Historic District Commission Minutes 07/09/2020

Historic District Commission
TOWN OF SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 7:00 P.M.
Zoom Meeting/Simsbury Community Television Live Stream

I. CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order at 6:58 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 Julie Carmelich, Marguerite Carnell, Heather Goetz and Dianne Mead.

1. Appointment of Alternates
There was no appointment of alternates for the meeting.

III. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Presentation by Mary Dunne, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Ms. Carnell introduced Jonathan Kinney, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer. She then introduced Mary Dunne, of the Department of Economic and Community Development State Historic Preservation Office, who provided a refresher training for commission officers entitled, “Administration of Municipal Historic Districts in Connecticut, Simsbury 2020.”

Ms. Dunne began by noting the Commission’s authority comes from municipal enabling legislation, Connecticut General Statutes, Section 7-147, which allows for the establishment of historic districts and properties. She added it also provides for the protection of those properties. The Commission needs to have five regular members and three alternate members. When seated, alternates have all the duties and powers of a regular member. Therefore, it is very important that alternates attend all meetings to be up-to-date with commission business. She noted she can advise on statutes but the Commission should consult with the town attorney on specific issues. Statutes require or strongly suggest that at least one commissioner must be a District resident, if there is a District resident that is able and willing to serve. She noted Simsbury’s ordinance has a stated requirement for more than one District resident and noted commissioners might consider revising that with the town attorney. A certified local government (CLG) commission must have at least two commission members with professional qualifications under 36 CFR 61, Attachment A, and Simsbury has that. Terms should be staggered with one or more expiring term per year. Statute requires three officers to include a chair, vice chair and clerk.

She noted primary responsibilities include rules of procedure with a conflict of interest statement requiring members to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. She recommended reading the conflict of interest statement at the beginning of each meeting. An annual report on membership and activities must be done and should include the number of Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) given or rejected. CLG commissions also report federally. Regulations need to be adopted and communicated to provide guidance to property owners.

Ms. Dunne gave a few pointers regarding design review guidelines. She recommended that all commission members be involved in writing the guidelines. Input from property owners at a workshop or meeting was suggested. She also recommended that the Commission consider setting up blanket approvals for certain items. Ms. Dunne recommended the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, noting they allow for adaptive reuse of properties. She noted original features should be repaired rather than replaced unless they are severely deteriorated. She cautioned against giving a false sense of historical development. With new construction, the Commission should work with the property owner to be sure the design is compatible in scale, setback, and materials. The Commission should consider features that have accrued their own significance over time, even if they are not original. Blanket approvals should be formally adopted and written in the design review guidelines and should only be items that do not require a COA. Blanket approvals might include a child’s playset, mailboxes or lighting. COAs are required for anything that requires a building permit. She further noted general considerations including style, scale, arrangement, texture and materials. A COA is needed for a demolition permit and is the most powerful tool against demolition. She spoke about new parking, which would require a COA as well. General procedures she noted are public hearing notice 5-15 days in advance, a quorum must be present, there must be majority vote, action is to be taken within 65 days of filing and COAs may include stipulations. Exemptions from review include paint color, state properties, ordinary exterior maintenance or repair, alterations to correct public safety violations, permits issued prior to date of establishment of historic district and any property owned by a nonprofit institute of higher education.

Next, she spoke about enforcement by the Town, noting it should be done by a zoning enforcement officer or building inspector, not a commissioner. Any legal action would take place in Superior Court. She noted the statutes allow for daily fines. She noted property owners only can appeal a decision within 15 days of a decision and that is done in Superior Court. Within the statutes there is a provision for a demolition delay, which can be 90 days from issuance of the demolition permit. SHPO should be notified. There should be an attempt to find the purchaser to retain or remove the building or present an alternative to demolition. There is no obligation for the owner to sell the building. The town can abate the property taxes for 90 days while an alternative is sought. She recommended not issuing a COA if the commission is against demolition.

Ms. Dunne noted issues and policies in response to typical questions, including no allowance for “doughnut holes,” the dissolution of historic districts, and contributing versus non-contributing properties. She spoke briefly about the Certified Local Government (CLG) Program, noting Simsbury is a CLG. She noted it is a way to give more influence at the local level. Benefits of the program include education and training in historic preservation, a stronger preservation influence in the community, an opportunity to participate in the establishment of regional and state historic preservation objectives, to have a formal role in the National Register of Historic Places nomination review process and to be eligible for grants from the Federal government. Funding opportunities include Historic Preservation Enhancement Grants and Supplemental CLG Grants.

Ms. Dunne then shared popular SHPO inquiries, including what constitutes a public way or structure, jurisdiction over use of property, reviewing of solar panels, synthetic materials, reconstruction of new features, and archaeological considerations. She then asked for questions.

Ms. Carnell inquired about roof color needing a COA. Ms. Dunne recommended consulting with the Town attorney on that and noted she is available to consult on what would be an appropriate roof color.

Ms. Carmelich asked about the process for grants for study reports for expanding or creating new districts. Ms. Dunne responded that the Commission takes the lead on this and the Statutes provide for that. She advised communicating early and often with potential residents of the District. She noted state funding would fund a study report.

Ms. Dunne added that the Historic Preservation Council has voted to waive the match on survey and planning grants through the December HPC meeting.

Ms. Carnell asked about whether a resource is considered contributing or non-contributing in a National Register District and if other commissions show flexibility on materials for newer properties, for example a 1950’s house. Ms. Dunne responded that the original architectural details are taken into consideration. In an example of replacing windows, it was clarified that the Commission only has jurisdiction over windows in the public right of way.

Ms. Carmelich brought up the issue of historically appropriate material and the character of the neighborhood and the District. Ms. Dunne noted there is flexibility but the Commission should look at the District as a whole and think about the impact on the District.

Ms. Mead noted the District is mixed with newer and older houses. There was discussion about replacing materials in kind and the period of significance of the District. Ms. Dunne advised addressing these areas when updating the design review guidelines. She was asked to research how other districts approach this subject.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the June 4, 2020 Regular Meeting

The following edits were requested to be made to the minutes:
• Under Item IV. General Commission Business, Stephanie Dyer’s name should read Stephanie Dyer-Carroll.
• Under Item V. Referral from the Board of Selectmen, Potential open space acquisition at the Meadowood site, Martin Luther King’s name should read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

MOTION: Ms. Carnell made moved to approve the Minutes from the June 4, 2020 Regular Meeting as amended. Ms. Carmelich seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

V. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: Ms. Carnell moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 P.M. Ms. Carmelich seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karen Haberlin
Commission Clerk