone drags up a canoe not on a trailer and puts it out on the front lawn for sale.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission did have particular problems that were zoning problems where people were illegally selling motor vehicles out of houses.
Mr. Meyer asked if it would be beneficial to say anything that’s defined under the motor vehicle regulations of the State of Connecticut is not permitted. He brought up the possibility of a hand glider and asked if that would be considered a motor vehicle.
Chairman Tatoian suggested saying parking of motor vehicles, watercraft or aircraft. Those situations are rather remote but if the Commission feels they don’t want canoes or kayaks, the words watercraft or aircraft would cover the concerns.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the State of Connecticut motor vehicle definition would be sufficient.
Mr. Meyer asked if all the vehicles would be covered by the state definition. Mr. Alsbaugh stated they would be. Mr. Meyer suggested saying everything that’s covered under the Connecticut Motor Vehicle registration requirements is not permitted.
Chairman Tatoian stated if you do that and someone has a trailer that is not registered, then they will be exempt. He thought it would be better to keep the definition broad.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated under the Motor Vehicle Statutes it includes trailers whether registered or not registered.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the issue of a canoe or kayak bothers the Commission and is it something that the Commission would like to prevent people from selling. It is not unheard of for people to illegally have many cars at one location.
Following further discussion, Chairman Tatoian would like it to read that you cannot park a motor vehicle, watercraft or aircraft.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that this may become an issue and it is something that has to get into the ordinance. The Commission may not get this. Because of the kind of items the Commission is talking about preventing, this has to be in the ordinance. This is decided by the Town Council. It may not be something that they feel should occur.
Mr. Polaski brought up page 11 of the Suffield Guidelines which discusses exterior siding. He would like to see no vinyl, aluminum or spray on siding.
Mr. Alsbaugh would be reluctant to advise the Commission to prevent vinyl siding because past history and consistency indicates that the Commission has considered it and approved it. However, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission could put something in the ordinance regarding the epoxy siding because of what it does to a building and how irreversible it is.
Mr. Meyer thought when the Commission receives applications for vinyl siding that the Commission would not consider it on a house that was built prior to the time that vinyl siding was available. Chairman Tatoian stated this was a consensus of the Commission and it was never enacted. It was done on a case by case basis.
Mr. Meyer stated vinyl or aluminum was not available in 1900. His feeling is it should not be approved for a house that was built before the siding was available.
Some discussion followed of where it has been approved on a structure in the Historic District. Chairman Tatoian stated the house on the corner of Post Office Road and Enfield Street is an example of vinyl siding being approved and that was a court case. What happened was there was an application to allow the aluminum siding and the Commission did not deny the application. The decision was not made in a timely manner and because the Commission failed to act, the application was approved. Mr. Meyer added the owners of the house agreed that they would keep the exterior of the old house original which included the federal corners and they covered that up with synthetic siding. They agreed that if they were going to take the old siding off, the original and the original shape and style of the structure would remain. Chairman Tatoian stated it was not a court decision but it was an agreement prior to going to court. It was clear that the Commission had not ruled in a timely manner and the town acceded to the facts.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the agreement was based on the time. That house was built in 1780.
He asked if there are any other homes where vinyl siding was approved. He noted the eighteenth century cape with the red shutters. It is on the east side of the street below the Parsons Trust. There is a cape that sits on a rise with a slate roof and red shutters. They put on garage doors that were bigger. Chairman Tatoian stated he remembers the house but could not recall when vinyl siding was approved.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated before a decision is made on vinyl siding, he needs to go over the files and see what is in there regarding siding. Before the Commission makes a decision to exclude vinyl siding, there is a need to find out how many homes were approved for vinyl siding and what were their ages.
Chairman Tatoian asked if there was a house that was approved, why would that prevent the Commission from now saying no vinyl siding. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is a question of consistency. If there is a proven history of inconsistency, then it would be best to leave it as a case by case basis and make a determination that it’s not appropriate for the structure. The Commission did that with the Town Hall where vinyl was denied as completely inappropriate to the structure and the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he needs to give the Commission precise information and then they can make their decision.
Mr. Polaski stated there is no more aluminum siding. There is just vinyl and composite.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he doesn’t know of any homes that have the spray epoxy. He thinks this particular substance would be a valid prohibition because of the uncertainty and the fact that it is irreversible.
Mr. Meyer asked if the Commission is defining exterior siding as siding and not attachments to the building specifically. He noted Mr. Berger’s house where he made a plea that he change all the architectural detail on his porch to a synthetic material. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that would not be included in siding. If there is a change to the exterior, the Commission has the right to decide if it is appropriate. What is being discussed now is cladding to the body of the house and not detail or architectural embellishments.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed the guidelines. This includes recommendations stating if you’re thinking of doing this, these are the things you should probably consider.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up new construction and additions. He felt the Commission can take this section and adjust it as necessary. He discussed Morton’s house where the porch was added and the lady’s house on the other side where there were roof modifications. He thinks additions and modifications will be standard recommendations and the kinds of things that District owners have to consider.
Mr. Alsbaugh brought up outbuildings. He noted the Planning and Zoning Commission can actually waive the height restriction for detached accessory structures for this Commission if the Commission makes the recommendation that it is appropriate to the District. This handles items like carriage houses so they are not restricted to a twelve foot height.
Mr. Alsbaugh discussed signs. Within the zoning ordinance there are two classifications for signs that are allowed in the Historic Residential Zone within which the Historic District falls. One is the two square foot residential sign to identify someone’s house that this Commission is supposed to approve. The Commission has been moving toward a select range of appropriate designs and materials. The other is the signs that are allowed for special use permit uses. These include the medical building in the District and the Montessori School. They are uses which are allowed in the HR zone and they have a separate category of sign restraints as to size. The Commission still has control over design and materials.
Mr. Meyer brought up mailboxes and newspaper tubes. He thought the word Main Street should be eliminated. Mr. Alsbaugh stated any wording that is inappropriate to the Enfield district will be automatically changed.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated that the Commission does not have mailboxes under items not requiring a Certificate. However, he doesn’t remember the Commission saying they weren’t inclined to allow freestanding mailboxes. Mr. Gwozdz recalled approving one where there was one driveway with two properties. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission approved the house number sign out in the right of way because the house was so far back. He asked if the Commission has an issue with mailboxes or newspaper tubes.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated let’s consider freestanding mailboxes and not the newspaper tubes. He asked if the Commission has an issue with a freestanding residential mailbox where someone wants one of those Victorian mailboxes or is the Commission referring to the newspaper dispenser boxes. Ms. Lillian Troiano felt the mailboxes are an eyesore because they are right by the street.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the newspaper tubes are an easy thing to deal with. However, what is not included is the newspaper dispenser boxes. Some discussion followed on the newspaper dispenser coin box located on the corner of Enfield Terrace which has been there for many years. Ms. Lillian Troiano asked if the Commission can find out how long it has been there.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if the coin box showed up after the district was in place, the newspaper company should have come before the Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if this section is kept, should it also include commercial. There are constitutional issues but it has been upheld that historic districts can prevent them. Chairman Tatoian asked that Mr. Alsbaugh look into this.
Mr. Meyer brought up signs on page 17 and the question is, are signs that are presently lighted grandfathered? Mr. Meyer brought up Enfield High School. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only signs that can be illuminated are the ones that are under the Special Use Permit process. The sign regulations were changed so that they no longer can be internally illuminated and it has to be incorporated into the sign and shine down from above. They are allowed but in a very restricted manner. Mr. Meyer brought up Tony’s store in the District. Mr. Alsbaugh felt those signs would be grandfathered.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next section is the Enfield Ordinance. This will now go to the Town Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Alsbaugh recommended the Commission continue this public hearing to the next meeting. Prior to that meeting, he will get the Commission an email copy of the furthest update of the formatted document for their review. He will include any relevant information in the email and, if not available, he will bring it to the next meeting.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the next meeting of the Commission is November 19, 2008.
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. HDC#309 Order to Restore, 1443 Enfield Street.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to go into Executive Session to discuss HDC#309 Order to Restore, 1443 Enfield Street. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Commission went into Executive Session at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to come out of Executive Session. The motion was approved unanimously and Executive Session ended at 8:40 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Meyer stated last month Bill Lee appeared before the Commission and there was a discussion about what the district can do to improve Enfield Street similar to Hazardville. He asked that this be an agenda item for a future meeting as he would like to discuss it. Mr. Alsbaugh will add streetscape, lighting and sidewalks on Enfield Street to the next agenda.
MINUTES
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smyth, to approve the Minutes of September 24, 2008. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Commission has the response regarding the cost of the sidewalks. There is also an answer that the town does own the lights and has a private contractor maintain them.
Mr. Alsbaugh included in Correspondence the letter that Attorney Elsden was sending to Mr. Ingraham. The Town Attorney’s Office preferred that they take the lead on the response to that document. That includes the emails between Attorney Elsden and Mr. Alsbaugh.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Correspondence includes the letter that he sent to Steve Boucher at Bigelow Commons. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the elevation boards from the Thompsonville Revitalization and Strategy Plan have been discovered. This gives the samples and elevations that are referenced in the zoning ordinance for the Thompsonville Village Center Zone that is actually part of the law. What Mr. Alsbaugh now has are approved and recommended infill elevations for the areas within Thompsonville where they were proposed under the plan approved in 1992. Mr. Alsbaugh stated ten years ago the design guidelines for the Thompsonville Village Center Zone had never been created for the zoning ordinance. Mr. Alsbaugh now has what is close to a complete set of the original design boards that were approved and incorporated into the zoning ordinance. Bigelow had them in their storage room and they never came back to Community Development.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Meyer made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gwozdz, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Nancy Smyth, Clerk
Enfield Historic District Commission
jmr
|