Historic District Commission Minutes 11/01/2012 ADOPTED

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 2012
REGULAR MEETING

I. ROLL CALL

Commission members present were: HRH Chairman Ken Feder, Betty Woollacott, Marc Lubetkin, Denise Alfeld, Diane Mead, Jonathan Laschever, and Dave Freitas.  Chairman Feder called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room.  Also in attendance were: Lynn Charest, Zoning Enforcement Officer; and Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties. 

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

None.

III. PUBLIC HEARING(s), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application #12-10 of Chad and Denise Alfeld, Owners, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed 3-bay detached garage on the property located at 26 East Weatogue Street (Map H14, Block 109, Lot 016).

b. Application #12-11 of Chad and Denise Alfeld, Owners, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed 4-bay 18th Century barn on the property located at 26 East Weatogue Street (Map H14, Block 109, Lot 016).

Ms. Charest stated that Denise Alfeld contacted her and asked that these Applications be continued to the 12/8/2012 meeting.  She confirmed that if the Applicants are not ready at that time, they will reapply, because once an application is received, statutorily a public hearing must be set within 65 days and it is 63 days to December 8th.

Commissioner Alfeld recused herself.

Commissioner Mead made a motion to table discussion of Applications #12-10 and #12-11 until the next regular meeting.  Commissioner Woollacott seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

c. Application #12-12 of THD At-Home Services, Agent for Bob McCusker, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 2 replacement windows on the property located at 45 East Weatogue Street (Map H14, Block 108, Lot 008).

Commissioner Woollacott read the Application into the record.

Commissioner Alfeld made a motion to bring the Application to the table.  Commissioner Laschever seconded the motion.

Ms. Charest stated the Applicant re-submitted the Application clarifying the agent as Southern New England Windows.

Christopher George of Southern New England Windows, doing business for Anderson Windows, represented the Applicant.  He said the owner proposes replacing 2 windows in his home and is submitting the windows for Commission approval.  He said there are 2 rotted double-hung windows in the home, which they propose replacing with Renewal by Anderson full divided light replacement windows; inside is wood and outside is Fibrex, which is a combination of thermoplastic polymers and wood. 

Chairman Feder opened the discussion to questions.  Mr. George said the lower window is original to the 1820 house and the upper window was replaced 25-30 years ago without divided light on the lower portion and is not true to the house.  He said the 1st floor original window has true mulligans, and the upper window that is rotted out almost touches the roof; both windows face the street but are set back.  He said the owner’s intent is to eventually replace more windows, but these 2 have the most need.  He said not all the windows are original to the house; at some time, there was a kitchen restoration in the back and those are not original windows.  He said the original window is actually in better shape than the replacement window; the base of the sash and the actual sill are rotted on the upstairs window; on the downstairs window, it is more an issue of energy efficiency.  He believed the windows are 6x6, as they always replace like. 

Newly appointed Commissioner Laschever asked about the Commission’s process and Chairman Feder explained the audience is asked if they have any questions and Commissioners ask questions as issues arise. 

Chairman Feder discussed a recent workshop some Commissioners attended on the appropriateness of using replacement materials in historic homes and it is hardly ever appropriate; the first option is always to renovate or restore what you can, and if that is not possible, to replace with like materials. Commissioner Laschever said studies show a 20-year payback on replacement windows for energy efficiency, which is not economic.  He said putting a storm window on the window offers almost the same R value as a double-paned window.  He said the insulated glass will stand out like a sore thumb on the house; restoration glass will match the other windows in the house.  Commissioner Alfeld discussed putting replacement windows with restoration glass on her 1720 saltbox, which was very expensive.  Commissioner Mead agreed the Commission does not want to be onerous, and questioned requiring very expensive outlays by homeowners.  She said this replacement window nicely maintains the character of the house.  Mr. George said it is $4500 for these 2 windows and the owner would like to start with 2 and other windows will be changed eventually.  Commissioner Laschever said these windows could be replaced at less than 1/2 the cost with a storm window put on, which has probably been done in the past.  Mr. George said storm windows are not attractive.  Commissioner Mead said she would not want to be told she could only use wood windows.  Mr. George said they would remove the existing structure down to the frame.  Commissioner Lubetkin said there are truly authentic historic homes that the Commission would like to see maintained, but this home has had renovations and should be returned to a more authentic condition.  The Commissioners agreed this situation involves both considerations.  Commissioner Freitas said his house has Low E glass and at certain angles, the light hitting it causes a purplish tint, but from more than 10 feet away he believes you cannot see it.  Chairman Feder agreed these are people's homes, but the Commission is charged with maintaining the historical nature of the homes.

Mr. George said Fibrex came into use in 1995.  Chairman Feder asked how it weathers, e.g. because some faux stone material does not look good in 10-15 years.  Mr. George said Fibrex is maintenance free if kept clean, is very paintable, and does not expand/contract.  Chairman Feder noted well-maintained wood lasts 100's of years.  Mr. George said it is hard to tell the difference between Fibrex and wood painted the same color.  He said you can see the difference between original single-pane glass and coated glass in these replacement windows, which keep you cooler in summer, warmer in winter, and tilt in for easier maintenance.  Commissioner Laschever did not agree that argument is relevant here; historicity is the issue - the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation note differences between these types of glass.  Mr. George felt the average person driving by will not see it and said he was unaware of the Simsbury Historic District, even though he appreciates the value of historic homes.  Commissioner Lubetkin noted the high cost of maintaining historic homes.  Chairman Feder said that maintaining the historical home adds to its value.  Mr. George said the old windows leak and if he were buying a house in the District and considering the expense of replacing original mold windows vs. a 10-year payback for these windows with greater comfort, it is what he would do.  Kikke Levin-Gerdner from the public audience concurred these replacement windows would not destroy the home and a future buyer could put original windows in; in the meantime, this owner could be comfortable with more affordable windows.  Mr. George said he should have had the owner attend this meeting, but did not realize what the discussion would be.  He said they do a lot of historic homework and these windows are industry standard, and he carefully notes homes in Historic Districts.

Regarding tabling this discussion, he said a monthly meeting pushes this work out another month with the customer not getting windows in.  Commissioner Alfeld read from the Handbook for Historic District Commissions 2010, Section 6.a, "Repairs," that "Normal property maintenance repairs are not subject to review, as long as there is no change in configuration or material." and this is a change of materials.  Commissioner Laschever said a custom window could replicate windows in the house, or there are smaller competitors, e.g. Marvin does restoration glass; there are other glass options to Low E.  He thought this was the Commission's responsibility and said the proposed glass will more dramatically change the appearance of the building than anything else.  Commissioner Woollacott read from the Handbook for Historic District Commissions 2010, Section 6, "Consideration in Evaluating Appropriateness," that "A certificate of appropriateness must be issued for any application that is determined to be ‘not incongruous’ with the character of the historic district or property.  Because of their legal nature, HDCs ... should be prepared to work with municipality's designated legal counsel to ensure that their actions have the support of state and local law.  In particularly thorny applications for certificates of appropriateness HDC...members should consult with counsel before rendering a decision."  She said maybe a decision should wait until the owner comes in.  Commissioner Lubetkin asked if other homes of this age have requested window replacements.  The Commissioners did not recall one.  Commissioner Woollacott said the 1760's house at #96 was totally restored and more old glass was found and storms used.  Commissioner Alfeld stated she really liked the inside storms, which are easy to deal with and still allow you to see but not touch the mullions.  Chairman Feder said putting in highly engineered windows changes the character of the house; the use of appropriate materials is called for, but it is left up to individual Historic Districts, e.g. Litchfield would not allow it.  Commissioner Mead added this house has already had restoration work done.  Commissioner Freitas said the change in the glass color is subtle unless you have an eye for that or point it out.  

Mr. George said the owner's intent was to satisfy the historic character of the house and his company was chosen because they don't do vinyl replacement windows.  Commissioner Lubetkin read from the Regulations the applicable section for existing historic windows, "Windows, Repair - A window can often be repaired through patching or replacing deteriorated parts. It is recommend that this alternative be studied and considered before replacing the entire window.”  He said next is "Replacement - When replacing an entire window, the original features should be duplicated.  Since most windows in the historic district are of wood construction, it is recommended that windows be replaced using the same material.  If this is not possible, a substitute material, such as metal, should match the color of the other windows and surrounding elements.  When replacing a non-original window, attempt to obtain window types appropriate to the building’s style and period."  Mr. George asked if it is more appropriate to have a storm on a window which was not original to the house.  Chairman Feder said, according to the regulations, the argument cannot be made that it is not possible to use like materials, so the windows cannot be approved; the replacement material would have to be unavailable.  Commissioner Alfeld read further, "Storm windows and screens can be both appropriate and energy efficient for historic buildings, and when present, should be retained ....provide better thermal efficiency.”  She asked if cost makes it not possible.  Commissioner Laschever said the equivalent window made of wood would probably cost about the same, but wood storms would be needed, retaining the historic look of the house.  Commissioner Alfeld said efficiency is the issue and comfort inside the home.  She replaced original wood single pane windows on her home at a high cost with inside storms.  Mr. George said the glass being used is the clearest available and the coatings improve thermal performance.  Commissioner Laschever said the gas between the glass that provides the thermal performance is a great feature and asked if they use a non Low E double-pane product, which is available.  Mr. George's windows do not use that product and in Wethersfield and South Windsor they support this product.  The Commissioners viewed a cell phone photo of the Applicant's house and location of the 2 windows.  Commissioner Mead stated we want to keep the farm house character of the home, these windows will improve it, and she did not want to be onerous.   The Commissioners discussed whether to go and look at the house and delay approval 1-2 weeks.  Mr. George said it takes 5-6 weeks to custom make the windows and schedule installation, which takes a day, and will push this to the third week in December.  Commissioner Mead stated that this approval not being exactly to the letter does not hold the Commission to this standard in the future.  The Commissioners agreed that each house is unique. 

Chairman Feder closed the public hearing and called for discussion.  Commissioner Laschever said if the Commission is not protecting windows in historic homes, it is giving away a huge component of a historic home.  Chairman Feder added appearance is part of the equation, but preserving actual historic character of houses is part of the Commission's charge.  Commissioner Frietas agreed, but said to the average person, it would be a very subtle difference, unless 2 windows are next to each other.  Commissioner Alfeld said it is an improvement from what currently exists. Chairman Feder said maintaining historic character requires consistency.

Commissioner Alfeld made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, as submitted.  Commissioner Mead seconded the motion, and it was passed with 3 Commissioners voting in favor and 2 opposed.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS

Kikke Levin-Gerdner of 51 East Weatogue Street asked for references for house painting repairs.  Chairman Feder advised her the Commission cannot recommend contractors, but advised her to approach anyone living in the District for a general list of contractors, e.g. Tom Caldera's house.  Commissioner Alfeld told her to approach anyone on the street.

a. HDC Events

Chairman Feder noted the cancellation of Monday's event due to the hurricane.  Commissioner Lubetkin asked if there is commitment to do this, as the newsletter and invitation did not go out on time.  Ms. Charest said that has been addressed.  Commissioner Lubetkin has received positive comments on community activism.  Commissioner Mead said getting the spring newsletter out helps set the tone and raise interest.  Commissioner Lubetkin suggested working on the newsletter for the spring now with a 1/3/2013 deadline to email articles to him for aggregation, and then another newsletter and event for fall 2013. 

Regarding the Simsbury Land Trust efforts for the Ellsworth property in the Historic District, Ms. Charest clarified the land is in the District on the Ellsworth side of the street.  She said it was passed and they will need to get approval from this Commission.  Commissioner Alfeld said the donation of the land is positive.  Commissioner Mead added the Historic District growing is also positive.

b. Discussion of 2013 Meeting Dates

Regarding the July meeting date, the Commissioners agreed to schedule it for 7/11/2013, which may be cancelled.

Commissioner Woollacott made a motion to approve the schedule.  Commissioner Freitas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

For New Business, Ms. Charest provided a list of 150 structures received from Rachel Carley focused on West Simsbury and will forward the list with a request for payment for Ms. Carley.  She said Ms. Carley's deadline is 4/30/2013 and the Commissioners felt they would like her to come back at some point.

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 4, 2012

Commissioner Freitas made a motion to approve the October 4, 2012 meeting minutes as written.  Commissioner Mead seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Woollacott made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.  Commissioner Alfeld seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

_____________________________