The Town of Washington, Connecticut
Minutes: Historic District Commission - 2009
|
www.WashingtonCT.org The Town of Washington, Connecticut Minutes: Historic District Commission - 2009 |
|
Disclaimer: While we have attempted to reproduce them accurately, the electronic documents you see here are not the official public documents. Official copies may be obtained on paper from theTown Clerk . Also note that minutes of recent meetings are often not yet approved by the Commission, and are subject to correction.
Jump down to: General information about the Historic District Commission
December 14 •November 16 •October 19 •October 19 •September 21 •August 17 •July 20 •June 15 •May 18 •April 20 •March 16 •February 9 •January 12 •Previous years: 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002
Posted: December 24, 2009 December 14, 2009
December 14, 2009MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Smith
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. & Mrs. White, Atty. James Kelly, Ms. Canning, Mr. James, Mr. & Mrs. Shapiro, Mr. Tyler Smith, Mr. WadeltonPUBLIC HEARINGS
White /6 Parsonage Lane /Extend Certificate of Appropriateness to build garage-studio addition.
Mr. Kerr opened the Public Hearing at 7:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Edmund and Zemma White, 6 Parsonage Lane, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness to build a garage/studio addition. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 12/6/09, and seated the members. Mr. and Mrs. White were present.The commission looked over plans for the addition which had been submitted with the original application in November 2006. Mr. and Mrs. White stated there have been no changes since the plans were approved at that time.
Mr. Kerr asked the members if they had any additional comments or questions. There were none. There was no one else present either for or against this application.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Edmund and Zemma White, 6 Parsonage Lane, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness to build a garage/studio addition.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.Mr. Kerr closed the Public Hearing at 7:45PM.
Due to technical difficulties, this Public Hearing was not recorded.
Elbow Properties, LLC(cont’d) /110 Calhoun Street /Barn modifications.
Mr. Kerr reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:47PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications. Mr. Talbot recused himself from this Public Hearing. Mr. Kerr seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Atty. James Kelly was present for Elbow Properties.Atty. Kelly read a letter from Mr. Daniel Frisch, Architect, stating he has been retained to prepare plans for restoration and renovation of buildings at 110 Calhoun Street. These plans will be submitted to HDC in the spring. Until then, no further work will be done. Main barn and farm house have been stabilized for winter. This letter is in the applicant file and a copy is filed with these minutes.
Atty. Kelly told the members that Mr. Cady provided measurements of the cupola to Mr. Robinson for documentation. Mr. Robinson will forward all of his documentation on this project to Mr. Frisch. At this point, Atty. Kelly said he thought it would be best to withdraw this application and come back to the commission in the spring. He noted the other issue is the back barn – they will do whatever the commission wants regarding that.
Mr. Kerr asked if they anticipate any activity on the farm before they come back in the spring. No. Any further demolition? No.
Mr. Smith said he thought the crucial issue is going to be whether or not the plans they have will fit the historic district or not. He asked if there might be a way to be in touch with the architects as they go along. Atty. Kelly said he would pass that on to Mr. Frisch. After some preliminary plans have been developed, perhaps he could have a preliminary discussion with the commission.
Mr. Kerr asked the members if there is anything they would like Atty. Kelly to do prior to withdrawing the application. Ms. Gilchrist said the commission should have documentation of all buildings on the property. Mr. Kerr agreed. The more documentation we have the better. The commission agreed on documentation as well as withdrawal of this application.
A member of the public asked why Mr. Talbot recused himself. Mr. Talbot stated the new owners (of 110 Calhoun Street) have hired him to do another project and he felt it would be inappropriate for him to act on this application.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications.
By Ms. Gilchrist, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.Mr. Kerr closed the Public Hearing at 8:10PM.
Due to technical difficulties, this Public Hearing was not recorded.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Kerr called the meeting to order at 8:12PM, seated the members and reseated Mr. Talbot.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
a. Consider ways for Calhoun-Ives District residents to participate in issues regarding the district.
b. Ways to make funds accessible for people to make renovations.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.
Pending Business
White /6 Parsonage Lane /Extend Certificate of Appropriateness to build garage-studio addition.
MOTION:
To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Edmund and Zemma White, 6 Parsonage Lane, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness to build a garage/studio addition, previously approved 12/15/08. This work is to be completed by December 14, 2010; or else this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.Elbow Properties LLC(cont’d) /110 Calhoun Street /Barn Modifications.
Application withdrawn.
Other Business
Klemm /11 Ives Road /Silo – Preliminary Discussion.
Mr. Talbot recused himself so he could present the plans for this discussion. Mr. Kerr seated Mrs. Mills for Mr. Talbot.The members looked at a drawing showing existing and proposed conditions of the barn and silo, a drawing showing silo reconstruction and photos of outside and inside the barn and silo. Mr. Talbot said the proposal is to rebuild the silo as it exists. The existing foundation may be adequate. The only change is a metal roof on the silo. He said he is delighted they are saving the silo and the back barn. Along with the plans and photos, Mr. Klemm submitted a completed application and the fee. Mr. Talbot commented this is a preliminary review of what they would like to do and he thinks the metal roof is an appropriate change for the silo. He noted it is important that this documentation be on file here and in the Building Department prior to demolition.
Ms. Gilchrist said she has no problem with the metal roof. She is delighted they are restoring it. Mr. Talbot commented the barn and silo present a nice buffer to Baldwin Hill Road. Also, he understands they are committed to retaining the barns.
Mr. Kerr said he does not hear any objections to the metal roof. This application seems ready for a Public Hearing next month.
Ms. Canning said she agrees completely with the commission and credits the Klemms for their decision. The Calhoun-Ives neighbors stood together in their dismay that this historic silo might be lost – and they also deserve credit.
HDC Website.
Steve Wadelton, Webmaster was present. Mr. Talbot showed the members a printout of the website. They looked over the layout. In addition to the usual information, some photos of houses have been added which depict before and after renovations that have been made. Mr. Talbot asked if anyone had suggestions for changes. After a brief discussion, it was decided to post, as is, on the website.MOTION:
To approve the HDC calendar for 2010.
By Mr. Chute, seconded by Ms. Gilchrist and passed 5-0.Calhoun-Ives District.
Mr. Smith said he would like the members to consider whether the commission should do more with the residents. Mr. Talbot asked if that means getting more information out to the residents or new regulations for the Calhoun-Ives district. The members briefly discussed this. Mr. Smith noted one of the most crucial things, is to find a way to let new residents know the importance of buying into an historic district.Mr. Smith asked if there was any funding to help people in historic districts do renovations. Mr. Talbot said HDC is not in a position to distribute funds. Mr. Kerr suggested a “friends of…..” organization could be set up by people in the district. Mr. Talbot said a number of residents have offered to create a fund to help out, but not all residents would accept such funds.
Mr. Shapiro, Calhoun-Ives property owner, spoke to the commission. He said he respects the time the commissioners spend as volunteers and knows they have a concern for the area. However, the approval of the Wexler house is shocking. He thinks the Regulations should be changed because the word “altered”(changed, modified, rebuilt, reconstructed, restored, razed, demolished, removed, or moved) is misleading and should be changed. Mr. Shapiro showed the members some pictures of the Wexler property on his computer which were taken from the road. He said he is not sure what can be done at this point. People can change their minds. The proposed Nussbaum house is much more appropriate for the district. Mr. Shapiro said he would like to see the Regulations changed. A contemporary house should not be in the district. Mr. Talbot asked if the present structure standing on the Wexler property would be considered appropriate. Mr. Shapiro replied, No.
Mr. James, Calhoun Street resident, said the Wexler house is not in keeping with the historic district. He thought the opinions of the commission should match those of the community. Mr. Talbot reminded Mr. James that at the November meeting the members went over their thought process and discussed the rationale about why the Wexler application was approved and why a structure of that sort was approved over a shingle or clapboard. The nature of the house will be less obtrusive than the images of the existing house that Mr. Shapiro showed them on his computer. Mr. Kerr commented the Wexler house will be an improvement over what is there presently – the existing house is quite apparent.
Ms. Canning said she knows decisions cannot be made based on the neighbor’s point of view, but she understands Mr. James concerns. There are going to be a lot of windows in that house. When he bought his house he did not know he would be looking at all that light.
Ms. Gilchrist stated the commission depends on the plans and presentation that are given them and sometimes they are surprised. The members deliberate as best they can, given what they have to deal with. And, as she said last month, the commission considered this application very carefully. She added, there is a lot of bad modern design, but we considered this a good design. The lines, colors and massing relate to the land around it and the members thought it would work very well. Ms. Gilchrist said she feels very strongly that the historic district should represent a continuum of good architecture, from the beginning up to the present.
Ms. Gilchrist commented that what frightens her is a district where all new houses in it are just mediocre and designed to “fit in” and they wind up looking boring, cheesy and ultimately insulting to the existing houses, because they are trying not to offend or stand out – and that is something the commission has to deal with.
Mrs. Shapiro said she has a real problem. They have invested so much money in this district because she thought it would always remain historic. She never thought a modern house would be built in the district. She thought the district was protected. Isn’t it the purpose of the district to preserve? Mr. and Mrs. Shapiro feel they have tried so hard to do the right thing. Ms. Gilchrist said it is the judgement of the commission, that the Wexler house will be inconspicuous. Mr. Smith observed it is clear that the residents are angry about this decision. He said he does not think the commission and the residents agree on how to preserve the district.
Mr. Shapiro asked if there is anything the residents can do. Mr. Kerr replied come out and try to influence at the Public Hearing or appeal to the Superior Court. Mr. Shapiro said get rid of the word “alteration” in the Regulations. Mr. Talbot said that can be discussed at the next meeting.
Consideration of the minutes:
The 11/16/09 minutes were accepted as amended:
Pg.1, Par.2, Line 8:……..connected to the neighboring fence.
Pg.1, Par.2, Line 8:……..it will just be aligned with it.
Pg.3, Par.5, Line 3:……..will be a glare from the bulb?
Pg.6, Par.5, Line 2:…….the members and reseated Mr. Talbot.
Pg.8, Par.4, Line 3:…..stated it is not recommended to…..MOTION:
To accept the 11/16/09 minutes as amended.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Smith.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: November 30, 2009 November 16, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Talbot and Mr. Smith
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Mills, Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Holly Flor, Ms. Barbara Bouyea, Atty. James Kelly, Ms. Sandra Canning, Mr. Chris Charles, Mr. DiBenedetto, Mr.& Mrs. Greenfield, Mr.Charles James, Mr.& Mrs. Markert, Mr.& Mrs. ShapiroPUBLIC HEARINGS
MacLean /84 Green Hill Road /Add small section of white picket fence.
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Marc MacLean, 84 Green Hill Road, to install a small section of white picket fence. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 11/8/09, and seated the members. Mr. MacLean was present.
Ms. Gilchrist asked Mr. MacLean to present his application to the commission. He showed the members photos of his house and a drawing of the fence location. He explained the fence will be an exact match to his neighbor’s fence; a white picket fence, 4ft tall. It will extend approximately 99inches from the front corner of his house toward three pine trees. Mr. Talbot asked if the fence would be connected to the trees. No, it will just sort of disappear into the tree.
Ms. Gilchrist asked the members if they had any additional questions or comments. She asked if anyone else present had any comments for or against the application. There were none.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Marc MacLean, 84 Green Hill Road, to install a section of white picket fence.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 7:45PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
St. John’s Episcopal Church (cont’d) /78 Green Hill Road /Lighting on church building and sign.
Ms. Gilchrist reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:48PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, to light the church building and the sign. She seated the members. Ms. Holly Flor, Warden of St. John’s Episcopal Church and Ms. Barbara Bouyea, lighting consultant, were present.
Ms. Gilchrist read a statement clarifying exactly what approvals the church is requesting:
The purpose of this application is to obtain the Historic Commission’s consent of appropriateness for St. John’s security lighting on its church building. St. John’s wishes to install this lighting in a manner that will both provide security and meet the Historic Commission’s standards. St. John’s interior contains valuable paintings and stained glass windows. It is not possible to light the inside of the church in a manner that would provide meaningful security. The height of the windows is too great and the composition of the glass is too dense.
We are also seeking permission to light the church sign in compliance with the Zoning Commission regulations that do not permit lighting from the ground up and also in a manner that complies with the Historic Commission’s mandate.
Sign
Mr. Talbot noted that they seem to be asking for approval for lighting that is there right now. Correct, Ms. Bouyea said since the Zoning Commission will not approve “ground up” lighting, the angle of the arm holding the light fixture over the sign has been changed and the inside of the fixtures has been painted brown/black to eliminate some of the shine. Ms. Flor said when they get a new priest the lettering on the sign will be changed and the glossy finish will be removed at that time.Mr. Smith said he sees three changes to the application:
1. dark coloring inside the fixtures,
2. remove glossy finish from the sign, and
3. change angle of the lights.Mr. Talbot asked if they have turned the sign on at night to see if the light is still bouncing off the sign. Yes, the bulb is no longer visible, but the shine is still there. Mrs. Boyer asked if there had not been a concern about the arms/lights on this sign. Mr. Talbot replied there was, but the concern was mostly about the size and the shininess of the sign.
Ms. Bouyea brought another option for the members to consider for the sign. She showed them a flyer on Sign Star Style ‘C’ from B-K Lighting. This is a small black cylinder with a more controlled, small directional beam of light, about 20watts. It would be mounted off-sign and the light would fall downward. Mrs. Boyer asked if the light would have to be extended out very far from the sign. No.
Building
Ms. Bouyea gave the commission a copy of the old archival drawings with lines in red showing where the building lights will be mounted. In addition, she had a sample of the lights to be mounted on the building. She described the placement of lights. There are to be 4ft lengths in front mounted in the ground, 2ft lengths on the side of the building and 1ft length for lighting the steeple. The lights will hit the building at the same spot all around the building and “graze” up the stone. These lights will have a glare shield attached to the fixture to help block visibility from the road. In addition, the aluminum is almost the same color as the church.Mr. Talbot asked how much light will be emitted from these lights. Is there a way to determine the brightness and whether there will be a glow? Ms. Bouyea said there will be no glare. These are controlled beams.
Ms. Gilchrist saw a mock-up of these lights. She thought the quality of light on the stone was nice, not garish and she likes the fact that the lights are dimmable. Ms. Gilchrist is not sure about the steeple being lit. She is considering the effect of much of this building being lit up at night, and the setting. However, these lights are not permanent (they could be moved) and are not damaging to the fabric of the building. Ms. Bouyea said the steeple lights will be installed at the bottom of the steeple in a pocket of the roof. The fixtures will not be visible from the road.
Mr. Talbot asked about timing – when will the lights go on and off? Ms. Flor said part of the issue of lighting is for security. She noted that there are existing lights in the back parking lot and they will remain. The lights will be controlled by timers. Ms. Gilchrist asked since the lights are for security, will they go on at dark and shut off at dawn? Mrs. Boyer commented that in a previous discussion about security it was stated the lights would be on between 8PM and 10:30PM. Ms. Bouyea recommended since the steeple lighting is not for safety, it could be on a separate timer. Mr. Kerr commented he is not concerned about security at all. Security is not within the jurisdiction of HDC.
Ms. Gilchrist asked the members if they had any additional questions or comments. There were none. She asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Atty. Kelly asked if St. John’s church has a crime problem. Ms. Flor replied no, but the church has some very valuable artifacts. Atty. Kelly said he is not sure that this lighting is an appropriate security measure. Ms. Bouyea noted that in this lighting someone would be visible at a window or door.
Mr. Smith said the commission has to determine whether they approve or disapprove the concept of lighting. And if they approve the lighting will the commission be able to negotiate the brightness issue after lighting is installed. Mr. Kerr asked if Ms. Bouyea could give the commission “a wattage not to exceed”. Mrs. Boyer suggested that it just be part of the approval that all lights are required to be on a dimmer and intensity of lighting be determined by the commission.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, to light the church building and the sign.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 8:30PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Elbow Properties, LLC(cont’d) /110 Calhoun Street /Barn modifications.
Ms. Gilchrist reconvened the Public Hearing at 8:32PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties, LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications. She seated the members.Atty. James Kelly was present for Elbow Properties. Mr. Talbot recused himself.
Atty. Kelly presented a site plan of the property to the commission which was requested at the last meeting. He told the members that the main barn was stabilized and will stay that way until any further work is approved. Atty. Kelly said he was under the impression that Mr. Robinson would be at the meeting to discuss the issue of removal of the back barns and reserve for a future meeting the rebuilding of the main barn.
The members took a five minute recess to go over the minutes of the last meeting.
Mr. Chute asked what exactly the commission is being asked to decide on at this meeting. Mr. Smith said the members do need to come to terms with what to do about the issue of the back barn. Ms. Gilchrist agreed they should deal with that. Mr. Kerr asked Atty. Kelly if he is asking the commission to accept the status of the back barn removal and take no further action, or validate after the fact. Atty. Kelly would ask the commission to consider a motion to approve stabilization of the main barn and main ‘L’ and the removal of the back barn and smaller structures after the fact.
Mrs. Boyer expressed her concern that to approve the back barn removal after the fact would be a big mistake and would set a precedent. Several Calhoun-Ives residents who were in attendance agreed. Mr. Kerr said it would not set a precedent because a commission is never bound by a previous decision. Mr. Smith said his understanding of the law is that HDC cannot prevent demolish by neglect or if someone just decides to demolish something. Mr. Kerr suggested the commission could seek advice from the town attorney. Atty. Kelly said if HDC wants to speak with the town attorney, then he would be in agreement with a continuance. He would not insist that the commission make any decision tonight.
MOTION:
To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 14, 2009, the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications.
By Mr. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 4-0.Ms. Gilchrist continued the Public Hearing at 9:00PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Gilchrist called the meeting to order at 9:05PM and seated the members.
Pending Business
MacLean /84 Green Hill Road /Add small section of white picket fence.
MOTION:
To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Marc MacLean, 84 Green Hill Road, to install a white picket fence at the front of his property as shown on site plan submitted with the application. This work is to be completed by November 16, 2010; or this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.St. John’s Episcopal Church(cont’d) /78 Green Hill Road/ Lighting on church building and sign.
After some discussion, the members agreed on the B-K lighting fixture for the sign, providing they submit a drawing prior to installation. Also, lighting on the church is approved providing intensity of the lights is approved by the commission.
MOTION:
To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, to install lighting on the church building and steeple as shown on drawings received 11/16/09 and on the sign using B-K lighting fixture “Sign Star – Style C”; with the stipulation that a drawing be submitted prior to installation. All subject to review of intensity of the lighting. This work is to be completed by November 16, 2010; or this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Ms. Gilchrist and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 10/19/09 minutes as written.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Other Business
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
a. Discussion with residents of the Calhoun-Ives Historic District.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.Discussion with residents of Calhoun-Ives Historic District
Silo:
Ms. Gilchrist read an e-mail from Sandra Canning stating that several property owners in the Calhoun-Ives District would appreciate clarification on an application to the Building Department for a demo permit for the silo at 11 Ives Road. Additionally, they were there to discuss the district in general.Mr. Talbot brought the residents up to date. He said the day after the last HDC meeting, 10/20/09, he got a call from the Building Official who had received a letter from an engineer stating that the silo at 11 Ives Road was in structurally poor condition and the owner, Mr. Klemm, would come in for a building permit to demolish. Mr. Klemm said it would be ok to document the silo before it comes down. So far, no one has come in for the permit. The Building Official has asked for a safety fence to be placed around the silo. Chris Washington will be in charge of taking down the silo and storing it. He will ensure that it is documented. Mr. Talbot left a message with Mr. Klemm so he would be aware of this meeting tonight.
Mr. Talbot stressed it is most critical that this silo be documented for historical reasons. In terms of our role-we have no role. Mr. Smith added, legally the commission does not have the power to make someone maintain a structure.
Mrs. Greenfield commented that Mr. Klemm says he does not have the money to restore the silo, which is an iconic visual element of this area. It has been on stamps and postcards. We are becoming suburban. Mrs. Canning said she is offended by what has happened with the silo.
Calhoun-Ives District:
The residents had some observations on activity in the district.
* 157 Calhoun Street – disapproval of a modern house being approved and thought it disrupts the integrity of the district and does not fit. Mr. Talbot stated persons are not allowed to replicate historic structures to avoid confusion. The commission felt it was appropriate. Ms. Gilchrist said the historic districts are desirable because they are not designated to be museums. We are required to consider new architecture and we very seriously considered this application.
* The scale of houses keeps increasing. Mrs. Boyer said she is not sure HDC has jurisdiction over size. Mr. Talbot said the commission can’t tell people the size of their house is not right. His hope is that people will know they are moving into a special place and understand what they have bought into. The members agreed they cannot tell people what they can do, they can only guide them.
* How can HDC have more authority. The members discussed this issue with the residents. One strong suggestion was to contact the State Legislature and ask them to define ways for HDC to pursue in order to have more authority. Another was for Zoning to be more active in enforcing HDC regulations.MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Smith.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 10:35PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: October 30, 2009 October 19, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Gilchrist
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Flor, Ms. Bouyea, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Cady, Atty. Kelly, Atty. FisherPUBLIC HEARINGS
St. John’s Episcopal Church /78 Green Hill Road /Lighting on church building and sign.
Mr. Kerr opened the Public Hearing at 7:40PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, for lighting on the church building and on the sign. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 10/11/09. Mr. Kerr seated the members and Alternate Mills for Ms. Gilchrist. Ms. Holly Flor, Warden of St. John’s and Ms. Barbara Bouyea, lighting consultant, were present.Ms. Flor gave the commission a drawing which showed where lights would be mounted on the church. Ms. Bouyea explained she would like to use a technique called grazing in which the light “rakes” up the side of the building and plays up the texture and the warm beautiful color of the stone. She stated that each fixture is 3”w x 3”h, has a shield so illumination is very low and the fixtures cannot be seen as you drive by. She also said that the fixtures can be dimmed by 40%.
Mrs. Boyer asked where the beam of the light stops. Ms. Bouyea replied that they are working with Dark Skies information and this will be a controlled beam - it cannot go into the atmosphere, nor will it light neighboring houses and trees. Unlike other churches in town that are using very bright lights. In addition, the lights will be on a timer to turn off at 10:30PM unless there is an event.
Mr. Tilden said he thought the original purpose of lighting was for security and asked how valuable the lighting which they are describing would be for their security requirements. He remarked that there do not appear to be any lights at all on the graveyard side. Ms. Flor stated the lights are on the parish side because there is no entry to the church on the graveyard side.
Mr. Talbot asked if there was anything regarding the signage in this application. Ms. Flor said she spoke previously with Ms. Gilchrist and told her that when the sign is changed to include the name of the new pastor, it will then be changed to a dull finish. Mr. Talbot said the commission needs to know, for the record, exactly what they are proposing regarding the sign and its lighting. Mrs. Boyer commented the sign has been there for some time. The lights were recently added. Ms. Bouyea said she recommends a much more shielded fixture for the sign and her preference would be to light the sign from the ground.
Mr. Smith asked Ms. Flor if they could be more explicit in what they are proposing. He asked about the floodlights. Ms. Flor said they have been turned off and will be taken out. He said he agrees with Mr. Talbot that the signage issue is still unresolved. The initial problem is that this lighting fixture was never approved. It is excessive and it is still there.
Mr. Kerr asked the members what they thought of separating the sign and building lighting into two applications since one could drag the other down. After a brief discussion it was decided to leave it as one application.
Mr. Talbot said it is his job to review applications for completeness and this application is not adequate. The commission could either deny without prejudice or continue until the November meeting. Mr. Chute said he sees three issues: lighting the church façade, lighting the sign and the issue of the sign being on state property. It was agreed that the sign on state property is not a problem for HDC. Mr. Kerr said the commission needs to have something in the file for public view. The public is entitled to see what is being presented; what the commission is acting upon.
Mr. Kerr asked if there were any additional comments or questions from the members. There were none. He asked if anyone else present had any comments for or against the application. Mr. Bill Fairbairn who lives across the street from St. John’s commented that the present lights are bright and he would generally support a lighting plan that complies with Zoning Regs. There were no further questions or comments. It was agreed to continue the Public Hearing.
MOTION:
To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 16, 2009, the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, for lighting of the church building and the sign.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.Mr. Kerr continued the Public Hearing at 8:15PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Elbow Properties, LLC /110 Calhoun Street /Barn modifications.
Mr. Kerr opened the Public Hearing at 8:16PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties, LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 10/11/09. Mr. Kerr seated the members and Alternate Mills for Ms. Gilchrist. Mark Robinson, Ed Cady and Atty. Jim Kelly were present for the owner.Mr. Robinson discussed with the commission the existing and proposed drawings of the barn. He said he was not sure what would happen to the windows on the back of the barn. Mr. Talbot told him the commission does not have purview over anything that is not visible from a public way. Mr. Robinson told the members that the cupola has been well documented and would be replaced exactly as it was. The members discussed the fact that the drawing shows the bottom of the cupola is flared rather than straight as the original. Mr. Talbot said the commission would need an overall site plan of the property indicating location of all buildings on the property.
The commission agreed that this barn is a big part of the historic fabric of the district. Stabilization of the barn is critical. Mr. Talbot asked Mr. Robinson to go through exactly what they are going to do because the commission needs to review the project. Mr. Cady said first they need to fix the foundation. Mr. Talbot expressed his concern that the barn is being taken down without documentation. A sound set of drawings must be submitted for the file in order to understand what will be rebuilt. Mr. Robinson said it is the intent of the owner to maintain the front façade of the barn.
Atty. Jim Kelly represented the owner and told the commission that the barn was purchased in June. The new owners appreciate the area. He said the farm house had been stabilized. As of now, the owner has no definite plans for the property. Perhaps one day the barn could be used as a future residence. Atty. Kelly showed the commission a survey of the property. With all the conservation easements, only four acres around the house and barn are in a buildable area.
Atty. Kelly said Mr. Ed Cady has a premier reputation for working on old barns, but did not understand he needed to come to HDC first before removing the courtyard barn. He said they would like to know if it is ok that the back barn “went away”. What’s done is done. Can the back courtyard barn be permanently removed? Although the owner and Mr. Cady have offered to rebuild it, Mr. Smith said it seems that the commission feels that there is insufficient documentation available to rebuild the courtyard barn.
Ms. Canning, a resident of the district, commented that Mr. Talbot had asked the previous owner for permission to document the main barn but was turned down. Is it possible now to properly document it for the record? Mr. Talbot replied that the commission has requested Mr. Robinson and Mr. Cady to document the main barn because it will have to be taken down and the existing foundation removed for the rebuilding process. He is confident that they both understand the significance of this building to the district.
Mr. Talbot said the application that is before the commission is the restoration and rebuilding of the main barn as original except lower by four feet and with the exception of the base of the cupola being flared rather than straight. Historically, the base would be straight, but he cannot comment on that tonight.
Mr. Talbot asked about the time frame. Are the main house and barn closed up for the winter? Will no further work happen until spring? Can the commission be presented with proper documentation? Yes.
Mrs. Boyer asked if a decision had to be made at this meeting whether the back barn has to be rebuilt. Mr. Tilden suggested it might help move the project along if the commission could vote on that tonight. Mr. Smith said they are once more faced with the issue, which is, does the commission attempt to make sure nothing changes or to accept change that is in the spirit of the place. Mr. Talbot said the application before the members tonight is just for stabilization of the barn; with the understanding that there will be a subsequent application.
Atty. Kelly asked for the Public Hearing to be continued until the next meeting. He said they got excellent feedback from the members and they need to continue documentation of what exists there and be absolutely clear as to what the owner is asking the commission to approve in addition to removing the back barn.
MOTION:
To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 16, 2009, the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Elbow Properties LLC, 110 Calhoun Street, for barn modifications.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.Mr. Kerr continued the meeting at 9:25PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Kerr opened the Regular Meeting at 9:26PM. He seated the members and Alternate Mills for Ms. Gilchrist.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
a. Klemm /11 Ives Road /barn,
b. Schein /1 Wykeham Road /window.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Klemm /11 Ives Road /barn.
Atty. Robert Fisher represented Peter and Christina Klemm. He said he is just there for a discussion; no application at this time.Atty. Fisher showed the members a drawing with the location of the silo and two barns. He said the main barn, built in the 1800’s, is in relatively good condition and Mr. & Mrs. Klemm would like to keep it. The 1950’s cow barn and silo are in bad shape. They would like to keep the main barn which is historically significant and remove the 1950’s barn and the silo which is falling down.
Mr. Kerr commented that the most extreme visual would be removing the silo. Mr. Smith said if Mr. Klemm did nothing, the silo would eventually disappear. Mr. Tilden added there is nothing to prevent him from removing the 1800’s barn as well. Atty. Fisher said there was no intent to do that. Mrs. Boyer stated the silo is a significant landmark – it is prominent on the postage stamp designed by Washington artist, Wendell Minor.
Mr. Talbot noted it is important to document the history. Drawings are needed to show what exists and what the property will look like after removal. It is possible the pool may be more visible when the buildings are down. He said it is a shame to see the buildings dismantled and removed. A good solution would be to find a buyer for the barn. He commented that the house was originally a very small farm house with large barns and over the years HDC has worked with Mr. & Mrs. Klemm and approved their additions. He said it really bothers him that the historic fabric of the community is disappearing. From a historic records program, HDC needs a really good record of this silo.
Mr. Talbot said the assemblage of the barns as they exist is historically significant. He said he would be disappointed if it gets demolished. Mr. Smith agreed. If the silo and back barn are taken down, the change will be profound. If the remaining barn is made into a place for people to stay, be careful not to make it look like a house. Mrs. Boyer said they will be taking away a significant piece of character from the town. All agreed.
Atty. Fisher told the members he understands their collective sense:
* opposition to removal of barn and silo,
* preference for the structures to remain, and
* the importance of documentation for the files.
Schein /1 Wykeham Road /window.
The members will wait to see if Ms. Gilchrist had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Schein.MacLean /84 Green Hill Road /Fence.
Mr. MacLean will be adding a small portion of white picket fence at the front of his house. It will be an exact match to his neighbor’s fence. The members did not need any additional info. This will be a public hearing in November.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 9/21/09 minutes were accepted as corrected:
Pg.1, Par.2, Line 1:…..Robinson, consultant, was…...MOTION:
To accept the 9/21/09 minutes as corrected.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Chute.Mr. Kerr adjourned the meeting at 10:26PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: October 1, 2009 September 21, 2009
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 PM, Selectmen’s OfficeMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Smith
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Robinson
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Regular Meeting at 7:35PM. She seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Smith.
MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
a. 110 Calhoun Street,
b. Outdoor lighting in historic districts,
c. Review website.
By Mr. Chute, seconded by Mrs. Boyer and passed 5-0.
a.) 110 Calhoun Street.
Mark Robinson, contractor, was present on behalf of the new owners. The commissioners looked at photos of the barn and Mr. Robinson listed the problems and told how they would go about resolving them. He is concerned that the cupola is open to the weather. He would like to bring in two cranes to document the cupola, and then remove the cupola and the roof. The entire older portion of the barn will be completely taken down, numbered and stored. The plan is to take the barn down this fall and rebuild it in the spring.Ms. Gilchrist asked if the general idea is to replace the barn in-kind. Mr. Robinson replied yes, there will be no change in the footprint. Ms. Gilchrist asked if exterior appearance will be the same. Yes. He told the members he would eventually have a full set of architectural plans and detailed description of exactly what is going to be done.
Mr. Talbot said he knows they would like to begin demolition, but the barn cannot just be taken down without holding a public hearing. The commission does not like to be placed in a position where they have to act so quickly. They need to see an existing condition drawing and floor plan. They also will require a site plan showing which buildings are to be removed or relocated. Mr. Robinson said he would work with the owners to develop a proper set of drawings.
Mr. Talbot noted that when Mr. Robinson comes back with a formal application, it is important that:
1. the members understand how the shell of the barn will be put back together, and
2. whether it will be rebuilt as a farm building or will it be a summer structure, or whether it will be winterized.A lot of documentation and thought needs to go into this project. Mrs. Boyer agreed that a plan needs to be made about how all this work is going to be done.
Mr. Robinson commented on how extensive the cost of stabilizing the barn will be and he would like to go in now and begin demolishing. The commission discussed this at length with Mr. Robinson along with the possibility of a special meeting. It was decided that he would wait until next month’s meeting. Mr. Robinson said he would have full plans by next meeting. Ms. Gilchrist told him the more thorough he can be, the better. Mr. Robinson said he also intends to document the house. It was agreed that the house will be a separate application.
b. Outdoor Lighting in historic districts.
St. John’s Church
Ms. Gilchrist is scheduled to meet with Holly Flor and her lighting designer on Thursday, September 24th to discuss their ideas for a new lighting plan. It was noted that the lights are still on at the church. The enforcement officer will be notified.James, 175 Calhoun Street
Mrs. Mills commented that the outside lights are not on if Mr. James is not at home. Also, the lights seem dimmer. The enforcement officer will keep trying to contact Mr. James about the lights and ask him to file an application.MOTION:
To accept the 8/17/09 minutes as written.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Boyer and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Boyer.Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:10PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade
Posted: August 28, 2009 August 17, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. WoodwardPUBLIC HEARING
Fineman(cont’d) /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
Ms. Gilchrist reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. She seated the members. Mr. Sean Woodward represented the applicants.
The members looked over the new drawings with Mr. Woodward. He reminded them there would be no change in the sun porch footprint; only in the style of windows and the change to a hip roof. He also noted the gutters would be white aluminum like those on the main house. Mr. Talbot asked if the hip roof could be steeper. Mr. Woodward replied he thought it could be brought up a little bit.
Mr. Talbot asked Ms. Gilchrist if she had any additional thoughts, since the last meeting, regarding a different siding on the sun porch. She thought something like a flat horizontal siding would distinguish the porch from the main house and make it recede. The members discussed this possibility but concluded that the clapboard siding on the sun porch could remain.
Mr. Talbot suggested a frosted chimney in the lantern as a way to reduce glare. Mr. Woodward asked if the Zoning Commission is trying to promote “down lighting”. Yes. Mr. Smith stated what is wanted is the minimum amount of light and still function as it’s supposed to. On this lantern, the sides are open and very little light is going down onto the steps. Mr. Talbot added, Zoning would approve a light for safety, but it should not light the whole outdoors. In addition, he noted there would be a lot of light coming out of the porch windows at night.
The commissioners discussed different types of lighting for doors and steps. Mr. Woodward was given the three pages from the Zoning Regulations on outdoor lighting which includes drawings of fixtures that meet the requirements to be “Dark-Sky Friendly”. The members agreed to approve this application with the condition that they come back to the commission for approval on an exterior light beside the door.
Ms. Gilchrist read a letter dated 8/17/09 from Mr. Richard G. Dutton, 28 Sunny Ridge Road, in support of the application. A copy of this letter is filed with these minutes and the original is in the applicant file. Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any more questions or comments. There were none. There was no one else present to speak for or against the application.
MOTION:
To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch.
By Mr. Talbot and passed 5-0.Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 8:15PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Regular Meeting
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Regular Meeting at 8:17PM and seated the members.
Pending Business
Fineman(cont’d) /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
MOTION:
To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 6/15/09 by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch according to revised drawings by McIver-Morgan Architects dated 7/22/09(#A1.01R, A2.00R, A2.02R, A2.03R, A5.01R, A5.02R); with the condition that the applicants come back to the Commission for final approval on the revised exterior light at the north elevation(A2.02R), with an alternate fixture that reduces the amount of lighting and shields the bulb, as discussed in the Public Hearing. This work is to be completed by August 17, 2010; or else this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.MOTION:
To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda:
a. 87 Calhoun Street
b. 110 Calhoun Street
c. Exterior lighting, incl. St. John’s
d. 2 Wykeham Road
e. Website.
By Mr. Chute, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION:
To accept the 7/20/09 minutes as written.
By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.Other Business
Khouri Bass /75 Green Hill Road /updated schedule of work and completion dates
Mr. and Mrs. Bass were not present. The members agreed on the following comments:
* The property is looking hugely better – a general improvement
* What’s been done looks good
* They’ve made a good-faith effort, it looks better
Mr. Talbot said he would contact Mr. and Mrs. Bass and report back in September.87 Calhoun Street.
The commissioners discussed the stockade fence along Baldwin Hill Road which had been approved by HDC in 1991. They expressed concern about the condition of the fence. Mrs. Boyer said at this point it needs to be replaced in-kind or taken down. Ms. Gilchrist said she would write a letter.110 Calhoun Street.
Mr. Talbot spoke with the new owners. He said they understand the significance of the property and buildings. He thinks they will be good stewards.No major renovations will take place until next summer. At some point in the future they would like to add onto the house. They are talking with a builder about the barn. There is a temporary power pole in place – all agreed that was ok.
Mr. Talbot stressed the importance of documenting all barns and buildings on this property and sharing it with the new owners.
Exterior lighting/Calhoun Street & St. John’s Church.
Mr. Talbot will speak to the Zoning Enforcement Officer about outside lights on Calhoun Street as well as the lights on the sign at St. John’s Church. They still shine in your eyes as you drive past. The outside lights should be turned off until there is an approval from HDC.2 Wykeham Road.
Complaints have been made about glass falling out of a garage window. Ms. Gilchrist said she would contact the owners.Website.
Mr. Talbot told the commissioners that Mrs. Boyer had done a lot of good work on the HDC website and asked if anyone else would like to help out. It was suggested that perhaps one or two Shepaug students would like to take on that project – also to help with archival work.The members agreed that it was time to take another set of digital photos of houses and buildings in the three districts. Mr. Smith commented it is equally important to take photos of open spaces and stone walls.
MOTION:
To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Talbot.Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:30PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade
Posted: July 30, 2009 July 20, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Chute
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Flor, Mr. Birkett, Mr. Pleasants
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Gilchrist noticed that the first applicant on the agenda was not present. It was decided to change the order of the Public Hearings.
MOTION: To change the order of the Public Hearings Agenda to first hear the application for St. John’s Church; then continue in the order listed. By Mrs. Boyer, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.
St. John’s Episcopal Church /78 Green Hill Road /Lighting on church sign, floodlights on church
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by St. John’s Episcopal Church, 78 Green Hill Road, for approval of a lighted sign and floodlights on the church. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 7/12/09. Ms. Gilchrist seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Chute. Ms. Holly Flor, Warden of St. John’s and Mr. Phil Birkett, Facilities Manager, represented the Church.Ms. Flor said they were there first to apologize to the Commission. The previous Rector installed lighting on the sign and the church building. She stated they did not know he had done it without approvals or permits. Ms. Flor went on to say that they would like to keep the lights. She said they placed a timer on the floods. They are set to go on at 8PM and off at 10PM (times will vary with the changes in daylight). In addition, the lights on the sign have been reduced to 15watts and the conduit has been bent to focus lights on either side of the sign and away from eyes of drivers passing by. Mr. Birkett said they had contacted the state and were told to meet with HDC to discuss the lighting issue. The state told him they would be happy with whatever agreement was reached. Mrs. Boyer said the commissioners are aware that church signs are allowed on state property, but did not think electricity was allowed. Mr. Birkett replied he had a conversation with the supervisor in charge who told him since the electricity is underground, he did not think it would be a serious problem.
Ms. Gilchrist asked what the reasoning was for lighting on the sign since there had been none before. Ms. Flor replied the lights draw attention to the sign. Also, she noted, other churches have lighted signs. Mrs. Boyer commented that the Congregational Church sign is not lighted. Mr. Talbot said he hoped that whatever lighting is decided upon, that the bulbs will be set in a way so that they do not shine into those windows of the house across the street. Ms. Flor stated they would make sure that does not happen.
Ms. Gilchrist confirmed that the lights that are presently installed were not approved by HDC. Ms. Flor agreed – that is right. Mrs. Mills stated this lighting would have never been approved by the commission. Ms. Flor asked again, if they could keep the lights since they are already in place. She said having the church lit is an enhancement and the Zoning Commission said they are allowed to light for special occasions. Mr. Talbot said he has no real problem with a glow on the façade of the building, but these particular lights just don’t seem to be right. They are blinding coming out of the church. He also said they would be a problem in the winter due to reflection off of the snow. Ms. Flor said if they planted boxwoods around the floodlights it would eliminate that reflection and also protect them from being run over by mowers. Mrs. Boyer stated the Commission is not supposed to consider hedges, shrubs, etc. Mr. Talbot suggested there are lights which can be installed flush with the ground and there is no worry about them being run over. Mr. Birkett said he is aware of those lights and they are very expensive. Following some additional discussion about lighting and design, it was determined that the Commission would require a kind of “as-built”; some photos of exactly what lighting is presently in place. In addition, the Church needs to come up with a lighting plan that they are happy with and that HDC considers appropriate. The commission does not like the existing fixture, or the shine on the sign which increases glare and they are also concerned with “spillage” of light from the floods. Also, since the Zoning Commission Regulations regarding lighting have recently changed, the Zoning Enforcement Officer will be consulted about his interpretation of “up-lighting”.
The commission thought that this application should be denied without prejudice and then, after consultation with a lighting designer, the church could either come back with a few different ideas and have an informal discussion or, submit a new application. Ms. Flor said she preferred to withdraw this application and submit a new application in a month or two.
The application was withdrawn. The Public Hearing ended at 8:30PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Fineman(cont’d) /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
Ms. Gilchrist reconvened the Public Hearing at 8:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. She seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Chute. Mr. Rod Pleasants of McIver-Morgan Architects represented the applicants.Ms. Gilchrist read a letter from Mr. Richard G. Dutton, 28 Sunny Ridge Road, in support of the application. A copy of this letter is filed with these minutes and the original is in the applicant file.
Mr. Pleasants said the applicants have approved two solutions. The commissioners looked at drawings by McIver-Morgan/Alterations to Fineman Residence/revised 7/1/09, and photos showing existing sun porch, option A and option B. Option A shows two double windows with clapboards in between. Option B, shows four windows together with no spaces in between. Mr. Talbot asked Mr. Pleasants if he could do a hip roof with either of these window configurations. Yes. Mr. Pleasants said he could also design a hip roof with just two longer windows. Mr. Smith commented that would make the addition look too much like the original house.
The members discussed different configurations. Mr. Talbot said he liked the window separation rather than all together. Mr. Kerr said he would like to see 3 equally spaced windows. Mrs. Boyer said the addition looks bigger with the four windows together. Ms. Gilchrist asked if it would help if the siding were different on the addition.
After some discussion the commissioners agreed upon two double windows with clapboards in between and a hip roof. Mr. Talbot commented that he was not comfortable approving this application without an actual drawing showing this configuration. All agreed. Mr. Pleasants said he would be away in August, but would get the new drawings in early. Mr. Talbot asked if he would also include a drawing on the eave detail and information on lights for the doors. It was decided to continue this application until the next meeting.
MOTION: To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 17, 2009, the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. By Mrs. Boyer, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist continued the Public Hearing at 9:10PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Klemm /11 Ives Road /Extend Certificate of Appropriateness to construct addition and mud room
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 9:12PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Christina and Peter Klemm, 11 Ives Road, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition and mudroom. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 7/12/09. Ms. Gilchrist seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Chute. There was no one present to represent Mr. and Mrs. Klemm.After a brief discussion the members agreed to extend this existing C of A for another year.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Christina and Peter Klemm, 11 Ives Road, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness to construct addition and mudroom. By Mrs. Boyer, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 9:18PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Gilchrist opened the regular meeting at 9:20PM, seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Chute.
Pending Business
Fineman(cont’d) /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
MOTION: To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on August 17, 2009, the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. By Mrs. Boyer, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.Klemm /11 Ives Road /Extend Certificate of Appropriateness to construct addition and mudroom
MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Christina and Peter Klemm, 11 Ives Road, to extend an existing Certificate of Appropriateness previously approved on 9/15/08; to construct an addition to the east side of their existing house and a mudroom off the kitchen as shown in revised plans #A-00 thru A-06 by Tittmann Design & Consulting received 9/15/08 with the added condition that there be no shutters on the addition. This work is to be completed by September 15, 2010; or else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
The 6/15/09 minutes were accepted as corrected:
Pg.1, Par.2, Line 10:…..and dies into…..
Pg.3, Par.3, Line 3:…..whereas the existing big…..
Pg.3, Par.3, Line 4:…..and allow it to…..
Pg.3, Par.3, Line 8:…..makes it look squat.
Pg.6, Par.2, Line 2:…..to see from…..
Pg.8, Last Par. Line 1:…..lower than the west, and the…..
Pg.12, Par.6, Line 2: remove , at end of line.
Pg.12, Par.6, Line 3: matter as much…..
Pg.14, Par.5, Line 3: …..has been approved by the State Review Board.MOTION: To accept the 6/20/09 minutes as corrected. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Boyer and passed 5-0.
Other Business
Mr. Talbot informed the members that Elliott Farm LLC has been sold. The new owner wants to do as much stabilizing to the buildings as possible. Mr. Talbot plans to meet with the new owner.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mrs. Boyer.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:55PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Posted: June 29, 2009 June 15, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Pleasants, Mr. Nicholas, Zachary Nicholas, Mrs. Canning, Mr. Daniel, Ms. Demetriades, Mr. WalkerPUBLIC HEARINGS
Nussbaum /132 Calhoun Street /Retaining wall at house entry
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:35PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 5/28/09 by Paul A. Nussbaum, 132 Calhoun Street, to construct a retaining wall at the house entry. She seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Rod Pleasants of McIver-Morgan Architects represented the applicant.Mr. Pleasants looked at the overall site plan(A0-02) with the commissioners showing the driveway and the retaining wall which follows the curve of the driveway toward the house. He stated that in January of this year they got approval for the house, but at that time the members thought the retaining wall was too high. Mrs. Boyer asked how tall it was before. Mr. Pleasants replied at that time it was 6ft tall. Now it is 3ft 2in tall at the highest point, slants down and eventually disappears. Ms. Gilchrist agreed - it curves around and dives into the driveway.
Ms. Gilchrist noted that Mr. Talbot had asked about the character of the wall. Mr. Pleasants said the retaining wall will be fieldstone, random coursing, not flat on top. Mrs. Boyer inquired if the fieldstone would be local. Yes. Ms. Gilchrist observed the wall appears flat and straight in the drawing. Mr. Pleasants assured the members that the wall would not be square or straight. The wall will have an uneven top and look more natural than it does in the drawing.
Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any other questions or discussion. There were none.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Paul A. Nussbaum, 132 Calhoun Street, for construction of a retaining wall at the house entry. By Mr. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 7:47PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Fineman /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:50PM to hear the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 5/28/09 by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. She seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Rod Pleasants of McIver-Morgan Architects represented the applicants.Ms. Gilchrist read a letter from Mr. Charles Treadway, 20 Nettleton Hollow Road, in support of the application. A copy of this letter is filed with these minutes and the original is in the applicant file.
The members looked at the photos submitted with the application. Mr. Pleasants commented that they had just installed a wood roof on this house. He said the problem with the existing roof on the sun porch is there is very little pitch due to the master bedroom windows directly above. Mr. Chute asked what type of roof is presently over the sun porch. Mr. Pleasants replied it is now a rubber membrane roof with black tar. They could possibly install a flat roof with a rail or a metal roof. Mr. Kerr asked if there was a picture or rendering of a flat roof with railing. Ms. Gilchrist said she thought a railing would make the addition stand out even more.
Mr. Pleasants showed the members several photos of historic buildings with additions on the side. Mrs. Boyer observed that most of the photos show the relationship of the additions to the main house as being about 1/3 as high. Mrs. Mills asked if the existing sun porch is set back from the main house. Mr. Pleasants said it is, but not much.
Ms. Gilchrist said the problem with enclosing the sun porch, is it appears more solid and competes visually with the body of the house; whereas the big jalousie windows read as a more transparent volume and allows it to recede. Mrs. Boyer agreed. She said with the present pitched roof and glass enclosure the sun porch looks much taller and in proportion with the house. The proposed change to yellow clapboards makes it look squatty.
Ms. Gilchrist said she has a problem with replicating the windows. It makes you wonder if the sun porch is part of the original house or is it new. She read Mr. Talbot’s comments: The fenestration appears to be replicating that of the original house. Rather than punched windows a more “glazed porch” configuration I believe would be more appropriate, i.e., multipane glazed panels or double hung windows that fill a larger percentage of the wall.
Mr. Pleasants told the members the sun porch is more open at the back. He showed the members drawing A2.03 showing French doors on the back near the pool. Mr. and Mrs. Fineman would like for this to be a year round room but their concern is they do not like the exposure to the road, especially at night with lights on.
Mr. Smith stated the point is that this proposal makes it look like part of the original house. It has to come across as a later addition; clearly different and not trying to look the same. Mr. Chute said a peaked roof would be possible on this addition if they would change the bedroom windows that are above it. Mr. Pleasants said he did not think his clients would want to change their bedroom windows. Mr. Kerr said he would like to see more windows but smaller and narrower. After some additional discussion, Mr. Pleasants agreed that not using the same size windows as the main house will help. He said he would come up with two or three different options to show Mr. and Mrs. Fineman and then bring those back to the Commission. He asked if the consensus was to keep the pitched roof and not use the railing. Yes.
MOTION: To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 20, 2009, the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist continued the Public Hearing at 8:12PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Wexler /157 Calhoun Street /Alterations and additions to existing house, barn and driveway
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 8:14PM to hear the application for a Certification of Appropriateness submitted 5/28/09 by Lloyd Wexler, 157 Calhoun Street, for alterations and additions to the existing house, barn and driveway. She seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Elizabeth Demetriades and Patrick Walker, architects, represented the applicant.Ms. Demetriades asked Ms. Gilchrist if she should go over some information from the past preliminary discussions which Ms. Gilchrist had missed. Ms. Gilchrist replied she did not think that would be necessary since she had studied the application and had read minutes of the past meetings.
Ms. Demetriades said she had a list of questions from Mr. Talbot’s application review and she listed each one:
1. A clear written explanation on why the proposed work should be considered “appropriate” to the Calhoun-Ives Historic District. Ms. Demetriades read:
Stylistically, the work proposed for the Wexler House does not hearken to past historic periods, but reaches forward with a vocabulary sympathetic to the existing landscape, which is the primary element in the identity of the Calhoun-Ives Historic District. Curved roof slopes harmonize with the rolling hills. The hierarchy and interplay of shapes and details break down the scale and massing, while anchoring the house to the ground. Materials have been selected to integrate with and recede into the natural landscape. Relocation of the driveway from its current location to the property edge, through the woods, along the old stone wall will restore the open field. The alterations to the existing house reuse the existing foundations and floor framing, with additions adding less than four hundred square feet to the existing footprint. The house and barn (garage) are minimally visible from the public street in winter. Trees and undergrowth render these structures virtually invisible in the spring, summer and autumn seasons. The existing woods on the property are within designated wetlands areas and accordingly protected. Visibility of the house is further diminished by the proposed soft (curved) roof profile as well as the natural, dark materials.2. Clearly identify any and all exterior lighting.
Ms. Demetriades: All exterior lighting is indicated on the plans. We put together a package of lighting that we propose to use in various locations with the intention that they conform to your Guidelines.Mrs. Boyer: Does that say which one is going to be used in which place? Ms. Demetriades: Yes, on our drawings they are identified as either wall surface mounted, recessed, etc. - so we’ve put a little tag on each of those pages that says what it corresponds to.
Mr. Kerr: Can I ask a procedural question? For purposes of the record, is this the first time you’ve been before us? Ms. Demetriades: No.
The members briefly discussed the fact that there had been one preliminary discussion in April and another in May. This is the first Public Hearing at which an application was received.
Mr. Kerr: So as far as the record is concerned, this is the first time we’re officially dealing with it. So, it’s good for you to go through things again because what you did before was informal and this is the first formal presentation you’ve made. You can do it in summary fashion.
The members agreed that would be good. Mr. Walker presented the model of the house. Ms. Demetriades rolled out the site plan. Mr. Daniel, who is no longer a resident, asked if he could look on.
Ms. Demetriades: Guess you’ve all made a site visit. This time of year it is very difficult to seem from the road.
Mrs. Boyer: You have to remember we have to look at this as if none of those trees are there.
Ms. Demetriades: We photographed it before the trees came out so we would have a record of it.
Ms. Demetriades: So, we are building on the existing footprint. There were some comments about the face of the house being large. We tried very hard to fine-tune the plans and have lowered the curve of the roof by about 6ft. The intent of this house is to blend into the landscape and respect the landscape. To take this driveway which bisects the field now and take it back to its original location, so when the Wexlers are in the house they’ll be looking out at the field. As far as materials go – the roof is proposed to be a freedom gray copper that weathers to a matte finish. Siding would be painted a dark gray color. Stone finish as described in the picture with the application. (showed members new model) For those of you who were here last time, as you can see, we did quite a bit of work on the articulation of that façade to break it down. The rendering shows where the stone goes and where the painted wood is. We introduced a cedar brise soleil that casts some shadows and breaks down that massing. On the south side of the house, the brise soleil breaks the sun during the summer season when it is high in the sky and admits it in during the winter. It seemed like an appropriate device to help the owner and also mitigate some of the scale issues.
Ms. Gilchrist: Do you propose any changes to grading?
Ms. Demetriades: Yes. Right now the structure is sort of dug in at a certain point and we’ll actually raise the grade a little bit along that elevation. Other than that there will be no changes to the existing foundations. As far as the garage goes the, addition to that is we’re adding a little dormer to allow more headroom.
Ms. Gilchrist: Did you say anything about how the architecture relates to the context of the district and town?
Ms. Demetriades: My statement was that Calhoun-Ives is really about the landscape and about the fabric of the landscape with wooded areas and open areas. If this pre-existing house had been on Calhoun Street, there is no way that we would have proposed something like this. The fact that it’s off the road to begin with is not where historic structures would have been placed. They were built right on the road, so to begin with, it’s an anomaly. What we tried to do, is once it is in this anomalous location, we tried to make it work with the land and echo the undulating hillside by using curved roof structures and darker materials. We just tried to knit it in.
Ms. Gilchrist: Are we at the point where we want to entertain discussion or comments from the audience?
Ms. Demetriades: I’ll just give you the rest of the package.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Talbot asked a couple of questions. Is the gate part of this application?
Ms. Demetriades: No it is not. You’ll see us again for the gate. It will be designed to go in a kink in the driveway so it cannot be seen from the road.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Talbot also asked about what happens to the stone wall.
Mr. Walker showed the members photos of the existing stone wall. Pillars will be removed and wall will be connected. New driveway entrance will have no pillars or lights, just whatever 911 requires.
Ms. Demetriades showed the members the small low profile in-grade lights for the edge of the driveway. They will fit right on the ground – just graze the surface.
Mrs. Mills: Do we have a barn drawing.
Ms. Demetriades: Yes, it is part of this application.
Members looked at existing and proposed barn drawings.Ms. Gilchrist: How high is any exterior lighting?
Ms. Demetriades: Lighting is code conforming. Downward lighting over the door. Nothing will be seen from the street.
Ms. Gilchrist: All of it looks like source is hidden and you just get the glow nearby.
Mr. Kerr: You know those beautiful driveway lights you showed us? Will they still be legal after all the fluorescent mandates come out?
Ms. Demetriades: I think there is actually a compact fluorescent version of that. They’re going to be changing incandescent to be longer life. And last, but not least, Mr. Talbot asked about the location of the condenser and generator.
The members looked at the drawings and photos showing the location of the mechanical equipment along with the greenscreen fence.
Mr. Kerr: We don’t have to treat a greenscreen the way we do a tree do we?
Mrs. Boyer: We have to treat it as a structure and forget there’s anything green there. Are these visible from the road? I think they will be small, but visible.
Ms. Demetriades: The stone walls are as high as the condensing units. I think it would be difficult to see them. These are pictures of the house before the leaves came out. I think it would truly be hard to see them.
Ms. Gilchrist: I will read Mr. Talbot’s comments:
1. A beautiful presentation.
2. I’d like a clear explanation on why this should be considered “appropriate”.
3. I like the revisions done to the massing. However I still feel the south and north walls and west end will read tall and the curved roof relatively flat. Can the plan reflect the hill so that the east (living) 1st floor be lower than the west (guest suite). This would allow, on the second floor, Lloyd’s suite to be the highest level relating to the curvature of the roof above the sleeping quarters on the same elevation, or ideally, lower again to reflect the roof form as well as the contours of the hill.Ms. Demetriades: The ceiling heights in this downstairs are already 8ft.
Mr. Kerr: Did he say lower the east or west?
Ms. Gilchrist: The east 1st floor be lower that the west the living area lower than the guest wing.
Ms. Demetriades: We’re using all the existing 1st floor framing and all existing foundations. In terms of grading that would be highly impractical. You can’t drop the level and enter the house at that elevation.
Mr. Walker: You’d also lose any function in the basement. Two thirds of it is crawl space.
Mr. Kerr: Isn’t the eastern ridge on the existing building higher than what you’ve got right there?
Ms. Demetriades: Yes.
Mr. Chute: Your treatment of this façade makes quite a difference compared to the last drawing.
Ms. Gilchrist: Is this lower than what you originally showed us?
Ms. Demetriades: Yes, by 6 inches.
Mr. Kerr: It is quite a dramatic difference – just lowered by 6 inches.
Ms. Gilchrist: I think you’ve taken a building that is non-contributing and introduced a really kind of exciting example of 21st century architecture in the historic district which we don’t see as a stagnant museum, but as hopefully representing good design on a continuum. I think it is really nice.
Mrs. Mills: I don’t think we need story poles. You had mentioned them last time.
Ms. Gilchrist: I don’t feel a need for story poles. How does everyone else feel? No Need.
Mrs. Boyer: I find it exciting; the way we think.
Ms. Gilchrist: It’s clearly an exciting time. Would you like to present the lighting plan now or do you feel you’ve already covered it.
Ms. Demetriades: There’s a fan shown on the screened porch on the west end of the building. The fan light is recessed so it is not exposed. There is an entry light where code requires. Driveway lights.
The members looked at the lighting information.Mrs. Boyer: What happens to the driveway lights in the snow?
Ms. Demetriades: My guess is we’ll probably have to put stakes up. We’ve used these lights before – they’re wonderful.
Ms. Gilchrist: What materials for the driveway; any curbing or special treatment of the driveway? Lights at the gate?
Ms. Demetriades: The driveway will be just gravel. No curbing. The owner wants the entrance to be understated; nothing to attract attention. No lights.
Ms. Gilchrist: Any other questions or discussion?
Mr. Chute: I think it’s very fine – outstanding.
Ms. Gilchrist: You’ve done a really nice job.
Mr. Daniel: I’m glad to see it change. It’s great.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lloyd Wexler, 157 Calhoun Street, for alterations and additions to existing house, barn(garage), driveway and site. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 8:47PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Gilchrist opened the regular meeting at 8:48PM, seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 5/18/09 minutes as written. By Mr. Chute, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the agenda. By Mr. Chute, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Pending Business
Nussbaum /132 Calhoun Street /Retaining wall at house entry
MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 5/28/09, by Paul A. Nussbaum, 132 Calhoun Street, for construction of a retaining wall at the house entry as specified in drawings by McIver-Morgan received with the application. This work is to be completed by June 15, 2010; or else this approval shall be void. By Ms. Gilchrist, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.Fineman /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Alter existing sun porch
MOTION: To continue until the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 20, 2009, the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to alter their existing sun porch. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.Wexler /157 Calhoun Street /Alterations & additions to existing house, barn & driveway
Ms. Gilchrist: Are we ready to vote?Mrs. Boyer: Since I can’t vote – I think it’s fascinating. It’s so smooth it scares me a little bit. As Peter says – it’s beautifully presented.
Mr. Smith: I think you raised the basic point. It’s modern architecture and we have to decide whether we think the historic district can accommodate that and I think we’ve been discussing it with them in terms of maintaining some of the basic things that you put into our standards about massing and that kind of stuff. That’s certainly been the focus of a lot of the discussions.
Mrs. Mills: Do you think it’s still going to look like a big mass? They’ve done a good job of breaking up the mass.
Mrs. Boyer: To me it was like a primary school or an airplane hangar. But then I thought about the fact that the materials they’re using are very sophisticated materials that will take away from some of its shape. It will break it up. There’s nothing in our Regulations that says you can’t put up a modern house, it says you just can’t duplicate an old house.
Mrs. Mills: That’s right. You can’t make it look like an old house.
Mr. Smith: There must be some compatibility.
Mrs. Boyer: With what? The district?
Mr. Chute: She defined it in her statement about relating to the land and the important things in the vicinity. She did a good job.
Ms. Gilchrist: A lot of what’s important about this district is that the land and the rolling landscape, matters as much as the houses. Because you have to remember in most historic districts it is the buildings that matter. In this district it’s the land as much as the buildings and the spaces and the contours and the undulation of the land that matter.
Mrs. Boyer: It’s not scary that it’s a modern house because it’s so far back. It could not be built on the road.
Mr. Chute: She did say that.
Mrs. Mills: One thing that Peter said before that scares him is we’ve approved a lot of things we thought would be to scale and they ended up being much bigger.
Mr. Kerr: To what extent do we consider what’s being replaced? Do we consider it an upgrade? Probably we all agree this is more appropriate than what is there now. And is it important that it’s an upgrade even though it’s not everyone’s ideal.
Ms. Gilchrist: It is an upgrade. And to my mind it could ultimately be considered a contributing structure.
Mr. Chute: This is more than an upgrade. This is outstanding.
Mrs. Boyer: And it’s not that much larger. We know what the existing house looks like and this is not going to be some gigantic leap.
Ms. Gilchrist: I don’t think so either. And even if they took all the trees down, which I doubt they’ll do, this is going to be a much more significant piece of architecture than what’s there now.
Mr. Kerr: It’s hard to turn it down when it’s replacing something far inferior to it.
Mrs. Boyer: Our regulations say, and I know I keep jumping on it, that we can’t take trees into consideration. Is this a state regulation or is this ours?
Ms. Gilchrist: It is a State enabling statute.
Mrs. Boyer: Because I thought if it’s ours, we could reconsider it. Because there are trees that live longer than some houses and you have to replace them with other big trees. But if it’s a state thing we can’t do it. Too bad.
Ms. Gilchrist: One reason this house appeals to me even though it’s very modern and it differs in almost every way from other houses in the district or even the town, it has a utilitarian feel to it that I really like. To me it relates in some aspects to the Averill barn. And the fact that it’s a rural district, I almost wish we had more basic utilitarian, well designed stuff in that district and less of this fussy, expensive, pretend colonial stuff.
Mrs. Mills: This house doesn’t bother me at all and I live in the district.
Ms. Gilchrist: This answers to that idea we put out there now and then which is – wouldn’t it be great if somebody came along and designed something modern and unusual that really works.
Mr. Chute: I think this is in that class.
Mrs. Boyer: This also gives us something to lean against when something is too frilly or has too many little details.
Ms. Gilchrist: Are we ready to vote?
All agreed they were.MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted 5/28/09, by Lloyd Wexler, 157 Calhoun Street, for alterations and additions to existing house, barn(garage), driveway and site as shown in photos and drawings by Demetriades & Walker presented with the application; also, received 6/15/09, plan showing location of A/C condenser with greenscreen fence, and information on exterior lighting. This work is to be completed by June 15, 2010; or else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Correspondence
Ms. Gilchrist read a letter from the State Historical Society stating that the Hollister House on Nettleton Hollow Road has been accepted as an historic site.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Chute.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:15PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
Posted: June 2, 2009 May 18, 2009
7:30PM, Selectmen’s Office
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Gilchrist
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. James, Ms. Demetriades, Mr. Walker, Mr. Woodward, Mrs. Canning, Mr. and Mrs. Bass
REGULAR MEETING
Mr. Kerr opened the regular meeting at 7:30PM, seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Ms. Gilchrist.
James /175 Calhoun Street /Discussion – Outdoor lighting.
Mr. James, 175 Calhoun Street, was present to discuss his proposal for outdoor lighting. He said he would like to place light poles along his driveway. The poles would be lower (about 5ft) at the driveway cut. The rest of the poles would be taller (8 to 10ft) to avoid snow plow damage. Lights will be shielded and pointed downward to be focused on the driveway and stay out of driver’s eyes. Mr. James said the lights are required for safety due to the fact that his driveway is curvy, dark and dangerous and his house sits behind an outcropping of rocks.The members looked at photos of the driveway (dated 2/1/09), taken at night by Mr. Talbot, showing trees and rocks along the driveway lighted up. Mrs. Boyer asked Mr. James if the lights in the trees and rocks as shown in the photos had been removed. He replied the lights had been removed after he received notice from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. James said he preferred the lights installed on the trees and rocks because the installation was not as visible as a metal light pole. He noted the driveway is a very dark area. Mr. Talbot commented, this is the country and that is the nature of all driveways in the Calhoun-Ives area. Mr. Chute added this is an area where the Commission would like to see the rural, small farm atmosphere preserved. He said he is having difficulty with lights in this area. Mrs. Boyer observed that the lights on the trees and rocks were very visible to neighbors across the way and drivers on the road. Mr. James told the members that he is a weekend resident and the lights that were in the trees had only spotty use such as when they had guests.
Mrs. Mills suggested to Mr. James that he have a look at the driveway lights at 128 Calhoun Street. This house has a long driveway. The lights are motion sensitive and are not bright. Mr. Chute added, the lights are shielded downward, not tall and just mark the driveway. Mrs. Boyer said the lights are beautiful and agreed it would be worthwhile for Mr. James to have a look at them. Mr. James said he would go see them.
Mr. Chute noted that a lot of residents in the district are not weekenders like Mr. James, and so the Commission is trying to preserve the rural nature of this area. Mr. James replied that he understands and he also appreciates the rural, historic nature of the district. He said he is not happy about installing light poles either and would rather install the lights in trees because it is least offensive from an appearance standpoint.
Mr. Talbot noted that the lights came to the attention of the Commission because they would be left on for an entire week and added significant light to a district where this kind of lighting is inappropriate. The goal is to come up with something that will accomplish what you need to light the driveway; shielded lights to just give a glow. Mr. James said he never intended to leave the lights on day and night. If they were on for a whole week, it was by accident.
Mr. Talbot said the goal from the standpoint of Zoning would be to maintain the dark skies, including in the back yard. Install lighting that will be low level. From the standpoint of the HDC, very low level, minimal lighting on the driveway as you enter and to light turns in the driveway.
Mr. James said his goal is to light the driveway so people can see to drive up and down. He said he is not trying to light every portion of the driveway. He just wants to have enough lights to clearly show where the driveway is. Mr. Talbot stated it is possible to achieve the same purpose with a low level light which creates just a glow. He said tall poles or lights mounted in trees are not necessarily the solution.
Mr. James asked Mr. Talbot if he could contact him to ask additional questions about lighting. Mr. Talbot said yes he could and perhaps they could get together with the ZEO to review some lighting issues.
Mr. James thanked the Commission for their time and feedback.
Wexler /157 Calhoun Street /Continued Discussion – Alterations & additions
Elizabeth Demetriades and Patrick Walker were present to continue the discussion on behalf of Mr. Wexler. Ms. Demetriades noted that some of the members were not present at the April meeting, so she went over some highlights from last month’s discussion. She showed the members the survey map and the site plan. Mrs. Canning, a resident at 119 Calhoun Street, said she thinks it is misleading to characterize this project on the Agenda as alterations and additions. Ms. Demetriades replied that is exactly what it is; an expansion of an existing house. There is a porch added on either end.Ms. Demetriades showed the members some photos to give them an idea of how the house is set back from the road. She read a description of their project and said they used the HDC Guidelines to help them.
They would like to change the driveway to where it used to be. This would eliminate the intrusion of the old driveway through the field. They also propose adding a kink in the new driveway to cover the addition of a privacy gate.
Ms. Demetriades presented two drawings(rec’d 5/18/09). One of the south elevation. The other; an overlay showing a comparison of the profiles of the existing house and the proposed additions. She said they are keeping the existing foundation and the existing floor framing. They are keeping the second story space but elevating the height from within. The changes are in the roof profile. Ms. Demetriades said they got their inspiration for the curved roof from the rolling landscape. The footprint of the house will be enlarged by about 400sqft, most of which is screened porch area. Total interior square footage will be increased by less than 1000sqft.
Mrs. Mills asked about the roof materials. The roof is to be weathered copper with a titanium alloy coating. Ms. Demetriades said she knows the Commission does not have jurisdiction over color but she wants them to know the house will be a darker color to recede into the landscape. Mr. Talbot commented that this is an interesting plan and the curved roof massing is intriguing but he is still concerned about the flatness of the façade. He said he is trying to understand how much will be visible from the road, although the color will help it recede into the landscape. Mr. Kerr asked if the roof could be pitched downward. A discussion ensued regarding the pitch of the roof, ridge line and height. Ms. Demetriades said their objective is to keep the building long and low. She is not sure how much farther the roof can be brought down. She offered to put story poles in place for the Commission.
Mr. Smith said he was a proponent of breaking up what looked like a large mass, but he is not certain that something of this architectural style should be made to look like an old farmhouse that has been added on to over the years. Mrs. Boyer also noted that applicants should not try and duplicate old houses. Mr. Chute said it’s obviously a modern house, but it looks simpler and less obtrusive. Ms. Demetriades said the project is still in development. She discussed the floor plans with the Commission. Mr. Talbot asked about the possibility of extending the stone veneer portion of the wall outward and putting a roof over it, to break up the flatness of the facade. Mrs. Boyer agreed that Mr. Talbot’s idea was a very good one. The flatness of the wall and curve of the roof give it the look of an airplane hangar. Mr. Kerr agreed – anything to give it less of an aircraft facility look.
Ms. Demetriades said the question is – how much will be visible from Calhoun Street. Mr. Talbot replied the Commission had some concerns about window and eave detail of another house in the district that sits far back from the road. As fleeting as it is, you do read the massing on this house as you drive by. It is amazing how visible it all is from the road. He stated the proportion and scale of the plans for Mr. Wexler’s house will read - bold and strong. More shadows should be developed in it – break down the massing in some form.
Bass /75 Green Hill Road /Progress update.
Mr. and Mrs. Bass were present to give the members an update on Certificates of Appropriateness they received over the past few years. Some of the work has not been completed. Mr. Smith asked if there are to be any changes to any of the C of A’s; other things that have not been approved by the Commission. No. Mrs. Bass replied there is nothing new here. No changes – the only changes will be the dates of completion.Mr. and Mrs. Bass will complete an application along with a list of items to be completed along with completion dates. They will be on the agenda for a public hearing June 15th.
Correspondence
Mr. Kerr read a letter from Michael Ajello, ZEO to Reverend Balmer regarding lighting issues at St. John’s Episcopal Church.
MOTION: To discuss Mr. Talbot’s e-mail. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Boyer and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To accept the 4/20/09 minutes as written. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Talbot.
Mr. Kerr adjourned the meeting at 9:55PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
Posted: April 29, 2009 April 20, 2009
Public Hearing - Regular Meeting
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Gilchrist
ALTERNATES PRESENT: None
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Tilden
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. & Mrs. Sam Averill, Ms. Demetriades Mr. Walker
PUBLIC HEARING Averill /250 Calhoun Street /Erect small greenhouse on south side of barn complex.
Mr. Kerr, Vice Chairman, opened the Public Hearing at 7:33PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, submitted by Samuel J. Averill, 250 Calhoun Street, to add a small greenhouse on the south side of the barn complex. He read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 4/12/09 and seated the members. Mr. and Mrs. Averill were present.Mr. Kerr read letters from James & Ene Greenfield, 12 Ives Road and Tyler & Averil Smith, 135 Calhoun Street. Both letters were in favor of this application. The letters are in the applicant file and copies are filed with these minutes.
Mr. Kerr invited the Averills to come forward and discuss their application. Mrs. Averill said this is really their son’s project, but he is out of town. She explained that their son has a friend with experience in carpentry and greenhouses and the two of them decided the farm needs a greenhouse to extend the growing season. Mrs. Averill said the south side of the barn is a logical location because it is sunny, there is access to water in the barn and is almost out of view from the road. The greenhouse will only be visible to those driving up Calhoun Street, otherwise, it is completely blocked by the barn.
Mr. Talbot asked if there will be glass on the roof as well as the sides. Mr. Averill said the roof is to be corrugated metal. Three large panes of glass (approx. 4’x6’) installed at an angle; glass will cover the east end and the door will be on the west end. Mr. Talbot asked if the greenhouse would be accessible from the barn. Mrs. Averill replied no, it is not attached to the barn. Mr. Averill said the greenhouse is movable, but they expect to leave it where it is because it is very heavy.
Mr. Kerr asked if the greenhouse is large enough for the Commission to have jurisdiction over. Mr. Smith said even though it is movable, it is still a structure, and it comes under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Mr. Talbot said he thought the greenhouse is great. It is a farm structure – somewhat temporary, made of appropriate materials.
Mr. Kerr asked if there were any questions from the public. There were no additional questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Samuel J. Averill, 250 Calhoun Street, to erect a small greenhouse on the south side of the barn complex. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 4-0.
Mr. Kerr closed the Public Hearing at 7:41PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, CT.
REGULAR MEETING Mr. Kerr called the meeting to order at 7:42PM and seated the members.
Pending Business
Averill /250 Calhoun Street /Erect small greenhouse on south side of barn complex.
Mr. Kerr asked the members if they had any discussion on this application. They agreed the greenhouse will be a good and necessary addition. Mr. Talbot thought the revised drawings should be referenced. He dated the six pages of information and revised drawings 4/20/09. Mr. Kerr suggested they be referred to as Appendix A. They were so labeled for the file.MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Samuel J. Averill, 250 Calhoun Street, to add a small greenhouse on the south side of the barn complex as shown in photos and revised drawings marked received 4/20/09 and labeled Appendix A. This work is to be completed by April 20, 2010; or else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 4-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 3/16/09 minutes as written. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 4-0.
MOTION: To include a discussion on the Averill letter regarding barn conservation. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 4-0.
Averill Farm – Barn Conservation.
Mrs. Averill read the letter she wrote to the commission. It is in the applicant folder and a copy filed with the minutes. The letter requests a grant from The Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation to help keep their 1828 barn complex serviceable for another 100 years. They are asking friends and neighbors to write a brief letter of support.Mr. Talbot asked what the Commission could do other than the fact that the barn is in a designated historic district. Mrs. Averill replied just a note from the Commission saying how important the barn is to the town. Mr. Talbot remarked it is critically important. Mr. Kerr asked if a resolution from the Commission would suffice.
Mrs. Averill said the grant is relatively small; just enough to help them identify what needs to be done and to help them with stabilization of problem areas. She continued by saying that the representative from CT Trust said the Averill Farm has everything they are looking for: it is in an historic district, active agricultural use and is in the public view shed. He also said he has seen a lot of barns in much worse condition. Mr. Averill said the framing is in pretty good shape. He thinks the stone foundation should be fixed first.
Mr. Kerr asked if some of this work could result in an application coming before the Commission. Potentially. Mrs. Averill said the barn foundation cannot be seen from the road. Mr. Smith said the members have agreed they would like to see the barn go for another 100 years, so to HDC the value is maintaining the whole barn, even if some things need to be changed. Mrs. Averill said they don’t want to make any major changes in how the barn looks or how it is used. Mr. Chute asked what is in the barn. It is used for storage; hay, old tractors, apple boxes.
The resolution reads as follows:
The Historic District Commission of the Town of Washington unanimously endorses the application of the Averill Farm,
250 Calhoun Street, for a grant from the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation to help keep their 1828 barn complex serviceable
for another one hundred years. The Commission believes it is an essential part of the rural Calhoun-Ives Historic District.
Wexler /157 Calhoun Street /Preliminary Discussion
Elizabeth Demetriades and Patrick Walker, architects, presented a letter from Mr. Wexler authorizing them to represent him. They showed the commissioners a map of the property, photos and models(none were left for the file). The existing house sits back from the road. Ms. Demetriades said she did not think this would be a very visible project.Mr. Wexler would like to get rid of the existing driveway and, in its place, use the old entry road as a driveway. He would also like to have a privacy gate on the driveway which would not be visible from the road.
Mr. Talbot asked about the barn. Ms. Demetriades said the barn is now used as a garage with unfinished 2nd story space which will become a studio/guest apartment/gym.
Ms. Demetriades said most of the property is protected wetlands so trees will not be removed. Mr. Talbot reminded her that the Commission cannot consider trees or plantings. She stated if the application needs to be reviewed as if there are no trees, it is important for all the commissioners to go look at the site. She said they want to proceed responsibly with respect to the Commission and also their client. Ms. Demetriades noted that the challenge from their perspective is to keep the house as invisible as possible. Mr. Talbot asked what type of materials they would use. They intend to use bluestone and cedar with a metal roof, possibly copper.
Mr. Smith commented that the Commission has struggled lately with the increase in size of structures. It is important to be able to tell that additions are additions in that they are smaller than the existing house. There is nothing small or farmhouse-like about these model buildings and he said he did not know how this would look through the trees. Mr. Talbot said fundamentally, the massing is about the same for all three of the models. Mr. Chute said he did not know how much would be visible from the road. Mr. Talbot thought the volume would be noticeable while driving by. Mr. Smith suggested they do whatever they can to break up the long line of the structure. Mr. Kerr suggested it would be helpful to see a drawing of their favorite plan.
Mr. Talbot said he liked the concept of looking at a more modernistic approach and liked the curved roof idea. But, as Mr. Smith mentioned, it comes down to massing – how to keep it from being a large, out of context structure.
It was decided that the architects for Mr. Wexler should come for another informal discussion at the May 18 meeting.
Wodtke /81 Green Hill Road.
The Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Wodtke stating their picket fence had seriously deteriorated due to age and weather. They will be replacing it in-kind.MOTION: To adjourn. By Mr. Chute.
Mr. Kerr adjourned the meeting at 9:20PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
Posted: March 26, 2009 March 16, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Mills, Mr. Tilden
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mrs. Boyer
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Pleasants
PUBLIC HEARING Fineman /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Replace existing roof w/red cedar shingles.
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:30PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to replace their existing roof with red cedar shingles. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 3/8/09 and seated the members. Mr. Rod Pleasants of McIver-Morgan represented Mr. and Mrs. Fineman.Mr. Pleasants noted the sample of red cedar shingle and said it would weather to a darker color. Mrs. Mills said she liked the cedar better than the existing asphalt shingles. All agreed. Mr. Talbot said he had no problem with this application but discussed with Mr. Pleasants how installing cedar breather would prevent moisture from building up and deteriorating the shingles. Mr. Pleasants said he would be using the cedar breather and also intended to put the same gutters back up.
Ms. Gilchrist read letters from Richard G. Dutton, 28 Sunny Ridge Road and also Stephen R. Brighenti, Managing Member of 10 Sunny Ridge Road Associates. Both were in favor of this application. The letters are in the applicant file and copies are filed with these minutes.
Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any additional questions or comments. Mr. Pleasants had a question about the possibility of burying the power lines to the house. Mr. Talbot asked where the electric meter box was located. Mr. Pleasants said it is on the left side of the house near the porch and the utility company told him that there was no reason for them to change its location. In that case, Mr. Talbot said there would be no reason to come to the HDC about burying the lines.
There were no additional questions or comments.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Lori and Steven Fineman, 32 Sunny Ridge Road, to replace their existing roof with red cedar shingles. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Talbot and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 7:40PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING Ms. Gilchrist called the meeting to order at 7:41PM and seated the members.
Pending Business
Fineman /32 Sunny Ridge Road /Replace existing roof w/red cedar shingles.
A discussion ensued regarding copper flashing opposed to lead coated copper flashing for the chimney. Mr. Pleasants said he does not like the lead coated copper. Mr. Talbot agreed and said copper will not discolor the way lead coated copper does. He would like the motion to specify that copper be used for the chimney flashing.MOTION: To approve the application submitted by Lori and Steven Fineman, received by the Commission on 3/16/09, to replace their existing roof at 32 Sunny Ridge Road with western red perfection cedar shingles, and with copper flashing at the chimney. This work is to be completed by March 16, 2010; or else this approval shall be void. By Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 2/9/09 minutes as amended:
Pg.3, Par.1, line 1; …..not be visible…..
Pg.3, Par.1, line 6; …..over future applications….
Pg.3, Par.1, line 7; …..what may or may not be appropriate in scale and height.
Pg.3, Par.1, line 8; …..asked for 1/8th inch scale drawings to match the transparencies from the file.
Pg.3, Par.1, line 18; delete all.
Pg.3, Par.1, line 18; …..from the HDC files…..
Pg.3, Par.1, line 19; …..districts. Mr. Talbot said he relied on the accuracy of drawings submitted by the applicants. Neither Mr. Talbot nor the HDC have physically documented any existing conditions themselves.
Pg.3, Par.2, line 5; …..driveway locations.Other Business
Ann Khouri Bass /75 Green Hill Road /Progress update.
Mrs. Bass was unable to attend this meeting. She will be scheduled for a future meeting.St. John’s Episcopal Church /78 Green Hill Road /Lighted sign.
Ms. Gilchrist read a letter dated 3/2/09 from Mr. Ajello, ZEO, to Reverend Balmer in which he said that State regulations allow for church signs within the state easement but electricity of any kind is prohibited and this may even include the floodlights. The Commission was in agreement that Mr. Ajello’s letter was very well done and they appreciated his effort.The members read the Zoning Regulations regarding outdoor lighting. They discussed the floodlights which may be against the Zoning regulations. They concluded that Zoning will deal with the spotlights and if they are approved, then Reverend Balmer will need to come to the Historic Commission with an application. Mr. Talbot suggested that a soft glow against the façade of the building would respect the neighbors across the street and also the District. Mr. Kerr said he thinks the Zoning Commission is more concerned with illumination and HDC is more concerned with visible fixtures. Mr. Smith said they need to be sure that whatever is decided is in tune with the District.
Election of Officers.
Mr. Tilden said he was impressed with the current leadership. Ms. Gilchrist said she was not anxious to be Chairman again, but would be willing to stay on if someone else would lead the meeting. After some discussion, it was decided that Ms. Gilchrist would stay on as chairman and, if she wished, could delegate another member to moderate the meetings.MOTION: To elect the following Historic District Commission officers for 2009: Ms. Gilchrist – Chairman, Mr. Kerr – Vice Chairman and Mr. Talbot – Clerk. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.
MOTION: To include subsequent business not already posted on the Agenda. By Ms. Gilchrist, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.
Mr. Talbot recalled a special meeting the Commission held with Mr. Markert and Mr. Boling to discuss coordination with Planning and Zoning to help strengthen the HDC regulations. He asked the members to be thinking about issues that could be discussed in the future with other commissions, such as: collaboration with Zoning on outdoor lighting in Historic Districts, or subdivisions in Historic Districts with Planning. Mr. Smith noted that some years ago there had been a discussion about clustering houses closer together in a subdivision in order to leave more open space. In addition, he said he did not think Planning feels compelled to think about something differently just because it is in an Historic District. Ms. Gilchrist said they are supposed to be guided by the Plan of Development. Mr. Kerr thought it would be appropriate to point that out.
Ms. Gilchrist was asked if there was anything new on the status of the Stuart Farm. She replied that it had been agreed to list it on the Endangered Properties list.
Ms. Gilchrist said she would be willing to help Mrs. Boyer work on the web site, and also to help with the filing system in Town Hall.
MOTION: To adjourn. By Mr. Smith.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 8:55PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Secretary
Posted: February 21, 2009 February 9, 2009
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Smith, Mr. Talbot
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Chute, Mr. Kerr
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills
ALTERNATES ABSENT: Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Gilchrist called the meeting to order at 7:35PM. She seated the members and Alternate Boyer for Mr. Chute and Alternate Mills for Mr. Kerr.
Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 1/12/08 minutes as amended:
Pg.3, Par.6, Line 1; ……..Hearing at 8:05PM to…..
Pg.4, Par.1, Line 3; …..back an additional 8ft…..
By Mrs. Boyer, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.Correspondence
A. James, 175 Calhoun Street.
Ms. Gilchrist read a letter dated 1/23/09 from Mr. James to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Mike Ajello. He stated that he would contact Mr. Ajello when he returns to town. Mr. Talbot said that the ZEO is looking into this on behalf of Zoning because the Zoning Regs do not allow this type of lighting in a residential district. In addition, the Building Department requires an electrical permit and one was never applied for. The members looked at the photos(marked Calhoun Street 2/1/09) taken at night by Mr. Talbot. Mrs. Boyer asked where HDC fits in – she suggested that the ZEO should also tell Mr. James that in addition to Zoning, he also needs to come to Historic. Mr. Talbot told the members that Mr. Ajello will point out to the owner that he not only needs Zoning and Building approval, but Historic as well. Mrs. Mills pointed out there is also lighting in trees behind the Williams house, 87 Calhoun Street and the Klemm house, 11 Ives Road. The Commission agreed that some lighting, when people are entertaining, is ok, but all of these lights are not appropriate. They change the character of the neighborhood.B. Ann Khouri Bass, 75 Green Hill Road.
Ms. Gilchrist read the 1/19/09 letter from Mrs. Bass stating they would like to meet with the Commission at the March 16 meeting to discuss their progress. Mrs. Boyer wondered about the black material on the window in front – it looks like metal. Mr. Talbot said in his last conversation with Mrs. Bass, she told him they had to start working on the interior of the house because it was so damaged.Other Business
St. John’s Episcopal Church /lighted sign.
The members looked at the photos taken by Mrs. Boyer of the sign. She said she took these pictures because they did not come to HDC and when you drive on Green Hill Road in either direction at night, the lights on the sign shine directly into your eyes. They never had a light on the previous sign. The lights are a safety hazard. The Zoning Enforcement Officer wrote a letter to the Pastor. The files will be researched to see if there is a picture of the previous sign. Mrs. Boyer said they need to be told that they are in an historic district and they need to come to HDC before they change anything.Petition To Zoning Commission.
The members discussed Mr. Talbot’s petition regarding heights of buildings in historic districts. Mr. Talbot noted that the research he did has shown that the way the Regulations are written regarding scale and mass are enough to keep buildings low as well as to keep them the appropriate size. He said he does not want to over-regulate something the Commission already has pretty good control over. Mr. Talbot said when he wrote the petition he did not realize Zoning had to act within 90 days. In addition, he wondered if this change in the Zoning Regulations would disallow buildings in a historic district that would not visible from a public way. He commented that would not be fair and was not the intent. Mr. Talbot said he thought they should chalk up this effort as having been worthwhile and useful. Now that these buildings are documented, the end result of this work is that we can lay these drawings over applications to see what is appropriate or not. Mrs. Boyer asked if applicants should be asked for scale drawings. Mr. Talbot replied he could request them in his review if needed. Mr. Smith asked if HDC should make the Guidelines more specific. Mr. Talbot said he thought they were specific enough. Ms. Gilchrist noted that what Mr. Talbot has done in measuring and making these drawings is the best possible supplement to the Regulations. Having the drawings allows the Commission to legitimately compare new applications with existing houses in the districts without just relying on memory or impressions. Mr. Talbot confirmed that these drawings were all taken from existing files in the three historic districts. After some further discussion, Mr. Talbot said he would withdraw the petition at the next Zoning meeting. The members discussed the need to work more closely with the other Commissions. Mrs. Boyer said other Commissions should be reminded that HDC also has a say in the final approval of an application. This should also apply to driveways.Election of Officers is postponed until the March meeting.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Mr. Talbot.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:30PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Posted: January 22, 2009 January 12, 2009
PUBLIC HEARINGS and REGULAR MEETING
7:30PM, Land Use Meeting RoomMEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Chute, Ms. Gilchrist, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Smith
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Talbot
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Mrs. Boyer, Mrs. Mills, Mr. Tilden
STAFF PRESENT: Mrs. Shade
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Brighenti, Mrs. Andersen, Mr. Pleasants, Mr. Queral, Mr. Mills
PUBLIC HEARINGS 10 Sunny Ridge Associates LLC(cont’d) /10 Sunny Ridge Road /cover the round window, replace dormers and outline for planting.
Ms. Gilchrist reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:30PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Stephen Brighenti, Manager, 10 Sunny Ridge Associates LLC, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, to cover the round window, replace dormers and outline for planting. She seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Brighenti was present.Ms. Gilchrist began by reading letters from Charles Treadway 20 Nettleton Hollow Road, Frances M. Aeschliman 18 Sunny Ridge Road and Richard G. Dutton 28 Sunny Ridge Road. All are in support of Mr. Brighenti’s plans to correct the existing violations at 10 Sunny Ridge Road. These letters are in the applicant file and copies are filed with these minutes.
Mr. Brighenti told the members he hoped the shed dormers would downplay the roof and that the proposed plantings of Norway spruce and rhododendrons would obscure the building from the public way. Ms. Gilchrist noted that he came back with everything that was discussed at the meeting last month. Mr. Tilden expressed his appreciation for the work Mr. Brighenti has done. Mr. Kerr suggested that approval be predicated upon planting being done in the spring and if that is not done, the violation would be renewed.
Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Stephen Brighenti, Manager, 10 Sunny Ridge Associates LLC, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, to cover the round window, replace dormers and outline for plantings. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 7:45PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Judea Nursery School /6 Kirby Road /Replace playscape equipment.
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:46PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by the First Congregational Church for Judea Nursery School, 6 Kirby Road, to replace the playscape equipment. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 1/4/09. Ms. Gilchrist seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot. Mrs. Valerie Andersen, Chair Board of Directors for Judea Nursery School was present.Mrs. Andersen brought the manufacturer’s pictures of a similar playscape in a playground setting which was requested at the last meeting. She stated there would be chips on the ground under the playscape as they are mandated by the state.
The Commission looked over the photos and site plan which were brought to this meeting. Mrs. Boyer asked about the height. It will be the same as existing. Mrs. Andersen said the new playscape occupies the same footprint as the old equipment. She also noted that the playscape is made entirely of recycled plastic; no splinters, no paint. It is much safer than chemically treated wood. She said the play equipment is used not only by the nursery children, but is also used by the Church and The Gunnery. Mrs. Andersen said the new playscape is predominately brown but has some green. Mr. Tilden pointed out that the Commission has no jurisdiction over color. Mrs. Boyer agreed.
The members briefly discussed the site plan and photos. Mrs. Andersen said she expected the new equipment could be in place by June. She was told the standard length of time to complete a project is one year.
Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any more questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by the First Congregational Church for Judea Nursery School, 6 Kirby Road, to replace the playscape equipment. By Mrs. Mills, seconded by Ms. Gilchrist and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 8:00PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
Nussbaum /132 Calhoun Street /New single family residence, attached garage w/bedroom & bath above, guest house & pool.
Ms. Gilchrist opened the Public Hearing at 7:30PM to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Paul A. Nussbaum to construct a single family residence, attached garage with bedroom and bath above, guest house and pool. She read the legal notice which appeared in Voices on 1/4/09. Ms. Gilchrist seated the members and Mrs. Mills for Mr. Talbot. Mr. Nussbaum was represented by Mr. Rod Pleasants and Mr. George Queral of McIver Morgan Architects. Mr. Pleasants asked if any of the members had driven past to look at the new stakes which had been installed. A couple of the members said they had. Ms. Gilchrist asked about the bright color at the top of the story poles. Mr. Pleasants said it represents the ridgeline.The members looked over the new set of drawings with Mr. Pleasants and Mr. Queral. Mr. Pleasants pointed out that the house has now been pushed back 8ft from the road, the second section is now back an additional 2ft and the total length of the house has been reduced by 2ft because they removed one of the fireplaces. Mr. Pleasants commented the entire structure has been pulled down a lot visually from where it was before. Mr. Chute said he thought it made a big difference.
In addition, Mr. Pleasants said the guest house, along with all the other buildings, has been pushed back so that it appears even lower. The terrace which was originally planned for the back of the guest house has been removed.
Mr. Kerr asked Mr. Pleasants if he prefers this new rendition. Mr. Pleasants replied that he does and the owner is also pleased. Mr. Tilden asked if they had made a change in the eaves as Mr. Talbot had suggested. Yes. Mr. Queral showed the members the new drawing. Mr. Queral also told the members that the roof pitches are all the same. Mr. Pleasants noted that the garage doors had been simplified and very little of them would be visible. Mrs. Mills asked where the garage was located. Mr. Queral replied it is under the house.
The members briefly discussed the retaining wall. It is 6½ft high. Ms. Gilchrist asked if more grading could be done to soften the corners of the retaining wall. Mr. Pleasants said her point was well taken. Mr. Queral commented he wants to change as little as possible of the contour. Mr. Pleasants asked the members if they like the stone. Ms. Gilchrist said yes, but the character of the stone work will matter. Mrs. Boyer asked about the stone steps shown on the site plan. They lead down to the street and she wondered if anyone would really walk on them. Mr. Pleasants said they would remove those steps. There is no reason for them.
Mr. Pleasants said they cut down the square feet and massing and have tried to be as cooperative as possible. The members were appreciative of the work that has been done. The Commission looked at the samples of barn siding, clapboard and gravel for the driveway. The only outside lighting planned is what is required to be by the doors.
Ms. Gilchrist asked if there were any more questions or comments. There were none.
MOTION: To close the Public Hearing to consider the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Paul A. Nussbaum to construct a new single family residence at 132 Calhoun Street. By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.
Ms. Gilchrist closed the Public Hearing at 8:35PM.
This Public Hearing was recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Land Use Office, Bryan Memorial Town Hall, Washington Depot, Connecticut.
REGULAR MEETING Ms. Gilchrist called the meeting to order at 8:37PM. She seated the members and Alternate Mills for Mr. Talbot.
Pending Business
10 Sunny Ridge Associates LLC(cont’d) /10 Sunny Ridge Road /cover over round window.
MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Stephen Brighenti, Manager, 10 Sunny Ridge Associates LLC, 10 Sunny Ridge Road, to cover the round window on the east end of the house with clapboards to match existing, to change the three existing dormers on the south side of the house to shed dormers and plant according to the plan submitted 1/12/09 in order to screen the house in accordance with the approval of July 10, 2000. Plantings are not recognized by this Commission. However, the aforementioned plantings were agreed to at a previous point in time in order to resolve pending litigation and the Commission will honor that previous commitment without setting any precedents from this time forward and will remove the Notice of Violation of June 25, 2007, recorded in Vol. 199, Page 909, of the Washington Land Records. The Commission reserves the right to renew the notice of violations if the changes are not completed by January 12, 2010.
By Mr. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Smith and passed 5-0.Judea Nursery School /6 Kirby Road /Replace playscape equipment.
MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by the First Congregational Church on behalf of Judea Nursery School, 6 Kirby Road, to replace the existing playscape with new equipment as shown in photos and on the site plan presented with the application. This work is to be completed by January 12, 2010; or else this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Mills and passed 5-0.Nussbaum /132 Calhoun Street /New single family residence, garage w/bedroom & bath above, guest house and pool.
Mr. Smith acknowledged that the architects have worked hard and very successfully to minimize the size and scale. Mr. Chute also congratulated the people who put this together because they listened. They did a good job. All the members agreed. Mrs. Mills added, the concern about seeing the house from the Stuart Farm appears to be much less.The members briefly discussed outside lighting. Mr. Pleasants said he would be glad to come back to the Commission about any outside lights and a plan to minimize the retaining wall and parking area. As of now they are only planning one lantern at each door.
MOTION: To approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Paul A. Nussbaum to construct a new single family dwelling and garage with bedroom and bath above, guest house and pool at 132 Calhoun Street, as shown in drawings received 1/8/09; WITH THE EXCEPTION of the retaining wall and parking area at the south end of the house, the walkway from the driveway to the road and any exterior lighting, all of which are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This work is to be completed by January 12, 2010; or else this approval shall be void.
By Mr. Chute, seconded by Ms. Gilchrist and passed 5-0.Consideration of the Minutes
MOTION: To accept the 12/15/08 minutes as written. By Mrs. Mills, seconded by Mr. Kerr and passed 5-0.Other Business
MOTION: To defer election of officers until the next regularly scheduled meeting on 2/9/09. By Ms. Gilchrist, seconded by Mr. Chute and passed 5-0.Mrs. Boyer submitted photos of the pool fence and gate at 156 Calhoun Street for the file.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. By Ms. Gilchrist.
Ms. Gilchrist adjourned the meeting at 9:25PM.
FILED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Respectfully Submitted,
Martha T. Shade, Clerk
Meetings in 2008