05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 1 DRAFT

Transcription

1 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 1 A regular meeting of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board (HPARB) of the Village of Cooperstown was held in the Village Office Building, 22 Main Street, Cooperstown, New York on May 14, Members in attendance were Chair Teresa Drerup, Liz Callahan, Roger MacMillan, Ralph Snell, and Wendell Tripp. Alternates John Hart and Hugh MacDougall were also present. Also in attendance was Zoning Enforcement Officer Tavis Austin and Deputy Village Clerk Jennifer Truax. Seven members of the public were present. Ms. Drerup called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. Regular Agenda Lakeland Shores Lot 18 (Ed Tietz/Charles Drake) proposed new single family residence Ms. Drerup reviewed the application and asked if there had been any changes to the drawings since the last submission which was reviewed in April. Mr. Tietz stated that changes have been made to the original plans. Ms. Drerup asked for a materials list. Mr. Tietz stated that a materials list was located on one of the plan drawings. He further stated that they are no longer proposing Hardie board siding. He stated that vinyl siding would be used. Ms. Drerup asked if the siding would be horizontal. Mr. Tietz stated that they are undecided but would like either horizontal or cedar shake siding but regardless of the style it would be vinyl. Ms. Drerup asked the width of the reveal. Mr. Tietz stated that the reveal would be four to five inches. Mr. Tietz further stated that in the top area they may go with a scalloped siding. Ms. Drerup clarified that Mr. Tietz is proposing using a scalloped vinyl siding in the gable area. She asked if this would be all gables. Mr. Tietz stated that the scalloped siding would only be used in the two west facing gables. Ms. Drerup asked Mr. Tietz for information regarding the type and style of windows to be used. Mr. Tietz stated that at this time a determination on brand of window has not been made but that the windows will be vinyl clad, double hung, tilt in windows. Ms. Drerup asked Mr. Tietz to provided exact specs for the windows once he had decided on which specific window would be used. She explained that the board likes to have a complete record on file. Ms. Drerup stated that the plans indicate that the roof pitches are all 12/8 but in

2 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 2 the drawings it appears that there are many different roof pitches. She asked Mr. Tietz to provide information on the roof pitch. Mr. Tietz stated that he believes that all of the roofs will be 12/8. He further explained that the contractor who drew the prints was not very accurate in the depiction of some of the details. Ms. Drerup asked if the windows will be trimmed. Mr. Tietz stated that the vinyl siding will have J channel and brick mold which will finish off both the siding and windows. Mr. Snell stated that he does not believe that the drawings provided give a true picture of the proposed structure. He stated that without accurate information he does not feel he can vote on the project. Mr. Tietz stated that he will provide a new set of up to date drawings. Ms. Drerup asked when the public hearing would be held for the Planning Board. Mr. Austin stated that the public hearing will be held on May 21 st. Ms. Drerup asked Mr. Tietz when he planned to begin construction. Mr. Tietz stated that construction will not begin until his current residence is sold. Ms. Drerup stated that she feels that the general concept is acceptable but prior to action on the proposed structure the board will need accurate plans, which the applicant may also use in obtaining a building permit from the county. The board reviewed with Mr. Tietz areas where additional information will be needed prior to a decision and pointed out problematic areas of the design. They asked Mr. Tietz to provide new complete plan at least one week prior to the June 11 th meeting for review by the board and action at the June meeting. 60 Lake Street (Otesaga/Leatherstocking Corporation, Mr. Joe Middleton) proposed fire pit Mr. Middleton reviewed the proposed project. Ms. Drerup stated that she was unsure of whether or not the project requires review. She reviewed the definition of a structure for the board. Mr. Austin stated that on initial contact by Mr. Middleton he did not feel that review and approval would be required but upon the submittal of the plans he felt that the proposed fire pit met the definition of a structure and therefore requires review and certificate of appropriateness. The board concurred.

3 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 3 Mr. Middleton further reviewed the proposed project explaining that the basic design mimics the cupola. He explained the design and materials to be used. Dr. MacMillan asked what function the fire pit would serve. Mr. Middleton stated that the fire pit area will be used by guests if available but it will be an area available for reservation for meetings, group events, parties, etc. Dr. MacMillan asked what material will be burned in the fire pit. Mr. Middleton explained that the it is a large gas burner which uses propane gas. He stated that there is a very low flame and that the pit has sand and glass beads which create a pleasant effect. He continued to state that the countertop around the pit is a polished bluestone. Ms. Drerup asked if the fire pit would be used year round or just seasonally. Mr. Middleton stated that it would be used most of the year. He explained that the heat put out is very warm and through visits to other similar units in the northeast they found that they are utilized year round. Mr. Snell asked Mr. Middleton to provide details of the cover. Mr. Middleton stated that the cover has a wood frame but the remainder is a washable composite material. He stated that the cover is very sturdy and provides the ability to use the surface for other purposes such as a buffet. Dr. MacMillan asked if the area would be used for socialization of the guests. Mr. Middleton stated that when not reserved for specific events it would be available to hotel guests. He stated that reservations would make up the majority of the use. He further stated that the fire would be lit at dusk and be shut off at 11 PM when not reserved for events. Dr. MacMillan asked how the fire is extinguished. Mr. Middleton stated that the system is very safe and has its own shut off system. Ms. Drerup asked if the fire would be monitored by staff during use. Mr. Middleton stated that when in use the fire would always be monitored. Mr. Drerup stated that the fire pit will not be seen from any public way. The board discussed that it may be seen from the lake. Mr. Middleton stated that he does not believe that the pit will be any more intrusive than the glow of hotel lights. Ms. Callahan asked where the propane tank would be located.

4 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 4 Mr. Middleton stated that the Otesaga already has three underground tanks in the loading dock area and the fire pit would be connected to those tanks. Dr. MacMillan made a motion to adopt the following resolution for a Certificate of Appropriateness: Action by the Village of Cooperstown, Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board Resolution date: May 14, 2013 A resolution to approve the proposed exterior fire pit at The Otesaga, 60 Lake Street, Cooperstown, NY WHEREAS the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed application: A public hearing is not required; The requirements of SEQRA have been met for this action; The action is considered new construction; The primary structure at this location is listed as contributing in the Glimmerglass Historic District Nomination Form; The proposed alteration meet the criteria under Section E. (3)(a), (3)(b), and (3)(d). Section of the Zoning Law having been met with regards to the proposed exterior fire pit at 60 Lake Street; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the duly appointed members of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board of the Village of Cooperstown do this 14 th day of May 2013, determine that the proposed work at 60 Lake Street, Cooperstown, NY meets the criteria for work within the Historic and Architectural Control Overlay District as set forth in the Zoning Law of the Village of Cooperstown. Ms. Callahan seconded the motion and a vote had the following results: AYES: Callahan, Drerup, MacMillan, Snell, Tripp Motion carried. 22 Leatherstocking Street (Erin & James Richardson) proposed porch renovations and siding replacement Ms. Drerup reviewed the application stating that the majority of the work will be to repair and replicate the existing porch. She asked the Richardsons to explain the changes to the location of the steps. Ms. Richardson stated that the entire porch will be repaired to its original state except to add stairs to the driveway side of the porch by replicating and adding an additional post. Ms. Drerup asked the number of steps. Ms. Richardson stated that there are two steps. Dr. MacMillan asked if the current treads are pressure treated. Ms. Richardson stated that they are currently pressure treated. She explained that they had been previously replaced.

5 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 5 Ms. Drerup asked the condition of the existing porch posts. Ms. Richardson stated that she is not sure of the condition but plans to retain any of the posts which can be salvaged. She further stated that posts which cannot be salvaged will be replaced with posts that have been replicated to match. Mr. Snell asked if he could propose an alternative solution that may be less costly. Ms. Richardson stated that she would gladly hear any alternative solutions. She explained that the main reasons for the location change is that there is a drip line in the center of the existing entrance which would be difficult to resolve by other means such as a gutter and that the porch as it is currently configured is like a hallway and does not allow for seating and enjoyment of the porch as an exterior space. Mr. Snell suggested that the placement of the steps on the driveway side of the porch be adjusted to eliminate the need to add an additional post. Ms. Richardson stated that she was agreeable to that change and amended her application to reflect the change suggested by Mr. Snell. Ms. Drerup stated that the decking and stairs would be replaced per the application but that the other materials will be salvaged if possible. Ms. Richardson concurred and stated that they would also like to replace the siding. Ms. Drerup asked if they intended to replace all of the siding. Ms. Richardson explained that the some of the siding is in a state of disrepair including rot and holes created by blown in insulation. She continued to state that the existing siding ranges in reveal from 4 to 7 inches and they would like the reveal to be of a consistent size and that they felt that the simplest solution would be to replace all of the siding at once. Mr. Snell stated that they may not be able to use a consistent reveal, as doing so may cause the siding to not line up appropriately with the windows frames. Ms. Drerup stated that she would not recommend the replacement of all of the siding. She recommended the replacement of the siding which is extremely deteriorated and the replacement of missing plugs in the siding which was drilled to allow for insulation to be blown in. Ms. Richardson stated that the siding is a reflection of many different time period replacements and that she would like to have a consistent reveal agreed upon so that as they replace the siding it becomes more uniform in appearance. Ms. Callahan asked if the proposed material for the siding replacement is paintable clapboard. Ms. Richardson stated that to be correct.

6 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 6 Ms. Drerup stated that she did not realize that the siding replacement was part of the application and did not take the opportunity to inspect the condition of the siding. She stated that she was not willing to grant approval to replace the siding without having the opportunity to review the sidings current condition. Mr. Snell asked if the rear of the structure was the only area with the seven inch reveal. Ms. Richardson stated that it was and shared with the board a diagram which shows the reveal of the siding on each area of the home. Ms. Callahan asked what the original siding reveal would have been. Ms. Richardson stated that she believes that the original siding reveal was approximately five inches. Ms. Drerup asked when the siding with the seven inch reveal was installed. Ms. Richardson stated that she is not aware of when that siding was placed on the home but it was long before they purchased the home. The board continued to discuss the different siding reveal and possible solutions. Dr. MacMillan made a motion to adopt the following resolution for a Certificate of Appropriateness: Action by the Village of Cooperstown, Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board Resolution date: May 14, 2013 A resolution to approve the proposed porch and siding repair, replacement, and alteration at 22 Leatherstocking Street, Cooperstown, NY WHEREAS the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed application: A public hearing is not required; The requirements of SEQRA have been met for this action; The action is considered a minor alteration; The structure is listed as contributing in the Glimmerglass Historic District Nomination Form; The proposed alteration meet the criteria under Section E. (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)(c) (3)(d) and (3)(e). Section of the Zoning Law having been met with regards to the proposed porch repair and alteration, the repair and/or replacement of the deteriorated siding and replacement of the seven inch siding with siding of a five inch reveal or as necessary to align with the window heads and sills at 22 Leatherstocking Street; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the duly appointed members of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board of the Village of Cooperstown do this 14 th day of May 2013, determine that the proposed work at 22 Leatherstocking Street, Cooperstown, NY meets the criteria for work within the Historic and Architectural Control Overlay District as set forth in the Zoning Law of the Village of Cooperstown.

7 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 7 Dr. MacMillan seconded the motion and a vote had the following results: AYES: Callahan, Drerup, MacMillan, Snell, Tripp Motion carried. 20 Eagle Street (Doug and Barb Luhmann) extension of expired certificate of appropriateness Ms. Drerup recused herself as the architect of the Luhmann family. Ms. Drerup stated that the Luhmann s applied just over two years ago for a certificate of appropriateness but had not begun the work. She explained that at this time they would like to proceed with the proposed work as approved. Dr. MacMillan made a motion to extend the previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness for an additional two years. Mr. Tripp seconded the motion and a vote had the following results: AYES: Callahan, MacMillan, Tripp ABSTAIN: Snell Motion carried. 137 Main Street (Richard Busse) exterior changes to fence Ms. Drerup reviewed the application for work that has already been completed to the exsiting fence at 137 Main Street. She explained that the existing fence which faces Doubleday Parking Lot was 8 feet tall and has been cut down to five feet tall and moved toward the east to accommodate a picnic table. In addition flower boxes have been placed at the top of the fence. Mr. Busse stated that the change was made to help pedestrians see that the eatery is open and be more inviting. Dr. MacMillan asked why the project was done prior to receiving approval. Mr. Austin stated that in late April and through May the business owners are willing to risk the penalty of acting without approval as they feel that the benefits gained are greater. Mr. Snell stated that this is not a reason but rather an excuse. Mr. Busse stated that the fence is not historic but just a simple snow fence and therefore he did not think approval was necessary. Ms. Drerup stated that Mr. Busse has been through this process before and knows that any exterior change must be reviewed by the board. She stated that he has used this excuse previously and has had this discussion with the board on those occasions as well. Mr. Austin stated that he may be at partially to blame because he could cite Mr. Busse with an appearance ticket. If an appearance ticket is issued Mr. Busse would have had to appear before the judge who would ask how this could have been avoided and/or resolved which would amount to Mr. Busse completing an application and we would be right back to the point we are

8 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 8 at now. Mr. Austin stated given that factor he feels that it is most productive to skip the ticket if the person is willing to submit an application. Ms. Drerup stated that Mr. Busse submitted an application to the Planning Board for the signage; therefore, must have had a plan for the business and could have submitted the application prior to completing the work. Mr. Busse asked if it requires a permit to remove the fence. Ms. Drerup stated that removal is considered demolition and would require approval. She reiterated that all exterior changes must be brought before the board. Mr. Tripp stated that he concurs that Mr. Busse should have applied before doing the work but he is here now and we should move forward with the review. Mr. Busse stated that the lease was signed approximately three weeks ago and he needs to be able to open at the end of the month. He further stated that given the limited availability of contractors it is even more difficult to work around the HPARB meeting schedule, meeting only once per month, and the contractor s availability. Ms. Drerup suggested that Mr. Busse speak with Mr. Austin as soon as he knows that an exterior change is going to occur and depending on the urgency the board would make arrangements for a special meeting and or provide other means to get the project reviewed so that work is not done illegally without approval. Mr. Busse stated that he is putting in a lot of time, effort and money to make this business successful and make the property more visually appealing. Mr. Tripp stated that he realizes that it is awkward to deal with a project after action has been taken to complete it but this structure is not significant and in these type of situations the board must look at the application as if it has not happened and determine whether or not it is an action that they would approve. Mr. Austin stated that if the board wishes for him to cite this as a violation he would speak to the Village Attorney to determine what action may be taken at this time. Ms. Drerup asked if any action was ever taken against the Bischofs who had proceeded with porch renovations without approval. Mr. Austin stated that to his knowledge the Board of Trustees chose not to take any action in that case. Ms. Callahan stated that as a board it is not the intention to stand in the way of any business however it is the board s obligation to follow and enforce the law and as an applicant it is always more productive for the business owner to check with Mr. Austin and proceed with the application process as necessary so that there are no issues. Dr. MacMillan stated that he understands Mr. Busse s position but it angers him to volunteer for a board if the residents and business owners have no respect for the law and choose to ignore

9 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 9 the required process which was put in place to help preserve the village. He continued to state that the board is willing to work with the applicants and make special arrangements if needed to hear an application. He stated that the chair and members of the board are local and easily reached. He further stated that he is upset by the fact that Mr. Busse proceeded with the work and then tries to put the guilt on the board. Ms. Drerup asked what would happen if the board chooses not to take any action. Mr. Austin stated it would be the same scenario as occurred at 8 Susquehanna Avenue with the windows which were installed without approval. He explained that no action in essence means no enforcement. Mr. Austin further stated that if it had been a building which was being altered he would have issued a stop work order. Mr. Tripp stated that as an administrative officer of the Village he has no choice but to enforce the law by whatever means necessary. The decision about what to enforce is not up to him. Mr. Austin stated that he understands that but in this case the work was complete and there was no benefit to the Village by taking the applicant to court. Ms. Callahan asked if the fence would have to be restored if no action is taken. Mr. Austin stated that if the board does not take any action then no action may be taken against Mr. Busse. Ms. Truax asked Mr. Busse if he felt it would be beneficial for the board to meet twice a month in April and May. Mr. Busse stated that a schedule of twice a month during the spring would be helpful. The members of the board agreed that if there was demand they would be willing to meet more often in the spring months if it would alleviate the situation where business owners completed work without approval. Mr. Austin stated that he does not see a demand for more meetings as the number of applications has decreased over the last few years. He pointed out that this application is just for a fence. Ms. Callahan concurred that this is just a fence but the truth is that it can become a slippery slope and the board and ZEO are obligated to ensure that the law is followed. Mr. Snell asked if the fence was on property leased by Mr. Busse and owned by the current lessor. Mr. Austin stated that it is unclear exactly where the property line is but that after speaking with Mr. Clancy, DPW Superintendent it was determined that there is no issue with the fence location.

10 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 10 Dr. MacMillan stated that although he is upset by Mr. Busse proceeding without approval he feels that the change has not affected any historic feature within the village and he is okay with granting a certificate of appropriateness. Mr. Tripp made a motion to adopt the following resolution for a Certificate of Appropriateness: Action by the Village of Cooperstown, Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board Resolution date: May 14, 2013 A resolution to approve the proposed alterations to the fence and addition of flower boxes at 137 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY WHEREAS the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board has made the following findings of fact concerning the proposed application: A public hearing is not required; The requirements of SEQRA have been met for this action; The action is considered a minor alteration; The building at this location is listed as contributing in the Glimmerglass Historic District Nomination Form; The proposed alteration meet the criteria under Section E. (2)(a), (2)(c), (3)(b), and (3)(d). Section of the Zoning Law having been met with regards to the proposed work at 137 Main Street; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the duly appointed members of the Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board of the Village of Cooperstown do this 14 th day of May 2013, determine that the proposed work at 137 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY meets the criteria for work within the Historic and Architectural Control Overlay District as set forth in the Zoning Law of the Village of Cooperstown. Dr. MacMillan seconded the motion and the following discussion occurred. Ms. Drerup stated that she would abstain from the vote due to the fact that the applicant moved the fence onto property which likely belongs to the Village. The board has no jurisdiction over Village property. Since no site plan was submitted with the application, it is unclear onto whose property the fence was relocated. A vote had the following results: AYES: MacMillan, Tripp ABSTAIN: Callahan, Drerup, Snell Motion failed. Other Business: Ms. Dianna Susta and Mr. Mike Dennis asked to address the board. They stated that they represent the Lakeland Shores Homeowners Association and that they would like to speak with the board about how to work cooperatively with applications for development and changes to residences within the development. Mr. Austin stated that the Village does not have the authority to look at, or enforce the regulations set forth by the Homeowners Association. He stated that he has agreed to notify

11 05/14/2013 Historic Preservation & Architectural Review Board Page 11 Ms. Susta and Mr. Dennis whenever any applications are accepted at the village for properties located inside the development. The board discussed the role of HPARB and of the Lakeland Shores Homeowners Association and the legal obligations of each. They concurred that the best they can do is ask Mr. Austin to notify the Homeowners Association of applications which are received by the Village for properties in the development. 99 Main Street (Perry Ferrara) field change to exterior café Ms. Drerup reviewed the application for a field change and stated that the work as submitted has already occurred. The board discussed that, yet again, a project was completed without approval. Due to this being a change to a temporary structure the board concurred that they would act on the application. Mr. Drerup made a motion to approve the field change for 99 Main Street as presented in Exhibit A for the temporary wall with lattice top with all conditions of the original certificate of appropriateness to be applied to the field change. Mr. Snell seconded the motion and a vote had the following results: AYES: Callahan, Drerup, Snell, Tripp NAYES: MacMillan Motion carried. Minutes: The board reviewed the minutes and Mr. Tripp asked that the word historic be added prior to the word value in the last line on page 8. Ms. Callahan made a motion to approve the minutes of March 12, 2013 with the word historic added to the last line of page 8 prior to the word value. Mr. Snell seconded the motion and a vote had the following results: AYES: Callahan, Drerup, Hart, Snell, Tripp Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:56 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Truax Deputy Village Clerk