Historic District Commission Minutes 12/01/2016
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 1, 2016
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. Also in attendance were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members present were Marguerite Rodney, Patricia Hyyppa, Julie Carmelich, Mark Nyquist and Betty Woollacott.
1. Appointment of Alternates
Chairperson Rodney appointed Julie Carmelich and Mark Nyquist to serve as voting members.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Public Hearing(s)
a. Application #16-03 of Marshall Epstein, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the roof on a barn on the property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108, Lot 003). Zone R-40. (received 11/10/2016; decision must be rendered by 01/14/2017)
Chairperson Rodney read Application #16-03 into the record.
Mr. Epstein reviewed they have been at this location since 1920 and the shed dated from the 1930’s; most of the shed sides have been redone and for the last 56 years they have used tar paper, which blows off, and the south side requires repair. Mr. Epstein indicated Application #16-03 proposes replacing the roof with black corrugated metal, as other area farms utilize, and believed it would not take away from the shed’s presence as it is longer lasting and durable. He said 3 sides of the shed have been redone and they need to redo the south side boards and barn door and will likely return next year for that approval. He would like to replace half the roof this winter where there are holes on the south side and the other half with tar paper on it in the next year or two, except for one spot requiring repair. Mr. Epstein expressed appreciation for the Commission’s efforts to maintain the Historic District and believed the proposed roof would not take away from the street.
Commissioner Nyquist asked about the distance of this barn from the barn in the field, which is just beyond the district and has a green corrugated roof on it. Mr. Epstein responded the barn in the field is about 100 yards away, but the corrugated roof proposed for this shed would be black. Chairperson Rodney asked if there were any historic photos of this barn pre-dating the tar paper? Mr. Epstein responded that both sheds were typically repaired using tar paper and he had no historic photos. Chairperson Rodney in researching this property in the National Register nomination noted it looked like this barn dates to 1883. Mr. Epstein believed that some barns blew down in the 1938 hurricane and these barns may have been re-constructed; he commented that the photos provided show the roof is in pretty bad shape. The Commissioners discussed whether there were any other barns in the District. Mr. Glidden noted that for 19 East Weatogue Street a roof replacement was done with asphalt shingles. Mr. Epstein commented they could continue using tar paper, and not make this change. Chairperson Rodney noted it was a very significant change to the character of the building given its size and would like to see evidence of a previous metal roof on the building or in the District. Mr. Epstein discussed that metal roofs are very common in the south in historic districts and believed this is the only farm with a tobacco shed in the District. Mr. Glidden verified that the barns at Roskear are not metal; Mr. Epstein believed they might have been at one time. Commissioner Hyyppa observed the shed in the field as very pleasing to the eye and having consistency, conformity, and balance the same is important for aesthetics. Commissioner Nyquist commented that the proposed roof looks like a typical metal corrugated roof. Mr. Epstein responded that it is updated with ridges and easier to apply. Commissioner Nyquist noted on a barn photo a row of lines across the roof and asked if there was a metal roof that would look more like that, than the way the barn roof in the field looks. Mr. Epstein verified that the lines are the effect of the tar paper placement. Commissioner Nyquist clarified it would be a better solution to find a metal roof that looks like the tar paper roof and does not look like the ridged corrugated roof on the barn in the field. Commissioner Nyquist asked what happens if the Commission does not accept the corrugated roof and they continue using tar paper, which presents a maintenance issue, and in the future the barn is damaged beyond repair, whereas a metal roof could have offered protection? Chairperson Rodney indicated that other materials could be considered and believed this shed may have had a shingle roof and she would be more comfortable with an asphalt shingle roof mimicking the existing roof color; the concern is because the barn is so close to other residences in the District with asphalt shingle roofs and also the barn is so close to the road. Mr. Epstein responded he would not spend $40-50K on asphalt shingles and could continue with the tar paper repairs; they keep their place pretty nice. Commissioner Woollacott asked for clarification about the proposed and existing roof material, which was discussed. Commissioner Carmelich added she would prefer a precedent for a metal roof for this shed in order for it to be appropriate.
The Commissioners discussed the roof on the other barn, which is just outside the District. Mr. Glidden provided the Commissioners with an aerial map to view, and recommended that if the Commission has an issue with the material chosen and is requesting an alternative material, that the Commission indicate that alternative material in the Public Hearing, rather than closing the Hearing and having a loose open ended discussion to mirror the existing colors. Mr. Glidden provided the Commission with sample asphalt shingle roof colors to view. Mr. Glidden added rather than denying the Applicant’s request, the approval could be issued for a traditional alternative material providing the Applicant the ability to change from the tar paper; the Applicant still needs a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to undertake roof repair in any event as he needs a Building Permit, and therefore, he needs a COA from this Commission. Mr. Epstein noted the roof has been tar paper for over 70 years. Mr. Glidden clarified that a 3rd option is for the Applicant to make the case to the Commission that if he cannot put up the metal roof, he would like to continue repairing it with tar paper, same color and installation methods. Mr. Glidden suggested that if the Applicant were to decide on that 3rd option, that he withdraw the metal roof proposal and ask the Commission to pursue the black tar paper, similar to what is on the roof. Mr. Epstein noted that for the longevity of the structure, it would help to have the metal corrugated roof.
Chairperson Rodney summarized the options are: 1) the tar paper roof; 2) the standing seam metal roof; and 3) architectural asphalt shingles. Commissioner Woollacott asked which material lasts longer? Mr. Epstein responded the anticipated life of a metal roof is 40 years; and the Commissioners noted better architectural asphalt shingles warranty for 30 years and tar paper requires more frequent repair. Mr. Glidden noted the Commission has the option to act at this meeting or to continue the Hearing to its 01/05/2017 meeting, but given the repair urgency, it would be good to move toward one of the 3 options. Commissioner Carmelich asked about the daylight seen through sheathing in some of the photos provided and whether there would be wood substrate repairs under the tar paper? Mr. Epstein indicated they would do repair on the south side and a building corner with 2x4s or something and there are some type of boards present, but not modern plywood. Chairperson Rodney asked for clarification regarding phasing of the work. Mr. Epstein responded it would be the south side this year and the other side in the next 2-3 years, which could be done with the metal roof. Mr. Glidden clarified the COA is only valid for 1 year, and if the repairs go on longer, the Applicant may have to return for additional COAs.
Chairperson Rodney suggested discussing the roof alternatives noting the tar paper is historically acceptable, and looking at an option with weathered wood type shingles and that the other shed metal roof is a copper patina medium green. Commissioner Hyyppa asked the Applicant if he would consider the shingle roof material? Mr. Epstein responded that shingles blow off of barns all the time and metal roofs are used in many other historic districts in the country and given the cost estimate, he did not see doing that. Mr. Glidden provided an aerial photo of the structure immediately south of the barn and a similar distance from the road. Chairperson Rodney asked if the shingle alternative were recommended to the Applicant tonight, whether there is a color of asphalt shingle the Commission would like to approve? Commissioner Woollacott felt it was the Applicant’s decision to select a roof color. Mr. Epstein asked if he was allowed to do the tar paper whether he could continue with the same color for consistency since that is one of the options. Mr. Epstein confirmed that shingles would be too costly. The Commissioners discussed the shingle color option and some Commissioners thought that the darker color would be more appropriate for the barn and other Commissioners were not concerned about the color; however, if there was a cost-effective metal roof that mimics the tar paper and is more subtle, that would be preferable, because the standing seams in the metal on the other barn are not desirable. Mr. Epstein indicated they did a lot of research and believed this roof would look good, but the issue here is to be consistent with what is in the Historic District. Chairperson Rodney agreed there is no problem with metal roofs, but rather the issue is what is appropriate for the barn on this street. Mr. Epstein indicated if the Application is turned down, they would repair the shed using similar tar paper as on the shed now. Mr. Glidden suggested the Public Hearing could be closed, followed by the Commissioners discussion, and review of a draft motion.
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Nyquist seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
Mr. Glidden asked which Commissioners are comfortable with the metal corrugated roof as provided in the digital packet. Commissioner Nyquist had concern regarding the seams in the other metal roof; Commissioners Woollacott and Hyyppa were comfortable with the standing metal seam roof as proposed, with Commissioners Rodney, Carmelich and Nyquist not in favor; therefore, if a vote was taken, it would not pass. Regarding repairing the roof with the tar paper, Commissioner Woollacott agreed with that. Mr. Glidden clarified if the Applicant receives approval from the Commission to repair the roof using tar paper similar to what is existing, and only half is repaired the COA is only valid for one year, and the Applicant will have to return to the Commission for another COA for roof repair in the future. Mr. Glidden advised the Applicant that because the Hearing is closed the Applicant can now only communicate with Staff, and not the Commission.
Mr. Glidden provided a draft motion for discussion by the Commissioners to approve Application #16-03.
Chairperson Rodney made a motion for the record to approve Application #16-03, Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on behalf of Marshall Epstein for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the roof on a barn on the property located at 25 East Weatogue Street. The Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is subject to the following conditions: 1) the replacement roof material shall be tar paper; 2) the color of the replacement paper shall be black; 3) a Building Permit is required for replacement of the roof and the Applicant is responsible for securing the appropriate approvals prior to the start of renovation; and 4) the approval of the COA is only valid for one year and all work associated with said approval must be completed within that approval period. In granting the COA, the Commission finds the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Design Guidelines within the Handbook of the East Weatogue Historic District.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
b. Application #16-04 of Marshall Epstein, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new 1160 square foot accessory building adjacent to the sale barn and wine tasting facility on the property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108, Lot 003). Zone R-40. (received 11/10/2016; decision must be rendered by 01/14/2017)
Chairperson Rodney read Application #16-04 into the record noting there was a similar application in 2011 and drawings from that application were provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Epstein indicated Application #16-04 was a continuation of that first application and recalled that 2 hurricanes prevented going forward and they are now ready to move forward in their 15th year of growing wine grapes. He noted that most facilities have bathrooms and modern facilities allowing them to conduct operations for storage, production, and commerce. He proposed wood dura temp composite siding in dark barn red with a shingle roof. Chairperson Rodney asked if the dura temp siding boards were butted together or would seams be covered by batten strips? Commissioner Carmelich asked for clarification regarding whether the siding is clapboard or board siding? Mr. Glidden noted Exhibit 4 shows the vertical solid siding proposed. Mr. Epstein indicated a similar 9x12 roof pitch previously approved would be close, possibly at 9 1/2. Commissioner Nyquist noted in P-2 of the older plan north elevation it shows them butted together, and asked if that was correct for this application? Mr. Epstein confirmed that he did not see them using a cover strip. Chairperson Rodney noted the building looks a little wider, asked if it was modeled to scale, and what was the roof color? Mr. Epstein responded they would provide a color preferred by the Commission; the charcoal black color was discussed. Mr. Glidden noted the residence has a gray color roof and provided a Google map indicating that driving north the structure is not visible from East Weatogue Street, and driving south it is only visible from a corner of the property – overall visibility of the structure from the road is extremely limited.
Commissioner Nyquist noted there were many more drawings provided with the 2011 application and only 2 drawings are provided with Application #16-04 and suggested an area protecting those entering/exiting not shown on the new drawings would make sense to have. Mr. Epstein indicated Skips would be doing the work and while that business is in Agawam, the owner lives in Simsbury. Chairperson Rodney summarized that the Commission was not comfortable with the details shown in the current drawings, e.g. door details, window details that look fixed, not double hung. Mr. Epstein had no problem doing what the Commission wants for windows and doors built to order. Commissioner Carmelich noted there are 2 elevations in the new proposal vs. 4 in the older proposal and asked how they match up? Mr. Epstein indicated there is no longer a garage door and the 9x7 overhead door was removed on the south elevation and might be replaced by a window; Mr. Glidden indicated while the south elevation would not be visible from the street, the Commission still has the right to review it. Mr. Epstein did not believe placement of the windows makes it historic or not.
Chairperson Rodney summarized the Commission is comfortable with the idea and its general design, but is not comfortable giving approval based on the information provided and needs to receive more information. Mr. Glidden noted the Commission has until 01/14/2017 to approve the Application with a regular meeting prior to that date; he suggested the Commission be specific regarding what details it would like. The Commissioners indicated they would like to request 4 elevations (adding west and south); window location, material, appearance with picture; a wood paneled door with picture – not a flush door; siding width of the boards and picture and what the joint is, e.g. ship lathe; roofline dimensions and information; and overall dimensions of length, width and height. Mr. Epstein noted that his contractor’s wife has been ill and that is why all the details are not present currently. Mr. Epstein planned to provide a final proposal with all the details and scale of the drawings from the design professional. Mr. Glidden believed the overall height of the one-story building to the mid-point of the peak/eaves at about 18 feet and the peak height about 20-22 feet.
Mr. Glidden advised that Mr. Epstein would need to attend the Commission’s regularly scheduled 01/05/2017 meeting and he plans to provide the requested materials prior to the meeting; it was confirmed that someone could represent Mr. Epstein at the meeting. Mr. Glidden noted that the Commission must make a decision on this Application by 01/14/2017. Commissioner Nyquist asked if the Commission would be comfortable accepting the previous drawings or just approve dimensional information so the construction could begin before winter sets in; Commissioner Hyyppa asked about approving the footprint? The Commissioners noted it included a flush looking door with a double hung window and missing details need to be determined. Mr. Glidden indicated that type of approval was not advisable as Staff would not be able to determine compliance. Mr. Epstein indicated he understood the concerns. Mr. Glidden asked if the Commission was okay with the barn red color of the building? The Commissioners agreed that the red color was acceptable for an agricultural out building.
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to table Application #16-04 until the 01/05/2017 meeting when more information is required.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
2. Discussion and Possible Action
a. Application #16-03 of Marshall Epstein, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the roof on a barn on the property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108, Lot 003). Zone R-40. (received 11/10/2016; decision must be rendered by 01/14/2017)
b. Application #16-04 of Marshall Epstein, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new 1160 square foot accessory building adjacent to the sale barn and wine tasting facility on the property located at 25 East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H14, Block 108, Lot 003). Zone R-40. (received 11/10/2016; decision must be rendered by 01/14/2017)
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the November 3, 2016 regular meeting
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to approve the November 3, 2016 minutes, as written.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioner Woollacott abstaining.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.