Historic District Commission Minutes 10/02/2014
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 2, 2014
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
Acting Chairperson Marguerite Rodney called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. Commission members present were Mark Nyquist, Julie Carmelich, Jonathan Laschever, Betty Woollacott, and Patricia Hyppa. Also in attendance were Michael Glidden, Code Compliance Officer; Rachel Blatt, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
A quorum was present and no alternates were appointed.
III. PUBLIC HEARING(s)
Commissioner Laschever made a motion to reverse the order of Agenda to hear Application #14-07 of Jonathan Pintoff, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a central air condensing unit on the side of the house on the property located at 100 East Weatogue Street, map and block as filed, continued from 9/4/2014.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
b. Application #14-07 of Jonathan Pintoff, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a central air condensing unit on the side of the house on the property located at 100 East Weatogue Street (Map H12, Block 109, Lot 018). (filed 8/11/2014, continued from 9/4/2014, decision must be rendered by 10/15/2014)
The Applicant provided the Commissioners with copies of the site map showing the proposed fence location and a picture of the proposed fence style. The fence for the 3 1/2-foot tall condenser would be 4-feet tall; the property is about 15 feet above the road, and due to its angle, the condenser would not be visible from the road. The Commissioners noted their concern would be that the AC unit be screened. The Applicant planned to fence the whole property to protect their younger children. The tongue and groove cedar fence would not allow light through or visibility, and with the tree line, only about 2-feet of fence would be visible from the street. The fence would likely be left natural and allowed to weather providing a more blended-in look. The total 200-foot perimeter included 40 feet from the side of the house and along the tree line, then 40 feet in back; the fence would go straight along the right side of the house with minimal stepping and perpendicular to the road minimizing visibility. The buried tank would also be covered by the fence. The 4-foot height fence was also selected by the Applicant to line up with the porch and would be set back from the porch. A second lower cost option would be a 6x8-foot enclosure for the unit, if the fence cost was too high. The Commissioners noted that the fence material could be changed to a different material where it is not visible from the road. Town Staff advised the Applicant to make sure to locate the septic system in order to assure no post hole is placed near the dry well line.
Commissioner Woollacott made a motion to approve Application #14-07, including for an unpainted fence.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
a. Application #14-06 of Nancy C. Onken, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new home and associated accessory structures on the property located at 126 East Weatogue Street (Map H12, Block 106, Lot 036-4). (filed 8/11/2014, continued from 9/4/2014, decision must be rendered by 10/18/2014)
The Commissioners asked if there were new materials for review. The Applicant indicated there were no new materials and was surprised and disappointed to this Application was on the Agenda for this evening. The Applicant reviewed her extensive efforts and attempted changes, some of which were made at the Commission's suggestion. The Applicant noted a filing date of 8/11/2014 on the Agenda and read her letter of 9/30/2014 into the record which was submitted to the Town and a copy provided to the Commissioners. The Applicant emailed an application to the Town on 7/17/2014 and received a confirmation email from Town Staff of the same date and felt that precedent was set by the Town. The Applicant read the email into the record: "I will forward this to Mike Glidden for perusal. The 8/7/2014 meeting of the Historic District Commission has been canceled. This would be heard at their meeting on 9/04/2014." She indicated there was never any urgency conveyed to her about submitting the signed original, but believed it was just a formality for the file. The Applicant had an email from Town Staff dated 7/23/2014 telling her the copy emailed was more of a placemarker. The Applicant felt that the definition of "placemarker" was more of a placeholder for something to come later and felt that the Application should be substituted back to the email date of 7/17/2014 and did not know how to move forward with new materials because it would be inconsistent with the concept that the time has expired. The Applicant indicated the intention to work with the Town, including for existing drainage issues and getting started with the project to move that forward.
The Commissioners summarized that the Applicant believed that if an Application was received and not heard within a certain number of days, then the Application would be approved by default and asked to hear from Town Staff. Town Staff provided the Commissioners with a copy of #5 of the Bylaws stating that, "A completed Application has to be returned to an officer of the Commission. It will then be dated and numbered. The formal filing date is established by the Commission." Town Staff believed the decision to establish a formal filing date lies with the Commission; application material dates provided to the Commissioners included: 7/11/2014 version, 8/11/2014 when the original copy of the Application was submitted, and 8/15/2014 on the actual plans submitted for roofing. The Applicant felt the actual Application indicated plans, drawings, etc. should be submitted 2 weeks prior to the hearing date and complied with the 9/4/2014 meeting date. Town Staff's stance was that 8/11/2014 was the actual submission date, and at the time the August meeting was cancelled, no Applications were submitted to be heard and the Application was delivered to the office on 8/11/2014. The Applicant believed the decision to cancel the meeting was made before her Application was received. The Commissioners recalled that tonight's meeting was intended to discuss a revised design and nothing was provided by the Applicant to discuss. Town Staff recommended based on the 8/11/2014 date scheduling a Special Meeting prior to the 10/15/2014 terminal date, or the Applicant could ask for a 30-day extension to the terminal date of 10/15/2014 giving the Commission time for further discussion and allowing the Applicant to provide revised plans.
The Commissioners discussed the acceptance of applications. Town Staff said typically one hard copy is submitted and another set is sent in electronically because in fairness to the public, they can come in to see what was submitted; the minimum would be to provide a paper set to the Town with an original signature indicating the applicant is authorized to sign it. The Applicant felt there was no dispute that an email application was received 7/17/2014 and a hearing would not take place until 9/4/2014 and submitted it for the record; in previous instances the Applicant indicated an email was used for purposes of putting it on the agenda and providing notice to the public after 8/11/2014. The Applicant believed the placemarker should have had the date of 7/17/2014, rather than 8/11/2014 and had not seen an Agenda with dates like this before. The Applicant's position was that she had nothing to extend because the date had passed. The Commissioners noted the placeholder could be interpreted as a courtesy to hold it until the application is in hand or it would be pulled; and the fact that the public notice was not published until the Town had the signed original in hand, speaks to the validity of that date. At the last meeting, the Application was tabled until this meeting for further discussion and tonight's discussion would have been appropriate at that moment. The Applicant did not believe the onus was on her to raise the issue with the date. The Commissioners believed that the Applicant has worked hard over the last year to move forward on this property, but given community opposition to the Application, claiming default may not be the best position. The Applicant responded the concern was to close on the property with the seller in good faith, and was raising an argument justified by the facts and prior dealings with former Town Staff that there was a practice of accepting email applications and using them as the file date for purposes of triggering deadlines. The Commissioners understood the assertion, but noted that former Town Staff were not present to confirm that. Town Staff noted the Applicant signed the Application as the property owner; however, the Applicant confirmed she has a contract to purchase the property and believed that was made clear previously. Town Staff apologized if there was a misunderstanding.
The Commissioners summarized there is no design to review at this meeting and the best option would be to schedule a Special Meeting prior to 10/15/2014 and invited the Applicant to submit additional drawings for review. The Applicant's last submission was considered by the Commission to be an improvement in response to comments provided to the Applicant. The Applicant responded the additional 1/2 acre of land proposed to be purchased was to provide the design a much bigger footprint on the larger lot. The Commissioners noted that was discussed at the last meeting and comments regarding their concerns were provided to the Applicant. The Commissioners expressed appreciation for the Applicant's hardwork and had anticipated a revised design tying it all together for discussion at this meeting. The Applicant and Commissioners discussed the date for a Special Meeting and agreed on 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, 10/09/2014. The Commissioners noted that Town Staff needs to pull information together, contact former Town Staff, and talk to the Town Attorney regarding the implications.
Commissioner Woollacott made a motion to schedule a Special Meeting on 10/09/2014 at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Ann Weld of Heather Lane has followed this Application from the beginning, and because she is not always in Simsbury, as a member of the public went to the Town Hall in August to see if it was on the Agenda, but it was on in September.
Sue Bednarcyk of Heather Lane suggested obtaining advice from the Town Attorney, and that in any event, it would also have to go back to Planning.
Ann Weld of Heather Lane suggested that regarding placement of solar panels in the District that the Commission begin thinking about that issue. The Commissioners advised that there is another review process before it would come to this Commission.
NEW BUSINESS was brought up by the Commissioners to further discuss solar and whether there is a State or Federal law that excludes the Commission from ruling on the appropriateness of solar panels. The Commissioners discussed their understanding from the State training session that it is within the Commission's purview. While the idea of sustainability is desireable, the look of the panels may not be. Town Staff noted there are guidelines available online from the National Park Service about solar technologies and what to consider. The Commissioners felt they should begin developing a policy for upcoming solar applications. Public comment was added that there are many neighborhoods in the Town that would benefit from any guidelines developed for solar as momentum increases. Commissioner Carmelich noted the National Park Services Guidelines for solar panels have not quite caught up with the energy efficiency wave and recommends they be on the rear slope of the home or on the ground and out of site, which can be a difficult challenge. The State Historic Preservation Office is also working on this issue and moving ahead more quickly and currently prefers the monochromatic look of solar panels completely covering the roof, although that increases the expense. Public attendees noted eventually the panels have to be removed from the roof resulting in siting issues; solar shingles were said to be under development.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 4, 2014
Commissioner Rodney made a motion to approve the September 4, 2014, minutes as written.
Commissioner Woollacott seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Laschever made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Betty Woollacott, Secretary