Historic District Commission Minutes 11/05/2020

Historic District Commission
TOWN OF SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 5:00 P.M.
Zoom Meeting/Simsbury Community Television Live Stream

I. CALL TO ORDER

The Special Meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order at 7:01 P.M. via Zoom Meeting/Simsbury Community Television Live Stream. Also in attendance was Laura Barkowski, Land Use Specialist; Michael Glidden, Director of Planning & Community Development; Karen Haberlin, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.

II. ROLL CALL

Commission members present were Peter Adamowicz, Julie Carmelich, Marguerite Carnell, Heather Goetz, Patty Hyyppa and Dianne Mead.

1. Appointment of Alternates
Ms. Carnell appointed Mr. Adamowicz as an alternate for the meeting.

III. APPLICATIONS
1. Public Hearing
a) Application #20-07 CRS Landscape & Excavation, Applicant; Marshall Epstein, Owner for a Certificate of Appropriateness to dismantle an approximately 30’x 80’ barn on the
property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108 Lot 003).
Zone R-40.

2. Discussion and Possible Action
a) Application #20-07 CRS Landscape & Excavation, Applicant; Marshall Epstein, Owner for a Certificate of Appropriateness to dismantle an approximately 30’x 80’ barn on the
property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108 Lot 003).
Zone R-40.

Ms. Carnell read the application aloud and invited the applicant to speak.

Terri Tracey Donohue, Attorney, representing Rosedale Farms, introduced himself. He also introduced Marshall Epstein, Proprietor, Operator and Farmer of Rosedale Farms and Jeremy Vearil, a contractor who has been engaged for the demolition of the barn. He referenced pictures of the barn, which were submitted. The pictures were screen shared for commissioners to view. Mr. Donohue referenced sections from the Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development of 2017 in which Rosedale Farms is mentioned. He stated that the farmhouse on the property was built in 1850, as was one of the other barns, and one other barn was built in 1900. He noted there are very historic elements of Rosedale Farms but he does not think the barn they are proposing be dismantled is part of that. Next, he referenced each of the photos of the barn they wish to dismantle. He noted it is in significant disrepair. He stated it was hastily built in 1955 after the flood. He further showed photos of the interior of the barn, noting it was constructed with 2’ x 4’s, not post and beam. It has a dirt floor and it is in rough shape. He noted it is not habitable and it is not safe for normal use. He added that they will try to reuse, or repurpose, any materials they can after dismantling. The plan is to grade, rake, loam and seed the area after dismantling. Mr. Donohue again referenced the Plan of Conservation and Development’s mention of Rosedale Farms, noting Rosedale embraces the importance of Simsbury’s historic sites. He noted the Farm hopes that the Commission will see that the barn they seek to dismantle is a structure that is operationally and aesthetically obsolete. Mr. Donohue further noted the Application is for disassembly and removal of the shed barn on the southeast part of the Rosedale property. The structure is from 1955-1960, is 2500 square feet and is in very poor condition. He noted the Applicant owns and operates one of Simsbury’s “Special Places” as defined and set up in the 2017 Plan of Conservation and Development. He added that substantial portions of the property are under conservation and farmland protection with the Simsbury Land Trust and the United States Department of Agriculture. He noted the structure being proposed for dismantling is in the absolute southeast corner of the property. He stated it does not comply with current zoning as it encroaches on both the side line and the front setback line. He said they believe the building official is or may be concerned about the present dilapidated and disintegrating condition of the structure and added that it was suggested that the building inspector take a look at the structure as part of this process. He noted they would be accepting and appreciative of that. Mr. Donohue went on to say that this barn is not historic in the same manner and degree as the farm, which includes an 1835 farmhouse, the prevailing structure, an 1850 barn and a 1900 shed. He further noted the barn is in disrepair and it is locationally and functionally obsolete. He stated that restoration and reuse are not economically feasible and the deteriorating condition is a blight. He added that the removal will enhance sight lines and traffic safety, which is a very significant concern. He noted that the farm, as a business and active farm conservation property, will be aided and enhanced by the removal of this structure. Lastly, he noted it is their position that less is more and with the removal of that structure, Rosedale Farms, which is a Simsbury treasure, will be enhanced and will operate better and more safely. Further, he acknowledged that the Commission works diligently and has significant powers, as well as responsibility.

Ms. Carnell inquired about the date of the previous application for a new roof for this building.

Mr. Glidden noted it was three years ago.

Ms. Carnell asked if, at that time, the building was in good enough condition and valuable enough to the applicant at that time that he was willing to invest in a new roof for that building. She asked what has happened in the three years since then.

Mr. Donohue noted there has been continued deterioration of the building. He noted the business has changed, traffic considerations, in and out, have changed. He noted they are not interested in the former application.

Ms. Carnell clarified that the business model has changed and there has been an increase of traffic. She acknowledged that the intersection there is difficult.

Mr. Donohue noted that the change in the business model is the most significant factor.

Ms. Carnell asked how the building is currently used.

Mr. Donohue responded that it is used for storage.

Ms. Carnell discussed the date of the barn and its historic significance, both in the National Register District and in the Local Historic District, which is based on the National Register District. She referenced the National Register District Nomination document, noting the listing for 25 East Weatogue Street includes an 1835 dwelling, a 1952 vegetable stand, a 1900 barn, a 1900 tobacco shed and a 1960 shed. She noted her understanding is that this building is a former tobacco shed and dates to about 1900.

Mr. Epstein noted the shed in the middle with the vines on it is from 1900. The roof of that building blew off in the hurricane of 1936 and was restored at that time. He added this building was built later and it is not the 1900 barn.

Ms. Carnell asked about the purpose of the barn that is set back further and has vines painted on it.

Mr. Epstein noted it was also a tobacco shed.

Ms. Carnell clarified that they both were tobacco sheds. She then spoke about the significance of agriculture and agricultural buildings as documented in the National Register Nomination and read excerpts from it regarding tobacco sheds, agriculture, farmhouses and farm buildings. She noted that the Nomination states that the farm buildings are just as important as the farmhouses.

Mr. Donohue asked for clarification on that.

Ms. Carnell responded that agricultural buildings are considered important and contributing resources in the National Register District. She then spoke about the fact this is a Local Historic District and noted all buildings are considered contributing resources and are considered important. She said whether this barn dates to 1900 or 1960, it is looked at as a tobacco shed and it is a historic period building because it is fifty years old or older. The Commission would consider the fact that this building contributes to the historic character of Rosedale Farm.

Ms. Carmelich asked for more information regarding the applicant’s description of the barn as being in “poor condition.”

Mr. Epstein explained that on one side all of the sills are rotten and need to be reinforced. There has been tar paper on one side for many years and the other side has blown off. The whole roof needs to be reconstructed. He added that another shed on the northern part of the property blew over in the 1990s. He noted it is a danger to the area and it is not getting any better. He said it has a lot of disrepair and commented that one does not see too many tobacco sheds being rebuilt.

Mr. Donohue invited commissioners to visit the farm to view the building. He noted the corners and walls are not straight, and called it “a fall down structure.”

Ms. Carnell asked if it had been evaluated by a structural engineer who has expertise in historic buildings.

Mr. Donohue noted it can be evaluated if the Commission wants that. He noted he was pleased with that question and would be pleased if someone looked at the relative economic value to see that it would be a significant detriment and a real encumbrance to the operation of Rosedale Farms to have to do anything to the structure or continue to suffer with that structure.

Ms. Hyyppa noted she lives across the street. She said the building leans and noted concern about the liability aspect.

Mr. Donohue noted the risk and liability aspects include the inherent feebleness of the structure and the traffic sight line issue.

Ms. Hyyppa indicated there is no question about the sight line issue and noted there are one-to-two very bad accidents per year.

Mr. Donohue noted the structure is not conforming to zoning with regard to site lines and setbacks.

Mr. Adamowicz spoke about the liability if it was to fall down but also the responsibility to maintain a historic building. He noted if it is removed, it is gone forever. He spoke about possible grants that may be available to help restore it and advised further discussion about that responsibility.

Mr. Donohue indicated there are hundreds of law review articles on this topic. He asked what burdens can a community place on an individual or owner and what controls do they have over their property. He further spoke about farming not being profitable and the cost and expense of restoring the structure. He noted the Historic District Commission has considerable powers. He said if the Commission needs a structural engineer to evaluate the building, they will try to get that information. He said this building is the least historic one on that property. He expressed hope that the Commission will look closely at this, the condition and the lack of significant historical value.

Mr. Adamowicz commented that removal of the structure is a simple solution, noting, “once it’s down, it’s down.” He feels it is worth time and value to research options. He noted the farm’s description as “an oil painting” and said this structure is a component of that.

Ms. Goetz asked if the prior application to replace the roof was denied by the Commission.

Ms. Carnell explained that the prior application that came before the Commission was to put a standing-seem metal roof on the barn, similar to one on the barn with painted vines on it. She noted that that barn is not in the Historic District, so the Commission had no jurisdiction on the type of roof that was put on it. She noted the decision made three years ago for this barn was that a metal roof was not appropriate for this structure in the District. The Commission approved two options, either an architectural shingle roof or to replace the tar paper that is currently on it. She added there was a more costly option and a more moderately priced option. She said she does not believe anything has been done to the roof since that application.

Ms. Goetz asked where the price of a metal roof falls within those two options.

Ms. Carnell responded she believes it would be in the middle but would need the applicant to speak to that.

Ms. Goetz said they came to the Commission three years ago, looking to put a particular type of roof on it and were denied. She said in some ways this demolition application is somewhat a consequence of the Historic District Commission’s decision at that time.

Mr. Donohue agreed.

Ms. Carnell said the decision to not put any roof or do any repairs on the barn in the past three years is the consequence.

Mr. Glidden recommended that Henry Miga, the Simsbury Building Official, go out to the Farm to do an assessment of the barn to determine if it is structurally sound or past the point of no return. He added that this was just done for the barns on the Meadowood property. He recommended keeping the public hearing open and getting a report from Mr. Miga for the next meeting to get an assessment of the structure.

Ms. Goetz noted she went to look at the barn that day and agreed that having Mr. Miga assess it is a good idea.

Ms. Carmelich commented that she did not feel equipped to make a decision with the current information. She noted she would like a third party review or analysis done on the condition.

Ms. Carnell agreed.

Ms. Mead noted she has looked at it and agrees with having someone look at it. She noted the south side of the roof looks like it is going to fall in. She asked that the Commission look at the broader picture and the fact that Rosedale Farms has done a lot in terms of preservation in general. She noted there will be no development on that land, they have preserved barns, and they have done an awful lot to maintain the character of what makes East Weatogue Street this wonderful, agricultural and historical area. She thinks Rosedale and Mr. Epstein have done a great amount to help. She added that she had a 1950s-construction barn that had been thrown together and was falling down on her property. She was approved to take that down. She noted she is sympathetic to Mr. Epstein and said that 1950s construction is not necessarily the same as two hundred-year-old post and beam construction. She explained that when the Commission was started it wanted to maintain the character of the neighborhood without being onerous. She advised being very careful about inflicting economic onerousness on the people who have done so much to keep the neighborhood the way it is. She said the District exists to maintain the character of the neighborhood. She referenced the barns associated with Martin Luther King, Jr., noting there was funding for their restoration. She said Mr. Epstein is trying to help a farm survive and questioned why restrictions would be inflicted on him. She said that is counterproductive. She noted there are a number of other barns on the property that look good. She stressed that the Commission has to be careful and echoed what Mr. Donohue said about the power the Commission has and the need to use that power appropriately.

Ms. Goetz strongly agreed.

Ms. Hyyppa also agreed and added that she had historic barns removed from her property about six or seven years ago because they were in such disrepair. She noted that that removal was approved by the Commission.

Ms. Carnell said she was not aware of the losses of barns on Ms. Hyyppa’s and Ms. Mead’s properties, and commented that the Commission has already seen some loss of barns. She spoke about Rosedale Farms and its value to the District and the Town. She acknowledged that agriculture is a difficult business, adding that it is not the Commission’s intention to be onerous. She agreed with Mr. Glidden’s suggestion to table this discussion to the December meeting so that all options can be examined and so that Commissioners can think hard about this application. Further, she noted concern about the deterioration of the barn in the past three years and spoke about possible resources for restoration, including Preservation Connecticut. She also noted she can recommend structural engineers that have expertise in historic barns.

Mr. Donohue consented and noted they are happy to meet in December.

Ms. Carnell indicated more time and more information are a good idea.

Ms. Goetz expressed concern about prolonging this decision based on the very poor condition of the barn and spoke about possible repercussions and liability if someone was injured due to the condition.

Mr. Glidden noted that the Town Attorney, Bob DeCrescenzo, would need to answer that question. He added that he will have Mr. Miga go out to Rosedale Farms next week because it is an unsafe situation. If Mr. Miga says the barn should go, a special meeting will be called and Mr. Miga will attend that meeting.

MOTION: Ms. Carnell made a motion to table Application #20-07 regarding dismantling a barn at 25 East Weatogue Street until the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 3, 2020 unless the Town notifies the Commission that earlier action is required. Ms. Carmelich seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Update Handbook
Mr. Glidden noted the Public Workshop is scheduled for November 12, 2020 and residents of the District will be receiving notice in the mail. He added that every structure in the District will get that notice.

2. General Business
Mr. Glidden addressed the request made by Ms. Carmelich to look into the authority of the Commission regarding historic properties in the community outside of the District. He has asked Bob DeCresenzo and is waiting for a written opinion from him on that and on the residency requirement discrepancy. He noted Mr. DeCresenzo’s response can possibly be sent to the Board of Selectmen to address that issue.

Ms. Carnell noted Ms. Goetz’s mention of adding an appeals process.

Mr. Glidden indicated he will follow-up with Mr. DeCresenzo on that as well.

Ms. Goetz referenced the Handbook for Historic District Commissions and Historic Property Commissions in Connecticut on connecticut.gov , page 20, which states that historic districts must have an appeals process through the judicial municipality of the town. Discussion followed about regulatory authority and including this in the Handbook.

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the October 8, 2020 Regular Meeting

The following changes were made to the September 8, 2020 Special Meeting minutes:
• Under Section III, Item 1, the first sentence should read: “Ms. Carnell began the discussion by noting this is a brick, Cape-type…”
• Under Section III, Item 1, the third paragraph should read: “Ms. Carnell noted this is a historic district and any work done on the property, including the removal of buildings, would need a Certificate of Appropriateness.”
• Under Section III, Item 1, the tenth paragraph should read: “Ms. Carnell went on to explain that the Local Historic District is based on a National Historic District designation. This district was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1990 and the cut-off date for eligible properties was 1940. The period of significance for this National Register nomination ends in 1940. She added that if the nomination was done today, the period of significance would be later and would likely include this house as a contributing resource. She added that the Commission considers all properties in the Local Historic District to be contributing resources. It was noted the new structure on this property was completed in 2003. Ms. Carnell referenced the different types of houses in the District. Further, she noted concern about a proposal to demolish the 1955 Cape house.”
• Under Section III, Item 1, the thirteenth paragraph should read: “Ms. Carmelich commented that the Cape-type house is an example of the evolution of the historic district, noting that it has value and should be considered. She asked Mr. Mairano where he would site the new house and if the existing house could be moved.”
• Under Section IV, Item 1, the fourth paragraph should read: “Ms. Carnell added that the Commission will need to think about which house styles to include, noting that Colonial Revival, Capes and Ranches should be included. She also suggested adding street numbers to the map.”

MOTION: Ms. Carnell made a motion to approve the Minutes from the October 8, 2020 Regular Meeting as amended. Ms. Mead seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Mead asked Mr. Glidden about the painting of the Historic District signs. He noted Tom Roy just put a job order out for that.

VI. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Ms. Carnell moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 P.M. Mr. Adamowicz seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karen Haberlin
Commission Clerk